The High Court has stayed Websense International Technology Limited’s €1,351,198.12 claim against Itway S.p.A. while an Italian court decides whether it has jurisdiction over related proceedings involving the parties’ distribution agreement.
In a judgment delivered on 6 November 2012, Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern concluded that the Irish and Italian cases were “related actions” under Article 28 of Council Regulation EC 44/2001. He stayed the Irish proceedings until the Court of Milan decides whether to accept jurisdiction, having regard to a jurisdiction clause in the agreement. The parties were given liberty to apply afterward about the next procedural steps.
The Irish claim was brought by summary summons issued on 19 April 2012. Websense International Technology sought judgment for the claimed debt, with interest, alleging non-payment under a distribution agreement dated 26 April 2010. It said the benefit of that agreement had been transferred to it in December 2010. The court noted that the Irish plaintiff had not been an original party to the agreement.
Itway entered a conditional appearance and applied to set aside service of the summary summons. At the hearing, its counsel said the company was not seeking dismissal of the Irish proceedings, but wanted service set aside and, if necessary, a stay pending the Italian case. The Italian proceedings had been commenced first and were due to be heard in Milan on 23 November 2012.
The Italian action was brought by Itway S.p.A. and three related companies against Websense Italy S.r.l., a different Websense company from the Irish plaintiff. The Italian plaintiffs alleged breaches of the distribution agreement and a separate agreement said to have been made in October 2011, as well as non-contractual tort. They claimed, among other things, that Websense had directed them to supply companies that did not pay and had interfered with their commercial relationships. The judgment records that the existence of the alleged October agreement was contested in the Irish proceedings; the judge did not determine that dispute at this stage.
The Irish plaintiff argued that the cases were not related, that the agreement gave Irish courts exclusive jurisdiction for litigation after an arbitration process, and that delay in Italy would cause prejudice. The judge found substantial overlap because both cases arose from the same distribution agreement and shared issues. He held that the Italian court should first decide whether the jurisdiction clause prevented it from hearing its case. The anticipated delay in Italy was not a reason to refuse a stay under the applicable EU rules.
The order stayed the Irish proceedings pending the Italian court’s jurisdiction decision. The judgment did not decide the debt claim or finally determine which court would hear the dispute.