Menu
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

News / Refund guarantees – avoiding drafting pitfalls

12-05-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

Refund guarantees are often described as the cornerstones to shipbuilding projects and the buyer’s main security. Although they do not strictly form part of the shipbuilding contract, a shipbuilding project is unlikely to go ahead at all without one. It is therefore important to understand the different types of guarantee instruments, and the impact each has in practice on the guarantor’s obligations to pay and the buyer’s entitlement to recovery. A well-drafted guarantee provides certainty to the parties and strikes a balance between their respective entitlements and obligations.

Refund guarantees – avoiding drafting pitfalls

News / You will be estopped if you cross the line

04-04-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

Estoppel is a useful tool in litigation, which is usually used to bind one party to a statement or a promise that it has previously expressed causing another to accept or adopt it for the purpose of their legal relations. The Court’s recent ruling in Geoquip Marine Operations AG v (1) Tower Resources Cameroon SA (2) Tower Resources PLC addresses estoppel by convention and recognises the requirement for the common assumption created between the parties to be clear and unequivocal. In this article, we focus on the specifics of the Court decision.

You will be estopped if you cross the line

News / Court of Appeal overturns second Unaoil bribery conviction

29-03-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

On 24 March 2022, the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction of a second man, Paul Bond, prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in relation to alleged wrongdoing by Unaoil. 

Court of Appeal overturns second Unaoil bribery conviction

News / The Court grapples with impact of Covid-19 on European rugby

08-03-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

As we approach the second anniversary of Covid-19 being declared a pandemic by the World Health Organisation on 11 March 2020, a number of judgments are coming out of the English Courts which are providing useful guidance on how the English Courts are treating claims concerning Covid-19, especially in a force majeure context.

The Court grapples with impact of Covid-19 on European rugby

News / Climate change litigation: Courts decide the law, not political policies

02-03-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

R (Finch) v Surrey County Council CA (Civ Div) [2022] EWCA Civ 187 “The task of the court in a claim such as this is only to decide the issues of law. Those issues cannot extend into the realm of political judgment – which is the responsibility of the executive, not the courts …”

Climate change litigation: Courts decide the law, not political policies

News / Climate litigation update: climate-washing comes ashore

28-02-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

With companies racing to make sense of and take steps towards a net-zero future, an array of climate goals are being published at ever increasing speed; it remains to be seen how achievable many of these goals are without concrete plans in place. Accusations of ‘climate-washing’ are rife and statements have been legally challenged. Current investigations and actions show the direction of travel as pressure groups and public organisations seek to hold private sector companies to account.

Climate litigation update: climate-washing comes ashore