Crucial Music Corporation & Anor v Klondyke Management AG & Ors
There is a good arguable case that the place of performance of the warranties was London, where the agreement was executed and the transfer of assets occurred. For the misrepresentation claim, the loss was suffered in London when the claimants entered into the agreement and paid the price. Therefore, the English court has jurisdiction under both Article 5(1) and 5(3) of the Lugano Convention and Judgments Regulation.
- Parties
- Claimant / Respondent: Crucial Music Corporation (formerly known as Onemusic Corporation); Claimant / Respondent: Point Classics LLC; Defendant / Appellant: Premstroy Enterprises Limited; Defendant / Appellant: Klondyke Management AG (formerly known as Point Classics AG); Defendant / Appellant: Klondyke Verwaltungs und Beteiligungsgesellschaft AG; Defendant / Appellant: Wilhelm Mittrich; Defendant / Appellant: ODS Optical Disc Service GmbH
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 25 July 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Master Moncaster on Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction Under Lugano Convention, Jurisdiction Under Judgments Regulation, Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation, Intellectual Property Warranties
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Crucial Music Corporation (formerly known as Onemusic Corporation)
Claimant / Respondent
Point Classics LLC
Claimant / Respondent
Premstroy Enterprises Limited
Defendant / Appellant
Klondyke Management AG (formerly known as Point Classics AG)
Defendant / Appellant
Klondyke Verwaltungs und Beteiligungsgesellschaft AG
Defendant / Appellant
Wilhelm Mittrich
Defendant / Appellant
ODS Optical Disc Service GmbH
Defendant / Appellant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Master Moncaster on Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a warranty given by a third party as to the nature of intellectual property rights has a place of performance within Article 5(1) of the Lugano Convention and Judgments Regulation
- 2 Whether the place where damage was sustained as a result of misrepresentation is the place where the contract was executed and/or completed under Article 5(3) of the Conventions
Ratio Decidendi
There is a good arguable case that the place of performance of the warranties was London, where the agreement was executed and the transfer of assets occurred. For the misrepresentation claim, the loss was suffered in London when the claimants entered into the agreement and paid the price. Therefore, the English court has jurisdiction under both Article 5(1) and 5(3) of the Lugano Convention and Judgments Regulation.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment