- Applied — S (Children: Parentage and Jurisdiction), Re 2023-07-27
“…[of BIIa] to limit these to cases in which the rival jurisdiction is another member state". Lady Hale added, at [33], that the CJEU decision of Owusu v Jackson [2005] QB 801 "reinforce[d] the conclusion that the jurisdiction provisions of the Regulation do indeed apply regardless of whether there is an alternative jurisdiction in a…”
- Applied — Re A (A Child) (Habitual Residence: 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention) 2023-06-12
“…[of BIIa] to limit these to cases in which the rival jurisdiction is another member state”. Lady Hale added, at [33], that the CJEU decision of Owusu v Jackson [2005] QB 801 “reinforce[d] the conclusion that the jurisdiction provisions of the Regulation do indeed apply regardless of whether there is an alternative jurisdiction in a…”
- Cited — Município de Mariana v BHP Group (UK) Ltd & Anor. 2022-07-08
“…ny”. He started with an examination of what he described, referring to Henderson, as “multiplicity of litigation”. Referring to Owusu v Jackson (Case C-281/02) [2005] QB 801 (“Owusu”), he accepted that it would be impermissible to deploy an abuse of process argument in order to achieve through the back door that which Brussels Reca…”
- Cited — Manek & Ors v IIFL Wealth (UK) Ltd & Ors (2) 2021-05-04
“…K, so in other circumstances it could have insisted on being sued here, regardless of the position of the other Defendants: see Owusu v Jackson (Case C-281/02) [2005] QB 801. In any event, both the First and the Fourth Defendants have acknowledged the jurisdiction of the English courts. That means that this claim is going to be lit…”
- Cited — Gray v Hurley 2019-12-12
“…23 at [50]. He then surveyed the provisions of the Judgments Regulation and referred to the decision of the Court of Justice in Owusu v Jackson (Case C-281/02) [2005] QB 801, [2005] 2 All ER (Comm) 577 at [37], where Article 2 of the Brussels Convention 1968 (the predecessor to Article 4(1)) was held to be mandatory so as to preven…”
- Cited — Euroeco Fuels (Poland) Ltd & Ors v Szczecin And Swinoujscie Seaports Authority SA & Ors 2019-11-11
“…n, the Court does not have a general discretion to decline to hear the case or to stay the proceedings on grounds of forum non conveniens – see Owusu v Jackson [2005] QB 801… While I accept that proposition, I also agree with Mr McCormick that some of the factors which in another context might feature in an argument as to which for…”
- Cited — Euroeco Fuels (Poland) Ltd & Ors v Szczecin And Swinoujscie Seaports Authority SA & Ors 2019-11-11
“… two actions are not related there is no discretion to stay one of them on general forum non conveniens grounds: see the judgment of the ECJ in Owusu v Jackson [2005] QB 801.…”
- Cited — JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky & Ors 2019-10-15
“…Lord Pannick also placed considerable reliance upon the decision of the CJEU in Owusu v Jackson (Case C-281/02) [2005] QB 801, that a national court with jurisdiction over a defendant under article 2 by virtue of his domicile in that state cannot decline jurisdiction on the grounds th…”
- Applied — Kennedy v The National Trust for Scotland 2019-04-16
“…legedly suffered both within the United Kingdom and abroad, despite the Brussels Recast Regulation 2012/2015 (the “Regulation”) and the rule in Owusu v Jackson [2005] QB 801; whether if the doctrine applies, the claim should have been stayed on the basis that Scotland was clearly the more appropriate forum; whether, if not, the cla…”
- Cited — Kennedy v The National Trust for Scotland 2019-04-16
“…was between courts which were internal to the United Kingdom, namely the courts of Scotland and England and Wales; and by contrast Owusu v Jackson (C-281/2002) [2005] QB 801 and Maletic v lastminute.com GmbH (C-478-12) [2014] QB 424 were concerned with circumstances in which there was an international element. See paras 51 and 52. …”
- Applied — Huawei Technologies Co, Ltd v Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. 2019-01-30
“…In Owusu v Jackson [2005] QB 801 the CJEU held that an English court could not apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens to decline jurisdiction over a claim against a person domiciled in a c…”
- Considered — Huawei Technologies Co, Ltd v Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. 2019-01-30
“… UK on the basis of their domicile. Having considered Article 4(1) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation, the decision of the Court of Justice in Owusu v Jackson [2005] QB 801, the impact of Article 24(4) of the Recast Regulation and the decision of Andrew Smith J in Ferrexpo, the judge concluded that Huawei UK and ZTE UK must necess…”