EUPillar Winnetka Trading Corpn V Julius Baer International Ltd and another [2008] EWHC 3146 (Ch)

Summary

The dispute was in respect of an investment management agreement. The claimant was a Panamanian company; the defendants were – an English company, and its branch in Guernsey. The parties entered into a number of agreements. The first included a non-exclusive Guernsey jurisdiction clause. The second contained a choice-of-law clause only. The third included a Guernsey jurisdiction clause without specifying whether it is exclusive or non-exclusive. On 17th July 2008, Winetka commenced proceedings in England, seeking damages for breach of contract and negligence for the execution of its instructions under the investment management agreement. The defendant made an application for an anti-suit injunction in Guernsey. The application was granted. Winetka claimed that the English courts should have jurisdiction since the defendant was domiciled in England. The English court dismissed the claimant’s argument, and held that it had no jurisdiction. Mr Justice Norris stated: “23 I do not accept the argument. The decision in Owusu is, it is common ground, not directly in point. The parties in that case were advancing arguments concerning forum non conveniens not exclusive jurisdictions clauses. The court did not therefore have to consider what role an agreement between the parties might play, and compare the weight to be given to the agreement between the parties with the mandatory terms of Article 2. 24 My own view is that the terms of Article 2 cannot deprive competent parties of their autonomy in agreeing which court shall have the jurisdiction to determine their disputes. […]” [2008] EWHC 3146 (Ch) [23-24]