FEDERAL COURT, IRISH SUPREME COURT DECIDES THAT, WHERE CLOSEST PRECEDENT FROM EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE (ECJ) DID NOT DECIDE THE APPLICABILITY UNDER BRUSSELS I REGULATION OF COMMON LAW DOCTRINES OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND LIS ALIBI PENDENS ON HOW TO PROCEED WHERE FIRST FILED CASE LAY IN U.
Lis alibi pendens is not a doctrine, but a rule adopted by jurisdictions, to resolve a practical problem, namely to avoid conflicting judgments.
The issue of choice of forum is covered in chapters discussing forum non conveniens in international litigation, international forum selection agreement, and lis alibi pendens
and antisuit injunctions.
These are the lis alibi pendens rule; the res judicata rule and the electa una via rule.
Several arguments are given in support of this statement, notably the sporadic rules regulating competition and the limited acceptance of lis alibi pendens or res judicata rules in the constitutive instruments of international judicial bodies.
Therefore, in order to avoid this problem the author encourages the adoption of two widely recognized legal principles: the lis alibi pendens rule and the res judicata rule.
To complete his analysis, the authors tries to find some practical applications of the jurisdiction-regulating rules: the lis alibi pendens rule; the res judicata rule and the electa una via rule, and concludes that there is little material to highlight this point.
statutes and common law and English companies sued Irish company in Irish courts denying commission of substantially same frauds, Supreme Court of Ireland held that, since case originally filed in non-Contracting State, European Court of Justice precedent failed to resolve availability of LIS ALIBI PENDENS defense under Community Law, making it necessary to submit question to that Court for resolution under Article 234 of the TREATY
paragraph] 42 "The Defendant has relied, for its primary submission, on the doctrine of lis alibi pendens which, it is argued, is given explicit recognition in the Brussels I Regulation (albeit in the context of a contest between proceedings commenced in two different Member States).
The Court was referred to academic authors, and to contrary approaches or to views taken that the Brussels I Regulation does not preclude the application of [the] lis alibi pendens rule in circumstances where the first court seised is a non-Member State.
paragraph] 44 "On the other hand, it was submitted that if, a reflexive interpretation of arts 27 and 28 is not adopted, the Brussels I Regulation still does not preclude the exercise of the Court's discretion at common law to stay the proceedings pursuant to the doctrine of lis alibi pendens.