KB-2025-001929 - [2025] EWHC 2966 (KB)

The three applications made by the claimants are interconnected, although require separate determination. I provide first an overview of the rival arguments before examining each application in turn.

The claimants invite the court to declare under Part 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) that the defendant has accepted this court’s jurisdiction. This is because the defendant has not made a Part 11 application to dispute jurisdiction. As such, the stay application made by the defendant should be struck out under CPR 3.4 as “abusive” given that jurisdiction has not been disputed. Further, an interim injunction should be granted to prevent and prohibit any efforts by the defendant to progress arbitral proceedings since the defendant has not waived High Court jurisdiction. Further, or alternatively, injunctive relief should be granted due to the “major” public interest in the issues raised in the claimants’ claim against Shein.

The defendant submits that it did not need to make a Part 11 application to dispute jurisdiction as it made a stay application under section 9 of the Act and followed the procedure set out in CPR Part 62, complying fully with CPR 62.3 and 62.8 in particular. The strike out application fails on the failure of the Part 11 application. The application for injunctive relief fails for the same reason, and to the extent that there remains a residual public interest basis for an injunction, it is misconceived.