Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2009] All ER (D) 190 (Jun)
Neutral Citation: [2009] EWCA Civ 585
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge:

Ward LJ, Lord Collins of Mapesbury and Toulson LJ

Representation David Railton QC and Sonia Tolaney (instructed by Simmons & Simmons) for the claimants.
  Jonathan Sumption QC, Susan Prevezer QC and Andrew Henshaw (instructed by Quinn Emanuel) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 18 June 2009

Catchwords

Jurisdiction - Concurrent proceedings - Assumption of jurisdiction - Parties entering into transaction - Agreements governed by English law and New York law - Claimants defaulting on assets - Dispute arising between the parties - Claimants commencing proceedings in English courts - Defendant commencing proceedings in New York courts - Whether English courts having jurisdiction to try claim.

The Case

Jurisdiction Concurrent proceedings. Court of Appeal, Civil Division: The proper approach to the construction of clauses agreeing jurisdiction was to construe them widely and generously. In the usual case the words' arising out of' or 'in connection with' applied to claims arising from pre-inception matters such as misrepresentation. However, the essential task was to construe the jurisdiction agreement in the light of the transaction as a whole. Whether a dispute fell within one or more related agreements depended on the intention of the parties as revealed by the agreements. Whether a jurisdiction clause applied to a dispute was a question of construction. Where there were numerous jurisdiction agreements which might overlap, the parties had to be presumed to be acting commercially and not to intend that similar claims should be the subject of inconsistent jurisdiction clauses.

Practice Areas

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