Wright v (Deccan Chargers Sporting Ventures Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 1307 (QB) (25 May 2011)

Wright v (Deccan Chargers Sporting Ventures Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 1307 (QB) (25 May 2011)

The Master was entitled to find that, on balance, the choice of English law, the contractual provision for the claimant's residence in England, and the obligation to establish an office in London made England and Wales the proper place to bring the claim. The factors were finely balanced, but the claimant met the burden under CPR 6.37(3). No error of law was shown in the Master's approach or conclusions.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1307 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Timothy Wright; First Defendant/appellant: Deccan Chargers Sporting Ventures Ltd; Second Defendant/appellant: Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Order Permitting Service Out of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Forum Conveniens, Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, Employment Contract, Severance Guarantee, Penalty Clauses
Private International Law Employment Law Contract Law Forum Conveniens Jurisdiction Choice of Law Employment Contract Severance Guarantee +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timothy Wright

Claimant/respondent

Deccan Chargers Sporting Ventures Ltd

First Defendant/appellant

Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd

Second Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Order Permitting Service Out of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether England and Wales is the proper place to bring the claim under CPR 6.37(3)
  2. 2 Whether the choice of English law in the contract is a significant factor in determining forum conveniens
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants' obligation to establish an office in London affects jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Master was entitled to find that, on balance, the choice of English law, the contractual provision for the claimant's residence in England, and the obligation to establish an office in London made England and Wales the proper place to bring the claim. The factors were finely balanced, but the claimant met the burden under CPR 6.37(3). No error of law was shown in the Master's approach or conclusions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction in India upheld
  • Proceedings to continue in England and Wales