Case number and/or case name
Cube Lighting and Industrial Design Limited v Afcon Electra Romania [2011] EWHC 2565 (Ch)
Summary
The claimant, Cube, was an English company; the defendant, Afcon, was a Romanian company. The products were delivered to Bucharest. The value of the claim was nearly €1 million. The sum of money was due for the purchase costs of lights and light fittings.
There had been proceedings in Romania which were discontinued.
The claimants tried to establish jurisdiction in England. Originally, the claimants’ lawyers had “had a misunderstanding of the operation of the Regulation and thought that (as had been the case under the 1968 Brussels Convention ) jurisdiction was conferred on the English court because the place of performance of the payment obligation was England.” [33].
Subsequently, the claimants sought to establish jurisdiction under Brussels I on the ground of Articles 5(1)(a) and 23 of Brussels. They tried to invoke a jurisdiction clause.
The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the English court, and sought a declaration that the English had no jurisdiction.
Mr Edward Bartley Jones Q.C., sitting as Deputy High Court Judge, concluded that the defendants are entitled to such a declaration, holding that the English courts had no jurisdiction. It was held:
“89 Overall, I find it very difficult to accept any suggestion that these parties (who were heavily negotiating both before and after the April and June 2009 meetings) would have entered into a free-standing jurisdiction agreement which would have overridden anything they subsequently discussed or agreed. I find it equally difficult to accept that they would have done so informally and orally at either the April or June meetings. It is much much more likely that if English Jurisdiction were discussed at either meeting it was discussed only as one of the many potential terms in an ongoing negotiation process.
90 Ultimately, therefore, I have little difficulty in concluding that Cube has failed to show that it has a much better argument than Afcon, on the material presently available, that it can be established, clearly and precisely, that the alleged jurisdiction agreement was the subject of consensus between the parties. Accordingly, and for that reason alone, the English court lacks jurisdiction under Article 23.” [89-90]