UBS AG, London Branch and another v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig GMBH [2010] EWHC 2566 (Comm), [2010] All ER (D) 176 (Oct)
Applying settled authority, for Art 22(2) of the Judgments Regulation to be engaged, the question was whether or not the action was “principally concerned” with an Art 22(2) issue. The words “proceedings which have as their object” in Art 22(2) had to be interpreted as “proceedings which are principally concerned with”. An action was not principally concerned with an Art 22(2) issue simply because an Art 22(2) issue had been raised.
For the purposes of Art 30 of the Judgments Regulation, the defendant had to show that the claimants had failed to take steps which they were required to take to have service effected on the defendant. European law did not prescribe what steps the claimant was required to take. In the instant case, the relevant requirement was to be fond in CPR 7(5). That provided that a claim form which was to be served within the jurisdiction had to be served within four months of the date of issue, and one which was to served
