Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft v Liquimar Tankers Management Inc [2017] EWHC 161 (Comm) (03 February 2017)

Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft v Liquimar Tankers Management Inc [2017] EWHC 161 (Comm) (03 February 2017)

Asymmetric jurisdiction clauses, such as those in the agreements between the parties, confer exclusive jurisdiction on the English courts for the purposes of Article 31(2) of Brussels I Recast. Therefore, the English court is not required to stay proceedings under Article 29 or Article 30, and the applications for a stay and to set aside service out are refused.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 161 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft; Defendant/applicant: Liquimar Tankers Management Inc.; Defendant/applicant: Pauline Shipping Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (applications for Stay and to Set Aside Service Out) / Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Applications for stay and to set aside service out refused.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Clauses, Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses, Brussels I Recast Regulation, Lis Pendens, Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Case Management Stay
Private International Law Commercial Law Banking and Finance Jurisdiction Clauses Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses Brussels I Recast Regulation Lis Pendens Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements +2 more

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft

Claimant/respondent

Liquimar Tankers Management Inc.

Defendant/applicant

Pauline Shipping Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings (applications for Stay and to Set Aside Service Out) / Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether asymmetric jurisdiction clauses confer exclusive jurisdiction under Article 31(2) of Brussels I Recast
  2. 2 Whether proceedings should be stayed under Article 29 or Article 30 of Brussels I Recast
  3. 3 Whether service out of the jurisdiction should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

Asymmetric jurisdiction clauses, such as those in the agreements between the parties, confer exclusive jurisdiction on the English courts for the purposes of Article 31(2) of Brussels I Recast. Therefore, the English court is not required to stay proceedings under Article 29 or Article 30, and the applications for a stay and to set aside service out are refused.

Court Disposition

Applications for stay and to set aside service out refused.

Orders

  • Defendants' applications for a stay of proceedings are refused.
  • Defendants' applications to set aside service out of the jurisdiction are refused.