Pantheon International Advisors Limited v Co-Diagnostics, Inc

Pantheon International Advisors Limited v Co-Diagnostics, Inc

The claimant has a good arguable case, supported by plausible evidence, that a binding 2018 contract exists containing an exclusive English jurisdiction clause, satisfying CPR 6.33(2B)(b); service out of jurisdiction was proper for the contractual claim; quantum meruit claim required permission but was conceded; retrospective permission for service out is granted; proceedings are stayed to enable ADR as contractually required.

Parties
Claimant: Pantheon International Advisors Limited; Defendant: Co-Diagnostics, Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Jurisdictional Challenge and Application to Set Aside Claim Form
Outcome
Jurisdiction upheld for contractual claim; quantum meruit claim conceded; retrospective permission for service out granted; proceedings stayed for ADR.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Contract Formation, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Quantum Meruit, ADR Clauses
Civil Procedure Contract Law International Commercial Law Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction Contract Formation Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Quantum Meruit +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pantheon International Advisors Limited

Claimant

Co-Diagnostics, Inc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Jurisdictional Challenge and Application to Set Aside Claim Form

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to try the claims under CPR 6.33(2B)(b)
  2. 2 Existence and binding nature of the alleged 2018 contract
  3. 3 Validity and scope of jurisdiction clauses in 2016 and 2018 contracts

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant has a good arguable case, supported by plausible evidence, that a binding 2018 contract exists containing an exclusive English jurisdiction clause, satisfying CPR 6.33(2B)(b); service out of jurisdiction was proper for the contractual claim; quantum meruit claim required permission but was conceded; retrospective permission for service out is granted; proceedings are stayed to enable ADR as contractually required.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction upheld for contractual claim; quantum meruit claim conceded; retrospective permission for service out granted; proceedings stayed for ADR.

Orders

  • Claim for damages for breach of contract may proceed in English court.
  • Retrospective permission for service out of jurisdiction granted under CPR 3.10.