Caledonia Subsea Ltd v. Micoperi SRL [2002] ScotCS 345 (12 July 2002)

Caledonia Subsea Ltd v. Micoperi SRL [2002] ScotCS 345 (12 July 2002)

The law applicable to the contract is that of Scotland, as the characteristic performance (provision of diving services) was by Caledonia Subsea Limited, whose principal place of business was in Scotland. The presumption in Article 4(2) was not displaced, as the connections to Scotland were substantial and the circumstances as a whole did not demonstrate a clear preponderance in favour of Egypt.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 345
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: Caledonia Subsea Limited; Defenders and Reclaimers: Micoperi SRL
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Appellate Judgment on Jurisdictional Plea
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary affirmed.
Legal Topics
Applicable Law of Contract, Rome Convention Article 4, Jurisdiction of Scottish Courts, Characteristic Performance, Conflict of Laws
Private International Law Contract Law Applicable Law of Contract Rome Convention Article 4 Jurisdiction of Scottish Courts Characteristic Performance Conflict of Laws

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caledonia Subsea Limited

Pursuers and Respondents

Micoperi SRL

Defenders and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Appellate Judgment on Jurisdictional Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the law applicable to the contract between Caledonia Subsea Limited and Micoperi SRL under Article 4 of the Rome Convention?
  2. 2 Should the presumption in Article 4(2) (characteristic performance) be disregarded in favour of Egyptian law under Article 4(5)?

Ratio Decidendi

The law applicable to the contract is that of Scotland, as the characteristic performance (provision of diving services) was by Caledonia Subsea Limited, whose principal place of business was in Scotland. The presumption in Article 4(2) was not displaced, as the connections to Scotland were substantial and the circumstances as a whole did not demonstrate a clear preponderance in favour of Egypt.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary affirmed.

Orders

  • The plea-in-law that the defenders were not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Session is repelled.
  • The law applicable to the contract is the law of Scotland.