Claxton Engineering Services Ltd v TXM Olaj-Es Gazkutato KFT [2010] EWHC 2567 (Comm) (15 October 2010)

Claxton Engineering Services Ltd v TXM Olaj-Es Gazkutato KFT [2010] EWHC 2567 (Comm) (15 October 2010)

The court held that the parties' contracts, except for one, were not subject to a Hungarian arbitration agreement. Claxton's June 2006 counter-offer, which deleted the arbitration clause and substituted an English exclusive jurisdiction clause, was accepted by TXM's subsequent conduct. Therefore, the English courts had exclusive jurisdiction. Even if there was no consensus on jurisdiction, Article 5.1(b) of the Regulation conferred jurisdiction on the English court as the place of delivery was England. The application for a stay was dismissed.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2567 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Claxton Engineering Services Limited; Defendant/applicant: TXM Olaj–és Gázkutató Kft
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Before the High Court (commercial Court)
Outcome
Application for stay dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Arbitration Agreements, Battle of the Forms, Forum Non Conveniens, Interpretation of Contracts
Commercial Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Arbitration Agreements Battle of the Forms Forum Non Conveniens Interpretation of Contracts

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claxton Engineering Services Limited

Claimant/respondent

TXM Olaj–és Gázkutató Kft

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Before the High Court (commercial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court or a Hungarian arbitral tribunal should decide if an arbitration agreement exists between the parties
  2. 2 Whether the parties' contracts incorporated a Hungarian arbitration clause or an English exclusive jurisdiction clause
  3. 3 Whether Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 requires TXM to be sued in Hungary

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the parties' contracts, except for one, were not subject to a Hungarian arbitration agreement. Claxton's June 2006 counter-offer, which deleted the arbitration clause and substituted an English exclusive jurisdiction clause, was accepted by TXM's subsequent conduct. Therefore, the English courts had exclusive jurisdiction. Even if there was no consensus on jurisdiction, Article 5.1(b) of the Regulation conferred jurisdiction on the English court as the place of delivery was England. The application for a stay was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for stay dismissed

Orders

  • TXM's application for a stay of proceedings is dismissed
  • Costs to be considered separately, taking into account inadequate time estimates