Kaefer Aislamientos SA De CV v AMS Drilling Mexico SA de CV

Kaefer Aislamientos SA De CV v AMS Drilling Mexico SA de CV

The claimant failed to establish, to the required standard, that AMS or AMS Mexico contracted as agents for AT1 or Ezion, or that AT1 or Ezion were undisclosed principals to the contract containing the English exclusive jurisdiction clause. There is no good arguable case against Ezion, and although there is a good arguable case against AT1, AT1 has the better of the argument that it was not an undisclosed principal. Therefore, the court has no jurisdiction over AT1 and Ezion.

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) / Interlocutory Application—challenge to Jurisdiction
Outcome
Jurisdiction declined as against AT1 and Ezion
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Undisclosed Principal, Agency, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Conflict of Laws Jurisdiction Undisclosed Principal Agency 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 3 Authorities cited 17 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) / Interlocutory Application—challenge to Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over AT1 and Ezion under an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a contract allegedly made on their behalf as undisclosed principals
  2. 2 Whether AMS and/or AMS Mexico contracted with the claimant as agents for AT1 and/or Ezion
  3. 3 Whether there is a good arguable case that AT1 and/or Ezion were undisclosed principals to the contract

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish, to the required standard, that AMS or AMS Mexico contracted as agents for AT1 or Ezion, or that AT1 or Ezion were undisclosed principals to the contract containing the English exclusive jurisdiction clause. There is no good arguable case against Ezion, and although there is a good arguable case against AT1, AT1 has the better of the argument that it was not an undisclosed principal. Therefore, the court has no jurisdiction over AT1 and Ezion.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction declined as against AT1 and Ezion

Orders

  • Claim against AT1 and Ezion dismissed for want of jurisdiction
  • Parties to be heard on consequential orders