Standard Bank Plc & Anor v Just Group LLC & Ors
The claim against UBR raised a serious issue to be tried but did not fall within gateway (3) as UBR was not a necessary or proper party to the claims against the anchor defendants; the claim was subject to the Mongolian exclusive jurisdiction clause; England was not the proper forum; and Standard Bank's failure to disclose the jurisdiction clause was a serious breach justifying setting aside service.
- Parties
- Claimant: Standard Bank PLC; Claimant: The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited; Defendant: Just Group LLC; Defendant: Just Oil LLC; Defendant: Erdtana LLC; Defendant: Mercantile House LLC; Defendant: Just Agro LLC; Defendant: Mercantile House Company Limited; Defendant: Erdenet Mining Corporation LLC (also known as Erdenet Company LLC); Defendant: JSC Ulaanbaatar Railways (UBR); Defendant: Mr Batkhuu Sharavlamdan
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 10 October 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial Court Claim (jurisdiction Challenge) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Service and Contest Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Application to set aside service on UBR granted; declaration of no jurisdiction made.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Collateral Contract, Disclosure Obligations, Proper Forum, Assignment of Contractual Rights
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Standard Bank PLC
Claimant
The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited
Claimant
Just Group LLC
Defendant
Just Oil LLC
Defendant
Erdtana LLC
Defendant
Mercantile House LLC
Defendant
Just Agro LLC
Defendant
Mercantile House Company Limited
Defendant
Erdenet Mining Corporation LLC (also known as Erdenet Company LLC)
Defendant
JSC Ulaanbaatar Railways (UBR)
Defendant
Mr Batkhuu Sharavlamdan
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim (jurisdiction Challenge) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Service and Contest Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over UBR under CPR 6.36 gateway (3)
- 2 Whether the claim falls within the Mongolian exclusive jurisdiction clause
- 3 Whether England is the proper forum for the claim
Ratio Decidendi
The claim against UBR raised a serious issue to be tried but did not fall within gateway (3) as UBR was not a necessary or proper party to the claims against the anchor defendants; the claim was subject to the Mongolian exclusive jurisdiction clause; England was not the proper forum; and Standard Bank's failure to disclose the jurisdiction clause was a serious breach justifying setting aside service.
Court Disposition
Application to set aside service on UBR granted; declaration of no jurisdiction made.
Orders
- Service of the claim form on UBR set aside
- Declaration that the court has no jurisdiction over UBR in this claim
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment