SET Select Energy GmbH v F & M Bunkering Ltd

SET Select Energy GmbH v F & M Bunkering Ltd

The court extended F&M's time for challenging jurisdiction under CPR 3.1(2)(a) due to the slight lateness and absence of prejudice, but dismissed both the application for stay under Articles 27 and 28 and the application for default judgment, finding the English and Cyprus proceedings did not involve the same cause or object and that the exclusive jurisdiction clause supported refusal of a stay.

Parties
Claimant: S. E. T. Select Energy GmbH; Defendant: F & M Bunkering Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim / Ruling on Applications for Stay and Default Judgment
Outcome
F&M's time for jurisdiction challenge extended; S. E. T.'s application for default judgment dismissed; F&M's challenge to jurisdiction dismissed.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Stay of Proceedings, Default Judgment, EU Judgments Regulation, Bank Guarantees
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Jurisdiction Stay of Proceedings Default Judgment EU Judgments Regulation Bank Guarantees

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. E. T. Select Energy GmbH

Claimant

F & M Bunkering Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim / Ruling on Applications for Stay and Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's challenge to jurisdiction was barred for lateness under CPR Pt 11
  2. 2 Whether the English proceedings should be stayed in favour of prior Cyprus proceedings under Articles 27 and 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001
  3. 3 Whether the English and Cyprus proceedings involve the same cause of action or are related actions under the Judgments Regulation

Ratio Decidendi

The court extended F&M's time for challenging jurisdiction under CPR 3.1(2)(a) due to the slight lateness and absence of prejudice, but dismissed both the application for stay under Articles 27 and 28 and the application for default judgment, finding the English and Cyprus proceedings did not involve the same cause or object and that the exclusive jurisdiction clause supported refusal of a stay.

Court Disposition

F&M's time for jurisdiction challenge extended; S. E. T.'s application for default judgment dismissed; F&M's challenge to jurisdiction dismissed.

Orders

  • Time for F&M's jurisdiction challenge extended to 3 May 2013.
  • S. E. T.'s application for judgment in default of defence dismissed.