Potential expansion for establishing jurisdiction against would-be defendants in Europe

By Zoe Bent

The decision in AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier, Dr Meier & Dr Gunter Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH [2014] EWHC 1085 (Comm) may result in a potentially more expansive basis for establishing jurisdiction over defendants in Europe. 

The predominant basis for determining the appropriate court before which to bring proceedings in Europe, in accordance with Regulation 44/2001, is the courts of the country in which the defendant is domiciled. A defendant may, however, be sued in a member state other than its place of domicile, where the claimant can establish that it is the place where a harmful event has occurred, under article 5(3) of the regulation.

The application of article 5(3) is, however, regarded very much as a derogation from the general domicile test, and as such the courts have tended to interpret the provisions of article 5(3) restrictively…

Click on the link below to read the rest of the Bristows briefing.

Briefings from Bristows

View more briefings from Bristows

Browse This Firm’s


100 Victoria Embankment

Turnover (£m): 35.40
No. of Lawyers: 117