Med Marine v Castillo Schiffahrts-Gmbh & Co. KG MS & Anor

Med Marine v Castillo Schiffahrts-Gmbh & Co. KG MS & Anor

On the true construction of the Booking Note, the English jurisdiction clause applies to all disputes except claims for unpaid fees, which may be brought in Istanbul. The Istanbul clause is not exclusive and does not override the English jurisdiction clause. The claimant has much the better argument on jurisdiction. Service on the second defendant was not defective as the second defendant acknowledged service before being served, waiving the need for service. England is the appropriate forum for the dispute.

Parties
Claimant: Med Marine; First Defendant: Castillo Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG MS; Second Defendant: Conti Cartagena Shipping Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Ruling on Jurisdictional Challenge
Outcome
Defendants' application dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Interpretation of Contracts

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Med Marine

Claimant

Castillo Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG MS

First Defendant

Conti Cartagena Shipping Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Ruling on Jurisdictional Challenge

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction under the Booking Note incorporating UK Standard Conditions for Towage and Other Services (Revised 1986)
  2. 2 Whether the Istanbul jurisdiction clause in the Booking Note is exclusive or limited to certain disputes
  3. 3 Whether service out of the jurisdiction on the second defendant was valid or required permission

Ratio Decidendi

On the true construction of the Booking Note, the English jurisdiction clause applies to all disputes except claims for unpaid fees, which may be brought in Istanbul. The Istanbul clause is not exclusive and does not override the English jurisdiction clause. The claimant has much the better argument on jurisdiction. Service on the second defendant was not defective as the second defendant acknowledged service before being served, waiving the need for service. England is the appropriate forum for the dispute.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants' application contesting jurisdiction is dismissed
  • Court will hear submissions on costs