Okretowe v Rallo Vito & C. Snc & Anr [2009] EWHC 2249 (Comm) (14 September 2009)

Okretowe v Rallo Vito & C. Snc & Anr [2009] EWHC 2249 (Comm) (14 September 2009)

The Court found that there was a clear and precise agreement between the Claimant and the First Defendant to contract on the TOWHIRE form, which includes an English jurisdiction clause, and that this was evidenced in writing by the recap. The Defendants failed to object within a reasonable time. Therefore, the English Court has jurisdiction over the First Defendant under Article 23. There was no such agreement with the Second Defendant, who was only a guarantor, not a hirer.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2249 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Polskie Ratownictwo Okretowe; First Defendant: Rallo Vito & C. SNC; Second Defendant: Generali (Second Defendant)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Jurisdiction Challenge (interlocutory)
Outcome
First Defendant's application dismissed; Second Defendant's application granted.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation, Contract Formation, Standard Terms Incorporation, Towage Contracts, Evidence of Agreement
Private International Law Commercial Law Maritime Law Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation Contract Formation Standard Terms Incorporation Towage Contracts Evidence of Agreement

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Polskie Ratownictwo Okretowe

Claimant

Rallo Vito & C. SNC

First Defendant

Generali (Second Defendant)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Jurisdiction Challenge (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English Court has jurisdiction under Article 23 of the Brussels Regulation over the First and Second Defendants
  2. 2 Whether there was an agreement conferring jurisdiction on the English Courts
  3. 3 Whether the formal requirements of Article 23 were satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that there was a clear and precise agreement between the Claimant and the First Defendant to contract on the TOWHIRE form, which includes an English jurisdiction clause, and that this was evidenced in writing by the recap. The Defendants failed to object within a reasonable time. Therefore, the English Court has jurisdiction over the First Defendant under Article 23. There was no such agreement with the Second Defendant, who was only a guarantor, not a hirer.

Court Disposition

First Defendant's application dismissed; Second Defendant's application granted.

Orders

  • The English Court has jurisdiction over the First Defendant.
  • The English Court does not have jurisdiction over the Second Defendant.