4.3 Comments on UK law
It is not easy to get a clear picture of English law on these issues, based on these two cases. The facts are very similar. Nevertheless, the approaches taken in the two cases are different. In the first case, the judge was satisfied that the claim against the parent company could not be dismissed as abuse of EU law since “on the face of it” there was a real issue between the parties, whereas in the second case the judge found that the criteria found in English law with regard to jurisdiction for the claim against the subsidiary were also relevant with regard to the decision as to whether there was jurisdiction for the claim against the parent company under article 4(1) of the Brussels I Regime. This approach differs not only from the approach taken in the first English case but also from the approach taken in the Dutch case. Thus, in the second English case the likelihood of the success of the claim against the parent company became determinant for the formal question whether there was jurisdiction for the claim at all, and considering the level of detail the decision on the formal issue in reality came close to a decision with regard to the substance of the case.