Forum non conveniens

• Author: International Law Group, PLLC
• Pages: 125-127

Page 125

Goshawk Dedicated Ltd., and Kite Dedicated Ltd. (formerly known as Goshawk Dedicated (No.2) Ltd.) along with Cavell Management Services Ltd. and Cavell Managing Agency Ltd. are the Plaintiffs in this case before the Irish Supreme Court. The Defendant is Life Receivables Ireland Ltd. is a subsidiary of International Investment and Underwriting The Plaintiffs are English companies and the Defendant is an Irish company.

Defendant, however, has already filed proceedings against Plaintiffs here, in a Georgia federal court. The present Defendant (as plaintiff), sought certain reliefs against the present Plaintiffs (as defendants) and against others who are not party to these Irish proceedings.

The U.S. proceedings sought relief for, inter alia, alleged misrepresentation, fraud, securities fraud, and other relief. The prior U.S. proceedings, therefore, related to the same dispute being raised here. The Defendant moved the Irish High Court for an order staying the Irish proceedings pending the final determination of the Georgia litigation. The High Court rejected the application and the Defendant appealed.

The significant procedural issue that arose between the parties related to the proper interpretation of the Brussels I Regulation and its application to the circumstances of this case. It also involved the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens. More particularly, it focused on the extent and application of the doctrine of lis alibi pendens to this case. under the Brussels I Regulation to proceedings concerning the same cause of action when the earlier proceedings had been commenced in a non-Member State.

The parties and the court examined and analysed the key decision of the ECJ in Owusu v. Jackson (t/a :/Villa Holidays Bal-Inn Villas et al. (C- 281/02) [2005]; E.C.R.I. I-1383; [2005] Int. Lit. Proc.25 but the ECJ has not given a ruling on the precise question at issue here.

The Irish High Court found the following facts. In June 2005, the Defendant bought a partnership interest in a Delaware partnership known as Life Receivables II, LLP. The Defendant and Life Receivables Holdings are the only partners but in which the Defendant would appear to be the only partner with a financial stake.

The partnership is, in turn, a beneficiary of Life Receivables Trust (LRT) whose commercial value derives from trust property; these consist of life insurance policies bought in the early years of this decade together with a contingent cost...