Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2006] All ER (D) 246 (May)
Neutral Citation: [2006] EWCA Civ 629
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge:

Auld, Rix and Maurice Kay LJJ

Representation Stephen Kenny (instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP) for Exel.
  Charles Graham QC (instructed by Hassan Khan & Co) for Hi-Tec.
Judgment Dates: 17 May 2006

Catchwords

Conflict of laws - Jurisdiction - Challenge to jurisdiction - Civil and commercial matters - Whether contract in nature of international carriage of goods or freight forwarding - Whether English or French court having jurisdiction - Geneva Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, art 31.1 - Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968, arts 2, 5(1).

The Case

In the instant case, it was impossible on the evidence to say that a claimant had made out a good arguable case for a Geneva Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) contractual relationship with a defendant, as distinct from a freight forwarding relationship, sufficient to bring it within CMR's art31.1 jurisdiction code. It followed that the defendant's challenge to the jurisdiction of the English court had to succeed, and the claimant's claim form in the English proceedings would have to be set aside.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.