Semple Cochrane Plc v P & O Cruises (UK) Ltd [2000] ScotCS 249 (15 September 2000)

Semple Cochrane Plc v P & O Cruises (UK) Ltd [2000] ScotCS 249 (15 September 2000)

The exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract, by its wording and definition of 'order', applies to the entire contract, including the provision of labour, and effectively prorogates jurisdiction to the English courts to the exclusion of the Scottish courts.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 249
Parties
Pursuer: Semple Cochrane Plc; Defender: P & O Cruises (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 September 2000
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Jurisdictional Challenge (preliminary Issue)
Outcome
Action dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Clauses, Interpretation of Contract Terms, Prorogation of Jurisdiction
Contract Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Clauses Interpretation of Contract Terms Prorogation of Jurisdiction

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Semple Cochrane Plc

Pursuer

P & O Cruises (UK) Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Jurisdictional Challenge (preliminary Issue)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract prorogates jurisdiction to the English courts to the exclusion of Scottish courts
  2. 2 Whether the supply of labour falls within the contractual definition of 'goods' or 'services' for the purposes of the jurisdiction clause

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract, by its wording and definition of 'order', applies to the entire contract, including the provision of labour, and effectively prorogates jurisdiction to the English courts to the exclusion of the Scottish courts.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Defenders' first plea-in-law upheld
  • Action dismissed