Application by the Defendant for a declaration that the court did not have jurisdiction over it in respect of the subject matter of the claim and for an order setting aside service of the Claim Form.
Held: The English courts had jurisdiction. The exclusive jurisdiction clause was a benefit derived from the contract, and its denial would be a harm suffered in that jurisdiction within article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
Judges:
Popplewell J
Citations:
[2014] EWHC 1085 (Comm), [2015] 1 All ER (Comm) 374, [2014] WLR(D) 182, [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 349, [2014] 1 CLC 531, [2014] CTLC 190, [2015] 2 WLR 187, [2015] ILPr 18
Links:
Statutes:
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, art 5(3)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Marzillier, Dr Meier and Dr Guntner Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft Mbh v AMT Futures Ltd CA 26-Feb-2015
Claims were to be made against the execution only broker defendant by the claimants who were based in Germany. The contracts provided for the exclusive jurisdiction of the EW Courts.
Held: The English courts did not have jurisdiction as the . .
At ComC – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction, European
Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.523698
