Morrison v Panic Link [1993] ScotCS CSIH_8 (19 August 1993)

Morrison v Panic Link [1993] ScotCS CSIH_8 (19 August 1993)

The franchise agreement did not expressly or by necessary implication confer exclusive jurisdiction on the English courts; the use of 'may' is permissive. There is no exclusion of Scottish jurisdiction, and the contract's performance and connection to Scotland found jurisdiction in the Scottish courts. The defenders failed to show that the English courts were clearly or distinctly more appropriate as forum.

Citation
[1993] ScotCS CSIH_8
Parties
Pursuer: Morrison; Defender: Panic Link Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 August 1993
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Interlocutor Repelling Preliminary Pleas
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Clauses, Exclusive Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens, Contractual Interpretation
Conflict of Laws Contract Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Clauses Exclusive Jurisdiction Forum Non Conveniens Contractual Interpretation

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morrison

Pursuer

Panic Link Ltd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Interlocutor Repelling Preliminary Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the franchise agreement conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the English courts to the exclusion of Scottish courts
  2. 2 Whether the Scottish courts have jurisdiction to hear the action
  3. 3 Whether the plea of forum non conveniens should be upheld

Ratio Decidendi

The franchise agreement did not expressly or by necessary implication confer exclusive jurisdiction on the English courts; the use of 'may' is permissive. There is no exclusion of Scottish jurisdiction, and the contract's performance and connection to Scotland found jurisdiction in the Scottish courts. The defenders failed to show that the English courts were clearly or distinctly more appropriate as forum.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to

Orders

  • Defenders' reclaiming motion refused
  • Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary repelling preliminary pleas adhered to