BAT Caribbean S.A. & Ors v PHP Tobacco Carib SARL & Ors

BAT Caribbean S.A. & Ors v PHP Tobacco Carib SARL & Ors

There was no clear and precise agreement conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the English court. The correspondence between the parties did not show any intention by PHP Trading and SODIPAM to confer substantive jurisdiction on the English court or to consent to such jurisdiction. The express reservation of rights...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: BAT Caribbean S. A. & Ors; Respondents: PHP Tobacco Carib SARL & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements, Brussels Regulation Recast, Lis Pendens, Jurisdictional Challenges
Private International Law Civil Procedure Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements Brussels Regulation Recast Lis Pendens Jurisdictional Challenges

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BAT Caribbean S. A. & Ors

Appellant

PHP Tobacco Carib SARL & Ors

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arrangements made in August 2016 constitute an exclusive jurisdiction agreement in favour of the English Court under Article 25 of the Brussels Regulation Recast
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in staying the Additional Claim against PHP Trading and SODIPAM

Ratio Decidendi

There was no clear and precise agreement conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the English court. The correspondence between the parties did not show any intention by PHP Trading and SODIPAM to confer substantive jurisdiction on the English court or to consent to such jurisdiction. The express reservation of rights to contest jurisdiction, including by issuing proceedings in France, was inconsistent with an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. The agreement related only to procedural matters of service and interlocutory efficiency, not to substantive jurisdiction. Therefore, the arrangements did not constitute an exclusive jurisdiction agreement under Article 25 of the Brussels Regulation...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; the stay of the Additional Claim against PHP Trading and SODIPAM remains in place.