Direct link Share on

In this important decision on Article 5(3) of the Judgments Regulation, the Court of Appeal (Laws, Tomlinson, and Christopher Clarke LJJ) held that the English Court has no special jurisdiction over claims that the Defendant/Appellant (a German law firm) wrongfully induced former clients of the Claimant/Respondent (an English broker) to sue the firm in Germany, in breach of contractual terms providing for English law and exclusive jurisdiction.

Acknowledging the “powerful and attractive” contrary analysis of the judge below ([49]), and without “any great enthusiasm” ([57], [60]) the Court concluded that it was compelled to decline jurisdiction by CJEU authority on the location of jurisdictionally significant “damage” for the purpose of Article 5(3). The case is the first occasion upon which the Court of Appeal has considered the application of Article 5(3) to claims for wrongfully inducing breach of contract, and the decision raises important issues as to the scope and application of Article 5(3) in this context.

In addition, the case raises important issues as to the extent to which claims to enforce English dispute resolution clauses breached by proceedings elsewhere in the EU can be brought consistently with EU law principles of mutual trust and confidence. The Court heard detailed argument on that issue, and declined to uphold the
Defendant/Appellant’s contentions that the claims in issue infringed such principles. In this regard, the case is an important further illustration of the English Court’s willingness to grant effective remedies to enforce private law rights under dispute resolution clauses (see at [61]-[62]).

The full judgment can be read here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/143.html

Thomas de la Mare QC and Andrew Scott (instructed by Farrer & Co) acted for the Claimant/Respondent (AMT Futures Limited)

+44 (0)207 5831770

Clerks

Staff