Okretowe v Rallo Vito & C. Snc & Anr

Okretowe v Rallo Vito & C. Snc & Anr

The First Defendant, through its brokers, agreed to the use of the TOWHIRE form (incorporating the English jurisdiction clause) during negotiations, and this was confirmed in writing by the recap. The Defendants failed to object within a reasonable time, satisfying Article 23(a) of the Brussels Regulation. There was no such agreement with the Second Defendant, who was only to act as guarantor, not as hirer.

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 / Jurisdictional Challenge – Application to Set Aside Claim Form/service
Outcome
First Defendant's application dismissed; Second Defendant's application succeeds.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation, Contract Formation, Standard Terms Incorporation, Evidentiary Requirements for Jurisdiction Agreements
Civil Procedure Private International Law Maritime Law Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation Contract Formation Standard Terms Incorporation Evidentiary Requirements for Jurisdiction Agreements

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 / Jurisdictional Challenge – Application to Set Aside Claim Form/service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English Court has jurisdiction over the First and Second Defendants under Article 23 of the Brussels Regulation
  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 First Defendant, through its brokers, agreed to the use of the TOWHIRE form (incorporating the English jurisdiction clause) during negotiations, and this was confirmed in writing by the recap. The Defendants failed to object within a reasonable time, satisfying Article 23(a) of the Brussels Regulation. There was no such agreement with the Second Defendant, who was only to act as guarantor, not as hirer.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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