Lehman Brothers Bankhaus AG I. Ins v CMA CGM [2013] EWHC 171 (Comm), [2013] All ER (D) 68 (Feb)
The burden of proof to show that a stay under Art 28 of the Judgments Regulation was appropriate was on the party requesting it. The article was engaged only when there were “related actions”. The court had to consider whether, under Art 28.3 of the Judgments Regulation, the two proceedings were so closely connected that it was expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. The test of “relatedness” was intended to be a straightforward test. There should be a broad commonsense approach to the question of whether there were related actions. Art 28 of the Judgments Regulation should not be applied mechanically; what was required was an assessment of the degree of connection, and then a value judgment as to the expediency of hearing the two actions together (assuming they could be so heard) in order to avoid the risk of inconsistent judgments. That did not say that any possibility of inconsistent judgments meant that they
