EUPillar Knorr-Bremse Systems for Commercial Vehicles Ltd v Haldex Brake Products GmbH [2008] EWHC 158 Pat

Summary

The parties of the dispute were competitors and manufacturers of brake systems. The claimants, KBS UK, developed a new product for the UK market. An acknowledgement of non-infringement was sought from the defendant, Haldex, in the summer of 2007 – none was received, so court proceedings began in England. The claimant was domiciled in England. The defendant was domiciled in Germany. The claimant sought a non-infringement declaration. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the English court, arguing that the English court had no jurisdiction since the claimant was bound by a choice-of-court agreement. The English court review the formal validity of the agreement under Brussels I, and held that KBS UK was not bound by it. Hence, the English court assumed jurisdiction under Article 5(3) of Brussels I. Mr Justice Lewison held that: “15 It is common ground that although Haldex is not domiciled in the UK KBS UK is entitled to sue in this court for a declaration of non-infringement, in the absence of any contractual impediment. Jurisdiction is conferred on this court by Art.5.3 of the Judgments Regulation. […] 32 Article 23 of the Judgments Regulation applies where “the parties” have agreed that a particular court is to have jurisdiction. The agreement must be in writing or evidenced in writing. The purpose of the formal requirements is that of legal certainty. One of the fundamental parts of any agreement is who is a party to it. In my judgment therefore, the formal requirements of Art.23 require that there is a written record of who is party to the agreement. On the face of it, in the context of the Judgments Regulation , “the parties” appears to mean the parties to the dispute. If that is right, then there is no agreement between KBS UK and Haldex; and certainly no written agreement. The only agreement is between KBS GmbH and Haldex. But even if “the parties” means the parties to the contract, then again there is no written contract between KBS UK and Haldex. Clauses 2 and 8 are drafted on the basis that there are only two parties to the agreement. It is also noteworthy that KBS GmbH and Haldex agreed by cl.7 of the settlement agreement that there were no verbal ancillary agreements to the written agreement. For Haldex now to submit that KBS UK were a party to or bound by the written agreement would necessarily impugn this clause. 33 I conclude therefore that there is no valid jurisdiction clause binding on KBS UK. It follows that the application must be dismissed. However, in deference to the arguments that I heard, and in case this application goes further, I will express my views briefly on the other issues argued.” [15 and 32-33]