Actegy Ltd v Societe Logitique Nivelloise Spl [2018] EWHC 2400 (Comm) (30 April 2018)

Actegy Ltd v Societe Logitique Nivelloise Spl [2018] EWHC 2400 (Comm) (30 April 2018)

There is no good arguable case that the second defendant was an undisclosed principal to the distribution agreement; the evidence and contractual documents do not support an agency relationship, and thus the English court lacks jurisdiction over the second defendant under Article 25 of the recast Brussels Regulation.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2400 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Actegy Ltd; First Defendant: Société Logitique Nivelloise SPL (Formerly known as Distec Sprl); Second Defendant/applicant: Distec International SA/NV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (jurisdiction Challenge) / Application to Challenge Jurisdiction (interlocutory)
Outcome
Claim against the second defendant dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation, Undisclosed Principal, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Agency, Distribution Agreements
Private International Law Commercial Law Contract Law Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation Undisclosed Principal Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Agency Distribution Agreements

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Actegy Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Société Logitique Nivelloise SPL (Formerly known as Distec Sprl)

First Defendant

Distec International SA/NV

Second Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (jurisdiction Challenge) / Application to Challenge Jurisdiction (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the second defendant under Article 25 of the recast Brussels Regulation based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a distribution agreement
  2. 2 Whether the second defendant is an undisclosed principal to the distribution agreement

Ratio Decidendi

There is no good arguable case that the second defendant was an undisclosed principal to the distribution agreement; the evidence and contractual documents do not support an agency relationship, and thus the English court lacks jurisdiction over the second defendant under Article 25 of the recast Brussels Regulation.

Court Disposition

Claim against the second defendant dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Claim against the second defendant is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.