PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

Dolphin Maritime & Aviation Services Ltd v Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening (The Swedish Club) [2009] EWHC 716 (Comm)

Details of the court

England and Wales, First Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

02 April 2009

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The dispute was preceded by a Turkish underwriter’s instructions given to an English company seeking to recover compensation from the defendant, a Swedish P & I club. The compensation was in respect of cargo which had been damaged after a collision of two ships. The underwriters paid compensation and became subrogated to their rights. The English company was acting as recovery agent, so that it was entitled to a commission of the recoveries which, on this occasion, was in the range $8.5 millions. A settlement agreement was reached between the Turkish underwriters and the Swedish P&I club. On 21st May 2008, the club made a payment to the underwriters directly. On 23rd May, the English company received a letter from the Swedish P&I club, denying liability towards them. The English company’s invoice remained unpaid. The English company started court proceedings against the club in England. It was alleged that the defendants procured or induced a breach by underwriters of the parties’ commission agreement. It was submitted that the club was a party to a conspiracy to use unlawful means. The Swedish P&I club challenged the jurisdiction of the English court. The High Court judge dismissed the jurisdictional challenge, holding that: “61 […] the place where the benefit should have been received provides a sufficiently "close connecting factor with the courts of a Member State other than that in which the defendant is domiciled which satisfies the need for certainty and justifies the attribution of jurisdiction to those courts for reasons relating to the sound administration of justice", particularly where, as here, the contract between Dolphin and the Club was subject to English law and arbitration, and where Dolphin was a provider of services in England (as well as elsewhere). 62 Accordingly, Dolphin's tortious claims fall, in my judgment within Article 5(3) of the Regulation.” [61-62].