header-logo header-logo

12 September 2014
Issue: 7621 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Conflict of laws

Lehman Brothers Finance AG (in liquidation) v Klaus Tschira Stiftung GmbH and another company [2014] EWHC 2782 (Ch), [2014] All ER (D) 42 (Aug)

Following a dispute arising from an International Swaps and Derivatives Association Master Agreement, the defendants submitted requests for conciliation to the conciliation authority in Zurich and the claimant issued proceedings in England. The defendants sought a stay of the English proceedings. However, their Swiss proceedings were subsequently dismissed. The Chancery Division held that the initiating of conciliation proceedings by the lodging of a written request for conciliation fell within Art 30 of the Lugano Convention. Were it not for the fact that the Swiss proceedings had been dismissed, a stay of the English proceedings would have been granted.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll