Med Marine v Castillo Schiffahrts-Gmbh & Co. KG MS & Anor [2014] EWHC 1064 (Comm) (28 March 2014)

Med Marine v Castillo Schiffahrts-Gmbh & Co. KG MS & Anor [2014] EWHC 1064 (Comm) (28 March 2014)

On the true construction of the Booking Note, the Istanbul jurisdiction clause is limited to claims for unpaid fees and does not override the exclusive English jurisdiction clause incorporated by reference. The claimant has a much better argument on the construction of the Booking Note. Service on the second defendant was not improper as the second defendant acknowledged service before formal service, waiving the need for permission. England is the appropriate forum for the dispute.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1064 (Comm)
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 / Jurisdictional Challenge (application Under CPR Part 11)
Outcome
Defendants' application dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Clauses, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Interpretation of Contracts, Exclusive Jurisdiction, Forum Selection
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Jurisdiction Clauses Service Out of Jurisdiction Interpretation of Contracts Exclusive Jurisdiction Forum Selection

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 5 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 / Jurisdictional Challenge (application Under CPR Part 11)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction under the Booking Note incorporating UK Standard Towage Conditions (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 Istanbul jurisdiction clause is limited to claims for unpaid fees and does not override the exclusive English jurisdiction clause incorporated by reference. The claimant has a much better argument on the construction of the Booking Note. Service on the second defendant was not improper as the second defendant acknowledged service before formal service, waiving the need for permission. England is the appropriate forum for the dispute.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants' application contesting jurisdiction is refused
  • Service of the claim form is not set aside