Claxton Engineering Services Ltd v TXM Olaj-Es Gazkutato KFT

Claxton Engineering Services Ltd v TXM Olaj-Es Gazkutato KFT

The court held that the parties’ course of dealings and written communications showed no agreement to arbitrate before a Hungarian tribunal. Claxton’s counter-offer proposing English exclusive jurisdiction was not rejected by TXM, and TXM’s continued trading constituted acceptance by conduct. Therefore, the disputed contracts (except one) were subject to English exclusive jurisdiction, not arbitration. Even if not, the English court had jurisdiction under Article 5.1(b) as delivery was ex-works England. The Hungarian courts were not a more appropriate forum.

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
Commercial Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings
Outcome
Application for stay of proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Arbitration Agreements, Battle of the Forms, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses
Commercial Law Conflict of Laws Arbitration Jurisdiction Arbitration Agreements Battle of the Forms Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses

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 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

Commercial Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court or a Hungarian arbitral tribunal should decide if an arbitration agreement exists
  2. 2 Whether the parties agreed to arbitration in Hungary or exclusive English court jurisdiction
  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’ course of dealings and written communications showed no agreement to arbitrate before a Hungarian tribunal. Claxton’s counter-offer proposing English exclusive jurisdiction was not rejected by TXM, and TXM’s continued trading constituted acceptance by conduct. Therefore, the disputed contracts (except one) were subject to English exclusive jurisdiction, not arbitration. Even if not, the English court had jurisdiction under Article 5.1(b) as delivery was ex-works England. The Hungarian courts were not a more appropriate forum.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • TXM’s application for a stay of proceedings is dismissed