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 as damages the costs incurred in the German litigation. The defendant asserted lack of jurisdiction saying that the alleged wrong had taken place in Germany.
Held: AMT’s appeal failed. The loss complained of, the expenditures, occurred in Germany, and the complaint should be pursued there. There was no place for a special rule for the tort of inducing breach of contract.
There need be no reference to the ECJ.
19
Judges:
Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge
Citations:
[2017] UKSC 13, [2017] 2 WLR 853, [2017] 4 All ER 382, [2017] 1 CLC 178, [2017] WLR(D) 154, [2017] 2 All ER (Comm) 1041, [2018] AC 439, [2017] ILPr 22, UKSC 2015/0091
Links:
Bailii, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary
Statutes:
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
At ComC – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier, Dr Meier and Dr Guntner Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft Mbh ComC 11-Apr-2014
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. . .
At CA – 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 . .
Cited – Overseas Union Insurance Ltd and others v New Hampshire Insurance Company ECJ 27-Jun-1991
ECJ Article 21 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters must be interpreted as meaning that the rules applicable to lis alibi pendens . .
Cited – Airbus Industrie G I E v Patel and Others HL 2-Apr-1999
An Indian Airlines Airbus A-320 crashed at Bangalore airport after an internal Indian flight. The plaintiff passengers lived in England. Proceedings began in Bangalore against the airline and the airport authority. The natural forum was the . .
Cited – Erich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl ECJ 9-Dec-2003
The claimant Austrian company had for many years sold goods to the defendant an Italian company. Eventually it presented a claim before the court in Italy. Having obtained judgement, it later sought to enforce the order through the Austrian court . .
Cited – Handelskwekerij GJ Bier Bv v Mines De Potasse D’Alsace Sa ECJ 30-Nov-1976
Europa Where the place of the happening of the event which may give rise to liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict and the place where that event results in damage are not identical, the expression ‘place . .
Cited – Dumez France SA and Tracoba SARL v Hessische Landesbank and others ECJ 11-Jan-1990
ECJ The expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ contained in Article 5(3 ) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters may . .
Cited – Coty Germany (Anciennement Coty Prestige Lancaster Group) ECJ 5-Jun-2014
ECJ (Judgment Of The Court) Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulations (EC) No 40/94 and No 44/2001 – Community trade mark – Article 93(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – International jurisdiction . .
Cited – Erich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl ECJ 9-Dec-2003
The claimant Austrian company had for many years sold goods to the defendant an Italian company. Eventually it presented a claim before the court in Italy. Having obtained judgement, it later sought to enforce the order through the Austrian court . .
Cited – Marinari v Lloyd’s Bank ECJ 19-Sep-1995
A ‘harmful event’ occurred where the physical damage was suffered and not at the time and place of a later financial loss.
Europa The term ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 5(3) of the . .
Cited – Shevill and Others v Presse Alliance SA HL 26-Jul-1996
A libel case against a French paper was rightly brought in UK despite the small (250 copies nationally and 5 in the plaintiff’s local area (Yorkshire)) circulation here. The Brussels Convention allows a claim for defamation in UK though the main . .
Cited – Reunion Europeenne Sa and Others v Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor Bv and Another ECJ 27-Oct-1998
French consignees of a shipment of peaches sued in France the Australian issuers of the bill of laiding under which the goods were carried (a contract claim) and the Dutch carriers and master of the ship in which they were carried (tort claims).
Cited – Allianz Spa (Anciennement Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta) v West Tankers Inc (‘the Front Comor’) ECJ 10-Feb-2009
ECJ (Judgment) A West Tankers ship damaged a jetty in Syracuse. An agreement provided for an arbitration in London. The insurers having paid out brought a subrogated action in Italy. West Tankers sought an order . .
Cited – Dolphin Maritime and Aviation Services Ltd v Sveriges Angartygs Assurans Forening ComC 2-Apr-2009
The defendant sought to strike out the claim for want of jurisdiction and that it had no prospect of success. . .
Cited – Zuid-Chemie v Philippo’s Mineralenfabriek NV/SA (Area Of Freedom, Security and Justice) ECJ 16-Jul-2009
Europa Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters – Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 Definition of the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’. . .
Cited – Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech Ag ECJ 3-Oct-2013
ECJ Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction – Matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-delict – Copyright – Material support reproducing a protected work – Placing on line – Determination of the place where . .
Cited – Edate Advertising v X ECJ 29-Mar-2011
ECJ Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction ‘in tort or quasi-delict’ – Violation of personal rights that may have been committed by the publication of information . .
Cited – Wintersteiger v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH ECJ 16-Feb-2012
Judicial co-operation in civil matters – Jurisdiction – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001- Infringement of a trade mark as a result of the registration by a competitor of a sign identical to the trade mark with an internet search services provider – . .
Cited – Srl CILFIT v Ministero Della Sanita ECJ 6-Oct-1982
ECJ The obligation to refer to the Court of Justice questions concerning the interpretation of the EEC Treaty and of measures adopted by the community institutions which the third paragraph of article 177 of the . .
Cited – Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schroder, Munchmeyer, Hengst and Co and others ECJ 27-Sep-1988
ECJ For Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters to apply, a connection must exist between the various actions brought . .
Cited – Universal Music International Holding BV v Schilling and others ECJ 16-Jun-2016
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Special jurisdiction – Article 5(3) – Tort, delict or quasi-delict – Harmful event – . .
Cited – Folien Fischer Ag and Another v Ritrama Spa ECJ 19-Apr-2012
ECJ (Opinion) Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Special grounds of jurisdiction – Matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict – . .
Cited – Melzer v MF Global UK ECJ 29-Nov-2012
ECJ Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Special jurisdiction in tort or delict – Cross-border participation of several people in the same . .
Cited – Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide SA v Akzo Nobel NV ECJ 21-May-2015
ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Special jurisdiction – Article 6(1) . .
Cited by:
Cited – Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v Lungowe and Others SC 10-Apr-2019
The claimants alleged negligence causing them personal injury and other losses arising from pollution from mining operations of the defendants in Zambia. The company denied jurisdiction. In the Court of Appeal the defendants’ appeals were dismissed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction
Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.577934
