British American Tobacco Switzerland S.A. & Ors v Exel Europe Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1319 (30 October 2013)

British American Tobacco Switzerland S.A. & Ors v Exel Europe Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1319 (30 October 2013)

The Court of Appeal held that a purposive interpretation of the CMR permits jurisdiction over successive carriers in England where jurisdiction exists over the primary carrier under Article 31.1. Article 36 allows for an action to be brought at the same time against several carriers, and this should be read as permitting such joinder in a single action where jurisdiction is established over one of them, particularly the primary carrier. The exclusive jurisdiction clause in the primary contract does not automatically bind successive carriers unless specifically agreed. The appeal was allowed, and English courts have jurisdiction over the successive carriers in these circumstances.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 1319
Parties
Appellants/claimants: British American Tobacco Switzerland S.A. and others; Defendant/respondent: Exel Europe Ltd; Defendants/respondents: H Essers Security Logistics B.V. and others; Appellants/claimants: British American Tobacco Denmark A/S and others; Defendant/respondent: Kazemier Transport B.V.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Jurisdictional Issue Under CMR
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under CMR, Successive Carriers Liability, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Interpretation of International Conventions
International Transport Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Under CMR Successive Carriers Liability Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Interpretation of International Conventions

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

British American Tobacco Switzerland S.A. and others

Appellants/claimants

Exel Europe Ltd

Defendant/respondent

H Essers Security Logistics B.V. and others

Defendants/respondents

British American Tobacco Denmark A/S and others

Appellants/claimants

Kazemier Transport B.V.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Jurisdictional Issue Under CMR

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether English courts have jurisdiction under CMR Article 31.1 over successive carriers when jurisdiction exists over the primary carrier
  2. 2 Whether Article 36 of CMR extends jurisdiction to all successive carriers if one is subject to English jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether exclusive jurisdiction clauses in the primary contract bind successive carriers

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that a purposive interpretation of the CMR permits jurisdiction over successive carriers in England where jurisdiction exists over the primary carrier under Article 31.1. Article 36 allows for an action to be brought at the same time against several carriers, and this should be read as permitting such joinder in a single action where jurisdiction is established over one of them, particularly the primary carrier. The exclusive jurisdiction clause in the primary contract does not automatically bind successive carriers unless specifically agreed. The appeal was allowed, and English courts have jurisdiction over the successive carriers in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • English courts have jurisdiction over the successive carriers (Essers and Kazemier) in these actions where jurisdiction exists over the primary carrier (Exel) under Article 31.1 of the CMR.