PIL instrument(s)
Brussels I
Case number and/or case name
Nursaw v Dansk Jersey Eksport [2009] I.L.Pr. 19
Details of the court
England and Wales, First Instance
Articles referred to by the court
Brussels I
Article 23
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph b
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph c
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 5
Date of the judgement
31 October 2008
Appeal history
None
CJEU's case law cited by the court
Summary
The claimant, an English farmer, agreed to purchase cattle (for the price of £77,500.00) from the defendant, a Dannish farmer. The claimant alleged that the delivered cattle were below the agreed standard (because some of them or all suffered from a disease). The claimant started suing in England. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the English court, arguing that the sentence “Court: DK-6100 Haderslev, Denmark.” constitutes a choice-of-court agreement for the purposes of Article 23 of Brussels I. The defendant’s jurisdiction was upheld. Judge Havelock-Allan Q.C. held: “22 […] the issue on the present application is a very short one. The phrase: “ Court: DK-6100 Haderslev, Denmark ” is the equivalent (if the English High Court was chosen) to saying: “ Court: WC2A 2LL – London, UK ”. On the one hand it may be objected that the absence of any reference to “jurisdiction” and the omission of any phrase to the effect that “disputes arising in connection with the contract shall be settled by …” makes the meaning obscure. It may also be said that the obscurity is compounded by the fact that the sentence was added to the end of a paragraph in the agreement dealing with aspects of delivery and the quality of the goods. It would have attracted more critical attention if it had appeared as a separate paragraph of its own. On the other hand the point can be made that the word “Court” only makes sense as being a reference to the tribunal which shall determine disputes relating to the transaction. There is no other obvious connotation. Furthermore the words “ DK-6100 Haderslev ”, although possibly confusing when read in isolation, appear plainly to be a reference to a postcode and a town when read in conjunction with the rest of the contract where similar addresses are included. So it was fairly clear that reference was being made to the seller's local court in Haderslev. Although the positioning of the clause was not ideal, the contract was a short document and the clause was easily spotted.” I.L.Pr. 19. [22].

This website is written and maintained by the University of Aberdeen's Research Applications and Data Management Team