5 Conclusion
Special national rules potentially granting jurisdiction to sue a subsidiary in the same court as the parent company may indirectly have an impact on the interpretation of the Brussels I Regulation art 4(1), with regard to the jurisdiction for the claim against the parent company. In recent practice from the UK there are signs that in essence, the likelihood of the success of the claim against the parent company may, in this way, become a criterion for deciding whether there is jurisdiction under art 4(1) of the Brussels I Regulation. This contrasts with the wording of the article, according to which the only relevant criterion is whether the company is registered in the country in which it is sued. It also contrasts with the purpose of the article which, according to the preamble, is to provide predictability, since turning the formal issue into a substantive issue makes it less clear whether there is jurisdiction for a claim or not. The more correct application of article 4(1) in this type of case seems to be exemplified by the Dutch decision in the Shell Nigeria case and by the UK decision in Vedanta case. In contrast, if the reasoning in the UK Shell Nigeria case is followed, a national provision that on the face of it may seem beneficial to would potential plaintiffs in the developing world, may in reality prove to be a disadvantage.