Where a contract contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause providing for a case to be tried in the UK, it was relevant that the circumstances which might now suggest a trial elsewhere were perfectly foreseeable at the time of the contract. The new circumstances had to point to some factor which could not have been foreseen on which they can rely for displacing the bargain which they made, ie that they would not object to the jurisdiction of the English court. In those circumstances, inconvenience for witnesses, location of documents, the timing of a trial, and all similar matters were aspects which they were precluded from raising.
The proper approach was to consider the proceedings as equivalent to proceedings commenced as of right, and therefore it was right to consider only the matters which would not have been foreseeable when the bargain was struck.
Judges:
Waller J
Citations:
[1993] 1 Lloyds Rep 368
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – BAS Capital Funding Corporation, Deutsche Bank Ag London, Paine Webber Capital Inc, PW Exe Lp, Pw Partners 1999 Lp v Medfinco Limited, Abacus Holdings Limited, Andreas W Gerdes, HTC Inc, etc ChD 25-Jul-2003
The claimants wanted to bring actions in respect of various matters under shareholders agreements in complex international joint ventures. Leave was given to serve English proceedings in Malta, and the claim form and particulars of claim were faxed . .
Cited – 889457 Alberta Inc v Katanga Mining Ltd and others ComC 5-Nov-2008
The parties had set out on a joint venture with deeds providing for control of the shareholdings in each other. The claimant asserted a breach of the deed and sought a remedy. The first defendant company, incorporated in Bermuda argued that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction, Contract
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186476