Molehills not mountains Court of Appeal puts jurisdiction applications in perspective

News / / Molehills not mountains Court of Appeal puts jurisdiction applications in perspective

The Court of Appeal has sought to restore confidence (and sanity) in the process in Kaefer Aislamientos SA de CV v AMS Drilling Mexico SA de CV, Atlantic Maritime Services BV, Atlantic Tiburon 1 Pte Limited, Ezion Holdings Limitednbsp2019 EWCA Civ 10The factsThe appellant sought to recover sums it alleged were due under a contract of works (evidenced by a Purchase Order) for the refurbishment and upgrade of a rig The terms and conditions annexed to the Purchase Order included exclusive jurisdiction and Entire Agreement clauses The third and fourth defendants (AT1 and Ezion)nbspchallenged jurisdiction on the basis that they were neither named in the contract nor undisclosed principals of the contractual parties, the first and second defendants (AMS Drilling and AMS BV), so the exclusive English jurisdiction clause had no application to themAt first instance it was held by Mr Peter MacDonald Eggers QC that the claimant had failed to establish jurisdiction against AT1 and Ezion This was on the basis that although there was a good arguable case that AT1 was an undisclosed principal to the contract, AT1 nevertheless had the better of the argument that it was not an undisclosed principal Interestingly, the Court of Appeal found that although the judge at first instance had erred, he had nevertheless ultimately applied the correct approachThe thief of timeThe fact of challenges to jurisdiction being made at an interim stage was stressed in the judgment by Lord Justice Green and more emphatically by Lord Justice DavisEven so, this is by its nature an interlocutory process, not in any way concerned with a final conclusion on the facts or merits Hearings and judgments in such cases should so far as possible be appropriately concise accordinglyIn short, jurisdiction challenges should be dealt with expeditiously and as efficiently as possible, not requiring a full-blown investigation into an issue that is not germane to the substantive merits of the underlying claimThe testThe Court of Appeal confirmed that the three-limbed exposition of the good arguable case test in Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA 2018 UKSC 34 (a judgment which was awaited at the time Mr MacDonald Eggers QC published his) had the effect of passing previous obiter comment into law Goldman Sachs set out the test as follows(i)nbspnbspnbspnbspnbspnbspnbsp that the claimant must supply a plausible evidential basis for the application of a relevant jurisdictional gateway(ii)nbspnbspnbspnbspnbspnbspnbspnbsp that if there is an issue of fact about it, or some other reason for doubting whether it applies, the court must take a view on the material available if it can reliably do so but(iii)nbspnbspnbspnbspnbspnbspnbsp the nature of the issue and the limitations of the material available at the interlocutory stage may be such that no reliable assessment can be made, in which case there is a good arguable case for the application of the gateway if there is a plausible (albeit contested) evidential basis for itThe Court of Appeal went on to provide its own explanation of the elements of this test It confirmed that the standard is no longer that the claimant must have much the better argument than its opponent all Lord and Lady Justices generally concurring with the remark that the additional word much' can now safely be taken as consigned to the outer darknessThe point of the second limb in this test was as an instruction for overcoming evidential difficulties by the application of judicial common sense and pragmatism, particularly when faced with gaps in the evidence as is in the nature of interim applicationsThe third limb of the test is important as a tool for addressing situations in which the court cannot form a decided conclusion on the evidence and cannot say who has the better argument It recognises that it is not simply a matter of saying the claimant has failed to prove its case, since the nature of the application means there has not been a full analysis Nor should the matter be adjourned to the time when a full analysis is undertaken at trial to do so defeats the early and interim nature of a jurisdiction challengeAs such, we now have a flexible approach to jurisdiction applications, giving the presiding judge considerable discretion, which is clearly intended to ensure that challenges are dealt with more quickly and retain the interim status they should have rather than becoming a time-consuming and expensive mini-trial of the substantive matter itselfEntire Agreement clauseAT1 and Ezion also argued that an Entire Agreement clause in the terms and conditions printed on the Purchase Order operated to exclude any person other than those expressly identified from being a party to the Purchase OrderThe Entire Agreement clause and other provisions of the contract were held to be neutral at first instance but the Court of Appeal disagreed finding that the terms of the contract were a powerful part of the evidential mix The Entire Agreement clause pointed against AT1 and Ezion being party to the contract though it did not exclude altogether the possibility that there might be undisclosed principals Rather, it was a cogent indication that AMS Drilling and AMS BV were not agents acting on behalf of undisclosed principalsDisclosureAs is increasingly common in English judgments, there was also a postscript to the judgment on the subject of the disclosure process, or rather its abuse in the context of an interim applicationnbsp Lord Justice Davis maintained the current theme in the courts of keeping disclosure proportionate by sending the claimant away with the following reprimand ringing in its earsI also rather deprecate the approach of claimants (as here) peremptorily in correspondence seeking the fullest and widest possible disclosure from defendants, in effect by way of fishing exercise, as though such proceedings are already some kind of ongoing trial process and then coolly relying on non-disclosure as of itself supporting the claim of a plausible caseA timely reminder, as the disclosure pilot schemenbspin the English Business and Property Courts gets underway, that the judges have seen it all before and are not going to let conduct for improper purposes pass without comment (if not, also, costs sanctions)

Related sectors:

Related services:

Related news & insights

Insights / Climate Change Litigation Continueth – The Scottish Case: Greenpeace v. BEIS and the OGA (and BP too)

15-10-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure

The Scottish Court of Session has declared that dealing with the global environmental impact of the consumption of oil is a political matter for the UK Government, not a legal issue for the UK Courts in considering the validity of approval to drill new oil wells in a single field.

Climate Change Litigation Continueth – The Scottish Case: Greenpeace v. BEIS and the OGA (and BP too)

News / AfCFTA and Energy & Infrastructure

11-10-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure, Maritime

This article is the third in a series of articles looking at the impact of the African Continental Free Trade Area (the “AfCFTA”) on various practice areas and industry sectors that our clients operate in. This article focuses on Energy and Infrastructure and addresses some of the key questions our clients have asked us.

AfCFTA and Energy & Infrastructure

Insights / Supreme Court clarifies lawful act of duress

21-09-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure

In Times Travel (UK) Ltd v Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (Rev 2) [2019] EWCA Civ 828, the Supreme Court confirmed the existence of the doctrine of ‘lawful act duress’ under English law and its limited scope in commercial transactions.

Supreme Court clarifies lawful act of duress

News / Shell agrees pay out to Nigerian community to settle long-running oil spill dispute

17-08-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure

In 1991, the Ejama-Ebubu people began a legal campaign to hold Shell Nigeria (“Shell”) accountable for an oil spill that occurred in 1970. Shell accepted that these oil spills had occurred, but argued that these were caused by “third parties” during the Biafran war, for which Shell should not be held liable. Almost 20 years later, in 2010, a Nigerian Federal court ordered Shell to pay 17 billion naira to the Ejama-Ebubu community. Shell has unsuccessfully attempted to challenge this ruling over several years and, in November 2020, the Nigerian Supreme Court ruled that Shell could no longer appeal the decision.

Shell agrees pay out to Nigerian community to settle long-running oil spill dispute

News / The Bribery Act: ten years on

19-07-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure

The Bribery Act: ten years on

Quick links

The Legal 500 2021

“Very available and responsive to company developments in real time. Frank, clear advice – not just the ‘easy’ answer.”

The Legal 500 2022

“The solicitors who have handled our employment related issues are of the highest quality in terms of their specialist area of expertise, their professionalism and their approach to us as clients and as people. Special mention has to be made of Laura Livingstone. Laura became a key member of our team and felt more like a colleague than an external adviser – a colleague you could rely upon. Laura’s attention to detail, professionalism and responsiveness was second to none. Laura has come to know and understand us as individuals and this has enabled her to personalise her advice and even sometimes to preempt our future requirements. We have a very special and extremely valuable relationship with her and the firm.”

- The Legal 500

The Legal 500 2022

“Ince are an excellent “fit” with our specific needs. The firm has consistently provided a broad range of personnel-related advice and in our experience that advice has been consistently of the very highest professional standard: it has been timely, comprehensive, accurate and at a cost which is commensurate with the budget of an organisation of our size.”

- The Legal 500

The Legal 500 2022

“The firm has an unusually high degree of insight into the practices and policies required by the Gambling Commission as regards compliance with its own requirements and conditions – particularly Andrew Tait, derived from his previous in-house experience.”

- The Legal 500