Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2017] All ER (D) 06 (Mar)
Neutral Citation: [2017] UKSC 13
Court: Supreme Court
Judge:

Lord Neuberger P, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption and Lord Hodge SCJJ

Representation Thomas de la Mare QC and Andrew Scott (instructed by Farrer & Co LLP) for AMTF.
  Hugh Mercer QC and Pierre Janusz (instructed by Zimmers Solicitors) for MMGR.
Judgment Dates: 1 March 2017

Catchwords

Conflict of laws - Jurisdiction - Civil and commercial matters - Jurisdiction in matter relating to tort of inducing breach of contract of exclusive jurisdiction clause - Place where harmful event occurred or may occur - Appellant company alleging that its former clients being induced by respondent company to issue proceedings against appellant in Germany and to advance causes of action under German law in breach of exclusive jurisdiction and applicable law clauses contained in their contracts with appellant - Appellant commencing proceedings in London, against respondent, based on English law tort of inducing breach of contract, seeking both damages and injunctive relief - Whether relevant harm occurring in England or Germany - Whether English courts having jurisdiction to hear appellant's claim against respondent - , art 5.3.

The Case

Conflict of laws Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant company's appeal against a decision that the English courts did not have jurisdiction to hear its claim against the respondent company for damages and injunctive relief for the tort of inducing breach of contract of an exclusive jurisdiction and applicable law clauses. For the purposes of art5.3 of Council Regulation(EC) 44-2001, which gave jurisdiction in tort claims to the courts for the place in which the harmful event had occurred or might occur, the place where the harmful event had occurred had been Germany.

Practice Areas

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