Perella Weinberg Partners UK LLP & Anor v Codere SA [2016] EWHC 1182 (Comm) (17 May 2016)

Perella Weinberg Partners UK LLP & Anor v Codere SA [2016] EWHC 1182 (Comm) (17 May 2016)

Clause 9.1 of the letter of engagement confers non-exclusive jurisdiction to English courts for the benefit of Perella but does not prohibit Codere from bringing proceedings in other jurisdictions; the express reference to 'non-exclusive jurisdiction' rebuts any presumption of exclusivity under Article 25 of the recast regulation.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1182 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Perella Weinberg Partners UK LLP; Claimant: Perella Weinberg Partners (Europe) LP; Defendant: Codere SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Ruling on Jurisdiction Application
Outcome
Jurisdiction application granted in favour of Codere; Codere's construction of clause 9.1 accepted.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Clauses, Lis Pendens, Prorogation of Jurisdiction, Interpretation of Contractual Terms
Contract Law Civil Procedure International Commercial Law Jurisdiction Clauses Lis Pendens Prorogation of Jurisdiction Interpretation of Contractual Terms

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Perella Weinberg Partners UK LLP

Claimant

Perella Weinberg Partners (Europe) LP

Claimant

Codere SA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Ruling on Jurisdiction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 9.1 of the letter of engagement constitutes an exclusive jurisdiction clause under Article 31.2 of the recast regulation
  2. 2 Whether Codere is contractually barred from bringing proceedings in Spain
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'for the benefit of Perella' in the jurisdiction clause

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 9.1 of the letter of engagement confers non-exclusive jurisdiction to English courts for the benefit of Perella but does not prohibit Codere from bringing proceedings in other jurisdictions; the express reference to 'non-exclusive jurisdiction' rebuts any presumption of exclusivity under Article 25 of the recast regulation.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction application granted in favour of Codere; Codere's construction of clause 9.1 accepted.

Orders

  • Consequences of the ruling and further proceedings to be discussed between parties and scheduled for further hearing.
  • Questions of costs and permission to appeal adjourned to a later hearing.