1. The Judge was not prevented from granting a stay.
Owusu was concerned with circumstances in which there was an international element, and not courts internal to the United Kingdom and does not assist with the question of whether the Regulation is engaged in the circumstances of this case. The only potential competition is between the courts of Scotland and England and Wales, and so the claim falls squarely within the example endorsed in Cook v Virgin Media  EWCA Civ 1287 at  (i.e. “a matter is demonstrably wholly internal to the United Kingdom […] is not one in which the Regulation is designed to have any role” (per Professor Adrian Briggs QC in Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (6th Edition) at 2.28). Therefore the judge’s conclusion that there was no reason for the Regulation to be engaged on the facts is correct.
Even if the Regulation had been engaged, Article 4(1) provides that a person domiciled in a Member State must be sued in the courts of the same Member State, and so would be satisfied whether the claim was heard in Scotland or England and Wales as both jurisdictions were in one Member State: the United Kingdom.
2. The Judge’s exercise of discretion could not be faulted.
Determination of an appropriate forum is preeminently a matter for the trial judge. Lord Mance’s comment in VIB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp  UKSC 5 at  that an appellate court should refrain from interfering unless satisfied the judge made “a significant error of principle” or “a significant error in the considerations taken or not taken into account” was emphasised. It should not be interfered with in this instance.
3. The Judge was correct in finding that the claim form had been properly served within the required time.
Rule 6.14 did not affect the temporal validity of a claim form. The reasoning given by Flaux J in T&L Sugars Ltd v Tate & Lyle Industries Ltd  EWHC 1066 (Comm) and Master McCloud in Paxton Jones v Chichester Harbour Conservancy  EWHC 2270 (QB) on this point was approved. In enacting the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2178), there was a specific legislative choice to prefer the actual date of service rather than deemed service.
4. It was correct for damages to be confined to England and Wales alone and the claim for global damages would have been struck out had the claim proceeded.
There was no conflict between the judge’s reasoning and the CJEU’s decision in Shevill. Shevill was concerned with enforcement under the Regulation and not the allocation of jurisdiction within a Member State. Nor was the preclusion of global damages contrary to the objectives underpinning Shevill. These objectives (of avoiding concurrent litigation, preventing forum shopping, and ensuring the defendant can know before which court it risks being sued) are all applicable to a ‘sub-national’ model of the rule. There were also insufficient grounds on the judge’s factual findings or evidence to support a claim that the centre of A’s interests was in England.
Similarly, s.13(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 is circumscribed by a domestic application of the rule in Shevill. A breach of statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 1998 involves similar tensions between freedom of information and the right to privacy that the CJEU envisaged Shevill covering in eDate  QB 654.