Weco Projects APS v Piana & Ors [2020] EWHC 2150 (Comm) (05 August 2020)

Weco Projects APS v Piana & Ors [2020] EWHC 2150 (Comm) (05 August 2020)

The booking note between Mr Loro Piana and PML was a contract of transport within the meaning of Article 17(3) of the Brussels Recast Regulation, and thus excluded from the consumer protection provisions. The exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English High Court was valid and binding. The English court therefore had jurisdiction, and the applications to set aside service on jurisdictional grounds failed.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2150 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: WECO PROJECTS APS; First Defendant: MR. PIER LUIGI LORO PIANA; Second Defendant: CREDEM LEASING SPA; Third Defendant / Part 20 Defendant / Part 20 Claimant: PETERS AND MAY LIMITED; Claimant (in CL 2019 000583): PETERS & MAY S. R. L; Second Defendant (in CL 2019 000583): CREDIM LEASING SPA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (applications to Set Aside Service/jurisdiction Challenge) / Interlocutory Application for Setting Aside Service and Jurisdiction Determination
Outcome
Applications to set aside service and challenge jurisdiction dismissed. English court has jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Brussels Recast Regulation, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Consumer Protection in Jurisdiction, Contracts for Carriage/transport, Negative Declaratory Relief
Private International Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Under Brussels Recast Regulation Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Consumer Protection in Jurisdiction Contracts for Carriage/transport Negative Declaratory Relief

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WECO PROJECTS APS

Claimant

MR. PIER LUIGI LORO PIANA

First Defendant

CREDEM LEASING SPA

Second Defendant

PETERS AND MAY LIMITED

Third Defendant / Part 20 Defendant / Part 20 Claimant

PETERS & MAY S. R. L

Claimant (in CL 2019 000583)

CREDIM LEASING SPA

Second Defendant (in CL 2019 000583)

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings (applications to Set Aside Service/jurisdiction Challenge) / Interlocutory Application for Setting Aside Service and Jurisdiction Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction under the Brussels Recast Regulation to hear the claims
  2. 2 Whether the exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) in the booking note is valid and binding
  3. 3 Whether the contract is a 'contract of transport' under Article 17(3) of the Regulation

Ratio Decidendi

The booking note between Mr Loro Piana and PML was a contract of transport within the meaning of Article 17(3) of the Brussels Recast Regulation, and thus excluded from the consumer protection provisions. The exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English High Court was valid and binding. The English court therefore had jurisdiction, and the applications to set aside service on jurisdictional grounds failed.

Court Disposition

Applications to set aside service and challenge jurisdiction dismissed. English court has jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Service of proceedings is not set aside.
  • English High Court retains jurisdiction under the exclusive jurisdiction clause.