The Reward Collection Ltd v Whaleco Technology Ltd (T/a Temu) [2024] EWHC 2541 (Comm) (07 October 2024)

The Reward Collection Ltd v Whaleco Technology Ltd (T/a Temu) [2024] EWHC 2541 (Comm) (07 October 2024)

The Claimant has not provided a sufficiently plausible evidential basis to show which version of the JotForm terms were incorporated into any contract, specifically whether the jurisdiction clause relied upon was present. Without clear evidence, the Claimant cannot pass the jurisdictional gateway under CPR 6.33(2B)...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2541 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Reward Collection Ltd; Defendant/applicant: Whaleco Technology Ltd (t/a Temu)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Judgment on Jurisdiction and Service Out of the Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application granted; service out set aside
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Contract Formation, Quantum Meruit, Choice of Law Clauses
Contract Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction Contract Formation Quantum Meruit Choice of Law Clauses

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Reward Collection Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Whaleco Technology Ltd (t/a Temu)

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Judgment on Jurisdiction and Service Out of the Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties contracted on the terms alleged by the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the contract included a jurisdiction clause permitting service out under CPR 6.33(2B)
  3. 3 Whether the Impact Agreement superseded any prior contract

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant has not provided a sufficiently plausible evidential basis to show which version of the JotForm terms were incorporated into any contract, specifically whether the jurisdiction clause relied upon was present. Without clear evidence, the Claimant cannot pass the jurisdictional gateway under CPR 6.33(2B) for service out without permission. The application to set aside service out is granted.

Court Disposition

Application granted; service out set aside

Orders

  • Service out of the jurisdiction set aside
  • Claimant must seek permission for service out if it wishes to proceed