Summary
The claimant, who was a resident in England, was a successful sport manager. The defendants were members of an Indian group of companies. The first defendant employed the claimant as its chief executive officer. The dispute arose out of the employment contract. The claimant sought to establish jurisdiction in England under Articles 18 and 19 of Brussels.
This was an appeal against the decision of the Master Fontaine, holding that the English court had jurisdiction. The English High Court dismissed the appeal. Although, on this occasion, Brussels I did not confer jurisdiction on the English courts, Mr Justice Tugendhat established jurisdiction by relying on the English common law. In this context he stated:
“55 The Master applied Somafer [1979] 1 C.M.L.R. 490 in [80] of her judgment in reaching the conclusion that art.18 did not give mandatory jurisdiction in the present case. It is implicit that she was also applying Somafer in [95(ii)] of her judgment when she found that if the contractual obligation to establish an office in London had been performed, then this court would have had mandatory jurisdiction. It must be implicit that that would have been because the office would have been an establishment within art.18.
[…]
65 I see no error on the part of the Master in adopting the view that “The fact that the Defendants agreed that the Claimant should remain resident in England, and that they agreed to establish an office of Deccan Chargers in London for the Defendant” led to the conclusion England is the place best suited to resolving the disputes to which obligations under the contract of employment may give rise. A similar view is implicit in the inclusion of art.18 in the Judgments Regulation .” [65].