Conflict of laws
Van Heck v Giambrone & Partners Studio Legale Associato [2022] EWHC 1098 (QB) [2022] All ER (D) 37 (May)
The Queen’s Bench Division ruled that the authorities provided no support for the proposition that continued seisin was confined to ‘in time’ appeals. The court so ruled, in dismissing the defendant Italian based law firm’s appeal against an order, dismissing its application to stay the claimant barrister’s claim for professional fees (the London claim) on the grounds of lis alibi pendens, pursuant to Art 29 of Brussels 1 Recast Regulation 1215/2012 (prior to the Withdrawal Agreement). The jurisdictional dispute concerned the priority between the London claim and the law firm’s prior and mirror action in Palermo, which sought a declaration of non-liability in respect of the barrister’s claim. The court held, among other things, that the judge had wrongly interpreted Moore v Moore [2007] All ER (D) 158 (Apr) as limiting the extension of lis pendens under Art 29 of the Regulation to circumstances where an ‘in time’ appeal could be or had been duly made. It held
