Kaefer Aislamientos SA De CV v AMS Drilling Mexico SA de CV [2017] EWHC 2598 (Comm) (19 October 2017)

Kaefer Aislamientos SA De CV v AMS Drilling Mexico SA de CV [2017] EWHC 2598 (Comm) (19 October 2017)

The Court must be satisfied there is a good arguable case that AT1 and Ezion were undisclosed principals to the contract containing the English jurisdiction clause. On the available evidence, the Claimant has not established a sufficiently arguable case that AMS and AMS Mexico contracted with actual authority and intention on behalf of AT1 and Ezion as undisclosed principals. The evidence does not demonstrate consensus or binding jurisdiction agreement between Claimant and AT1/Ezion.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2598 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: KAEFER AISLAMIENTOS SA de CV; First Defendant: AMS DRILLING MEXICO SA de CV; Second Defendant: ATLANTIC MARINE SERVICES BV; Third Defendant: ATLANTIC TIBURON 1 PTE LIMITED; Fourth Defendant: EZION HOLDINGS LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Jurisdiction Challenge (pre Trial)
Outcome
Court lacks jurisdiction over AT1 and Ezion; claim against them dismissed.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Undisclosed Principal, Agency, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
Commercial Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Undisclosed Principal Agency Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KAEFER AISLAMIENTOS SA de CV

Claimant

AMS DRILLING MEXICO SA de CV

First Defendant

ATLANTIC MARINE SERVICES BV

Second Defendant

ATLANTIC TIBURON 1 PTE LIMITED

Third Defendant

EZION HOLDINGS LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Jurisdiction Challenge (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether AT1 and Ezion are parties to the contract as undisclosed principals and bound by the English jurisdiction clause
  2. 2 Whether the Court has jurisdiction over AT1 and Ezion under Article 25 of Brussels I Regulation (Recast)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court must be satisfied there is a good arguable case that AT1 and Ezion were undisclosed principals to the contract containing the English jurisdiction clause. On the available evidence, the Claimant has not established a sufficiently arguable case that AMS and AMS Mexico contracted with actual authority and intention on behalf of AT1 and Ezion as undisclosed principals. The evidence does not demonstrate consensus or binding jurisdiction agreement between Claimant and AT1/Ezion.

Court Disposition

Court lacks jurisdiction over AT1 and Ezion; claim against them dismissed.

Orders

  • Claim against Third and Fourth Defendants (AT1 and Ezion) dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
  • No order as to costs regarding First and Second Defendants (AMS Mexico and AMS).