Perella Weinberg Partners UK LLP & Anor v Codere SA

Perella Weinberg Partners UK LLP & Anor v Codere SA

Clause 9.1 of the engagement letter confers a non-exclusive jurisdiction for the benefit of Perella, allowing them to invoke the English courts, but does not bar Codere from bringing proceedings in other jurisdictions; the express reference to 'non-exclusive jurisdiction' and absence of exclusivity language rebut any presumption of exclusivity.

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
Application determined in favour of Codere on the construction of the jurisdiction clause; further directions to be set at a later hearing.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Clauses, Interpretation of Contracts, EU Regulation 1215/2012, Non Exclusive Jurisdiction, Lis Pendens
Civil Procedure Contract Law Private International Law Jurisdiction Clauses Interpretation of Contracts EU Regulation 1215/2012 Non Exclusive Jurisdiction Lis Pendens

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 5 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 engagement letter confers exclusive or non-exclusive jurisdiction to English courts
  2. 2 Whether Codere is barred from bringing proceedings in Spain under the contract
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'for the benefit of' in a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 9.1 of the engagement letter confers a non-exclusive jurisdiction for the benefit of Perella, allowing them to invoke the English courts, but does not bar Codere from bringing proceedings in other jurisdictions; the express reference to 'non-exclusive jurisdiction' and absence of exclusivity language rebut any presumption of exclusivity.

Court Disposition

Application determined in favour of Codere on the construction of the jurisdiction clause; further directions to be set at a later hearing.

Orders

  • Parties to discuss consequences of the ruling and propose further directions or submit rival positions for the court's consideration.
  • All consequential matters, including costs and permission to appeal, adjourned to a further hearing.