Summary
The dispute was about the payment of £112,022.86 which was due for a kitchen equipment.
The claimant, SMEG, was an English company. The defendant was an Irish company.
The claimant was suing in England on the basis of a jurisdictional agreement under Article 23 of Brussels I. The English court proceedings were issued on 3rd July 2012.
The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the English court. The English court found that there was a valid jurisdictional agreement, and dismissed the defendant’s challenge.
On 1st March 2013, HHJ Mackie held:
“21 It is not disputed that in determining a dispute of this kind the claimant can only succeed if it has the better of the argument which is sometimes characterised as “clearly the better of the argument” or “substantially the better of the argument”. In making an evaluation at this stage, it is not for me to pretend to decide which recollection of two sets of honest business people is correct. This is a commercial matter where matters of particular importance are probabilities and the record of the documents.
22 It seems to me overwhelmingly clear, as Mr Hill-Smith submits, that applying the considerations of Article 23 , not of course the familiar ones of the English and I suspect Irish common law, that there was an agreement and one which falls within Article 23 . These are relatively sophisticated commercial parties. The agreements were signed. The fact that on a particular occasion Mr Hickey did not keep or did not have available the actual terms themselves seems to me irrelevant given the background, what had been signed before, albeit by a separate company and the flow of invoices over the years.
23 In my judgment, there is an agreement that is, or is evidenced in, writing to submit jurisdiction to the English court. Indeed, should it be necessary to do so the dealings between the parties in this case seem to me to meet the alternative requirements of 23(b) as well.” [21-23]