Coys of Kensington Automobiles Ltd v Pugliese [2011] EWHC 655 (QB) (22 March 2011)

Coys of Kensington Automobiles Ltd v Pugliese [2011] EWHC 655 (QB) (22 March 2011)

On an objective analysis of the signed bidding form, which expressly referred to the conditions of business containing the jurisdiction clause, the Claimant had a much better argument that consensus existed between the parties as required by Article 23(1), regardless of the Defendant's subjective understanding or knowledge of English.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 655
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Coys of Kensington Automobiles Limited; Defendant/respondent: Tiziana Pugliese
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Master's Decision on Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Contract Formation, Choice of Law, Interpretation of Written Agreements, EU Regulation 44/2001 Article 23
Civil Procedure Private International Law Jurisdiction Contract Formation Choice of Law Interpretation of Written Agreements EU Regulation 44/2001 Article 23

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Coys of Kensington Automobiles Limited

Claimant/appellant

Tiziana Pugliese

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Master's Decision on Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Clause 5 of the Claimant's conditions of business conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the English courts was the subject of consensus between the parties under Article 23(1) of Council Regulation 44/2001
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of Article 23(1) were satisfied on an objective analysis of the signed bidding form

Ratio Decidendi

On an objective analysis of the signed bidding form, which expressly referred to the conditions of business containing the jurisdiction clause, the Claimant had a much better argument that consensus existed between the parties as required by Article 23(1), regardless of the Defendant's subjective understanding or knowledge of English.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decision of Master Foster set aside; English courts have jurisdiction; parties to agree on the form of order and ancillary matters