Summary
The claimants, Robeez UK Ltd and Stridge, were manufacturers of shoes. The defendants, Mr Bergeron and Ifuago, were their sale agents for certain regions in France. There was a written agreement to that effect. The agreement included an English jurisdiction clause. The agreement was terminated in December 2006. In spite of the termination, Mr Burgeron as an individual became the representative for the Roebeez in January 2007. There was no written agreement, but there was an oral agreement.
In a registered letter dated 14th December 2010, Mr Bergeron expressed his intention to sue the claimant for the payment of the commission fee.
The claimants brought proceedings in England seeking a non-liability declaration. Mr Burgeon challenged the jurisdiction of the English court. His challenge was dismissed by the English High Court. HHJ Mackie QC held:
“30 I appreciate that the letter written in 2010 was prepared under some pressure and was to some extent a précis; it would inevitably suffer from some inaccuracy. Nonetheless, it is abundantly clear from that letter, which was written before any of the issues in this action arose, that Mr Bergeron saw the agreement in terms of having held a sales representative agreement for the sale in France of products under the Robeez brand. It was clear that he had done so since 2005: “Since 2005 I have received monthly commission for a certain number of clients, first of all through the company and then since 2007 personally”. That is an encapsulation which indicates that the precise corporate identity did not concern the defendants and is not required by the Regulation as the case law under it demonstrates. The jurisdiction agreement was evidenced in writing, following Iveco, and was in a form according with the practices which the parties have established between themselves. [30].