Commercial Litigation Assessment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

commercialized Litigation Assessment - Essay Exampleended that the appealroom had jurisdiction since Austria was the place of performance of the flummox as evidenced by the Brussels Conventions Article 5 (1). Further, in both the invoices raised by the Gasser to MISAT, Austrian judiciary was mentioned as a choice of court clause and MISAT had neer raised any objection over it. Within the meaning of Articles 17 of the Brussels Convention and because of the change over usage and practice existed in the trade between Italy and Austria, the two parties had consented to accept the jurisdiction of the Austrian courts.Whether the court second seised may evaluate the authority of the court of the first seised if the second court has the sole deciding authority under Art 17 or must the second court prevent its proceeding as per Art 21 albeit the accord granting jurisdiction. (Sheppard 2007 211).Though, there is no involvement of English parties in Gasser case, UK politics still presen ted its written remarks on the question raised. It was submitted that in cases of unique jurisdiction, a derogation from Art 21 can be made by the court second seised and can declare its verdict without awaiting for the court first seised to decide that it had no legal standi on the issue. They counted on ECJ verdict in Overseas conglutination Insurance , which dealt with Article Sixteen as opposed to Article Seventeen, which was in question this case. It was further contended that the court named in the agreement authorising jurisdiction will, in normal parlance, be in a better posture to rule as to the impact of that agreement by applying an essential law of that Member Nation. (Sheppard 2007 211).The European courtroom held that the objective of Art 21 is to bar corresponding actions occurring in courts of various Contracting States as to deterrent implementation of judgments. Hence, so as to give effect to this, Art 21 shall have to be give a wide elucidation. It was viewed t hat under the provision of Art 21, until the legal status of the court