Cornwall Renewable Developments Ltd v Wright, Johnston & Mackenzie LLP [2022] EWHC 3259 (Ch) (21 December 2022)

Cornwall Renewable Developments Ltd v Wright, Johnston & Mackenzie LLP [2022] EWHC 3259 (Ch) (21 December 2022)

The Chief Master was entitled to conclude, after careful evaluation of the facts and the pleaded case, that the principal obligation in question was the provision of advice and agreements to the Claimant for negotiation and execution in England, intended to satisfy Cornwall Council's planning rules. The place of performance of this obligation was England. The Defendant's arguments based on the place of service provision and reliance on Petromena were rejected, as Rule 3(a) does not contain the deeming provisions of Article 5(1)(b) of the Lugano Convention. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3259 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Cornwall Renewable Developments Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Wright, Johnston & Mackenzie LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Jurisdictional Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Professional Negligence, Contractual Obligations, Place of Performance, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Contract Law Conflict of Laws Jurisdiction Contractual Obligations Place of Performance Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cornwall Renewable Developments Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Wright, Johnston & Mackenzie LLP

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Jurisdictional Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction under Rule 3(a) of Schedule 4 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 for matters relating to contract
  2. 2 Whether the principal obligation in question was performed in England or Scotland
  3. 3 Whether Rule 3(c) applies for matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict

Ratio Decidendi

The Chief Master was entitled to conclude, after careful evaluation of the facts and the pleaded case, that the principal obligation in question was the provision of advice and agreements to the Claimant for negotiation and execution in England, intended to satisfy Cornwall Council's planning rules. The place of performance of this obligation was England. The Defendant's arguments based on the place of service provision and reliance on Petromena were rejected, as Rule 3(a) does not contain the deeming provisions of Article 5(1)(b) of the Lugano Convention. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The English court retains jurisdiction over the claim.
  • Costs to be determined as per standard procedure.