UK: Cross-border issues and disputes: Jurisdiction, forum selection and parallel proceedings; and Governing law

Last Updated: 29 July 2011
Article by Daniel Hart

Originally published 27 July 2011

Keywords: cross-border, contract of guarantee, civil procedure rules, CPR

English Commercial Court decision on inter-related issues of governing law and jurisdiction:

Permission to serve English proceedings out of the jurisdiction on a Russian Defendant had been correctly granted to a Cayman Claimant, and the proceedings should continue in the English Courts. That was because:

  • applying the Rome Convention, there was a "good arguable case" that English law governed the contract of guarantee between them - so a "jurisdiction gateway" was established under the English Civil Procedure Rules; and
  • England was the most appropriate forum ("forum conveniens") for the dispute.

Summary

THE CASE:

The English Commercial Court recently handed down an interesting Judgment in Star Reefers Pool Inc v JFC Group Ltd [2011] EWHC 339 (Comm).

That Judgment concerned the jurisdiction of the English Courts under the "common law" rules (since the Brussels I Regulation and Lugano Conventions were inapplicable). One of the issues which arose in that context was the governing law of the agreement which was the subject of the dispute. The case is therefore a good illustration of one of the ways in which the two distinct issues of governing law and jurisdiction can inter-relate.

THE ISSUE:

The dispute before the English Court concerned a contract of guarantee between a Russian entity (the guarantor) and a Cayman entity (the owner of certain reefer vessels). By that contract, the Russian entity had guaranteed the performance of a third party charterer's obligations which were owed to the Cayman entity under a number of charterparties.

The charterparties contained a clause referring disputes to arbitration in London and an English governing law clause. However, the guarantee contained no forum selection provision nor an express choice of law.

The English Court had to decide whether or not it could, and should, hear the claim in relation to the guarantee. In essence, two issues arose for determination:

  1. Which country's law governed the guarantee pursuant to the 1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations (the "Rome Convention")? If there was a "good arguable case" that it was governed by English law, a "jurisdiction gateway" would be established under the Civil Procedure Rules ("CPR"). That would provide a basis on which permission to serve the English proceedings out of the jurisdiction might legitimately have been granted.
  2. If a CPR "jurisdiction gateway" was established, was England the most appropriate forum (or "forum conveniens") – i.e. the forum where the case may most suitably be tried for the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice? If so, the claim should proceed in the English Courts.

THE DECISION:

The Judge decided that the English Courts could, and should, hear the claim. He gave the following reasons:

  1. A CPR "jurisdiction gateway" was established since there was a "good arguable case" that the guarantee was governed by English law. The fact that the parties had made a choice of English law, although not express, was "demonstrated with reasonable certainty" - pursuant to Article 3.1 of the Rome Convention. That was because:

    1. there was an English governing law clause contained in the underlying charterparties; and
    2. the guarantor had considerable involvement with those agreements and their negotiation, and it also had close relationship with the charterer.

  2. Despite connections with the alternative forum (Russia), England was the forum conveniens. That was not only because of the likelihood that English law governed the guarantee (which was a significant, although not determinative, factor), but also because of the following other factors:

    1. the documents were in English;
    2. as the underlying charterparty dispute was to be determined by arbitration in England, it would make sense for the litigation concerning the guarantee to take place in England too - so as to allow the same lawyers and experts to be deployed; and
    3. the connections with Russia were minimal.

The decision is of interest for a number of reasons:

  • It highlights the importance of including both a forum selection clause and a governing law clause in all commercial contracts (and indeed in each contract, if there are a number of separate, but related, contracts).
  • It explores some of the hurdles which might have to be overcome before English proceedings may be pursued against a non-European Defendant in the absence of a jurisdiction clause.
  • It shows that, depending on the circumstances, the existence of a choice of law made by the parties might still be established despite the absence of an express choice.

Further details and analysis

THE PARTIES' RELATIONSHIPS AND CONTRACTS

  1. A Cayman Islands company called Star Reefers Pool Inc ("Star Reefers") operated and chartered reefer vessels. By two charterparties (the "Charterparties"), it chartered three vessels to a Cypriot company called Kalistad Limited ("Kalistad"). The Charterparties contained a clause referring disputes to arbitration in London and an English governing law clause.
  2. By a separate contract, JFC Group Ltd, a Russian company, ("JFC") guaranteed Kalistad's obligations. However, the guarantees (the "Guarantees") contained no forum selection provision nor an express choice of law.
  3. There was a close connection between Kalistad and JFC and it appeared that Kalistad was a company through which JFC imported fruit to Russia. Further, JFC was closely involved with the negotiation of the Charterparties, and they were entered into by Kalistad for JFC's benefit and use and themselves provided that Kalistad's obligations were to be guaranteed by JFC.

THE LONDON ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

  1. Disputes arose under the Charterparties. In March 2010 Star Reefers commenced arbitration proceedings in London against Kalistad for unpaid hire and damages for early re-delivery.
  2. On the same day, Star Reefers also brought arbitration proceedings in London against JFC. JFC disputed the jurisdiction of the arbitrator appointed by Star Reefers on the basis that JFC was not party to any arbitration agreement.

THE RUSSIAN PROCEEDINGS

  1. In June 2010, JFC then commenced proceedings in the Commercial Court in St Petersburg, Russia (the "Russian Proceedings") seeking a declaration that the Guarantees were not binding agreements between the parties.

THE ENGLISH PROCEEDINGS

  1. In October 2010, Star Reefers commenced proceedings in the Commercial Court in London (the "English Proceedings") seeking a declaration that JFC was liable to pay such damages as it may be awarded in the arbitration proceedings against Kalistad. It obtained permission to serve the Claim Form on the Russian guarantor out of the jurisdiction.
  2. The Claim Form was served later that month and, in November 2010, JFC filed an Acknowledgement of Service indicating an intention to contest the jurisdiction of the English Court to hear the claim.

THE ENGLISH ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION IN RESPECT OF THE RUSSIAN PROCEEDINGS

  1. Star Reefers also sought an anti-suit injunction from the English Court, prohibiting JFC from pursuing the Russian Proceedings.
  2. Such an anti-suit injunction was granted by Christopher Clarke J on the basis that the Russian Proceedings were vexatious or oppressive.
  3. Teare J subsequently upheld and continued that injunction by a further order in November 2010. He rejected JFC's arguments that the English Court did not have jurisdiction to grant the injunction, and also rejected its arguments that the Russian Proceedings were not vexatious or oppressive.

THE INTER-RELATED ISSUES FOR THE ENGLISH COURT

  1. JSC's application to contest the jurisdiction of the English Court to hear JSC's claim then came before the Court.
  2. It was not asserted by Star Reefers that Teare J's judgment (as regards the jurisdiction of the English Court to grant the anti-suit injunction) gave rise to any "res judicata" or "issue estoppel" so as to bind the Court or the parties as regards any of the decisions he had reached in rendering that judgment. Consequently, the Judge, Andrew Smith J, considered entirely afresh the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the English Proceedings.
  3. The Defendant was not domiciled in either the EU nor Iceland, Norway or Switzerland. Further, there was no other factor which otherwise rendered either the Brussels I Regulation (i.e. Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001), or one of the Lugano Conventions, applicable. Consequently, the question of jurisdiction was governed by the English "common law" rules.
  4. Since the Claim Form had been served out of the jurisdiction, the Claimant had to establish each of the following if the English Courts were to hear the claim:

    1. there was a "serious issue to be tried" because the claim in question had a "reasonable prospect of success"; and
    2. there was a "good arguable case" that a CPR "jurisdiction gateway" (as set out in CPR 6BPD para 3.1) was established; and
    3. England was the "forum conveniens" – i.e. the forum where the case would most suitably be tried for the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice.

  5. Since the first of the three requirements was met, only the other two issues arose for determination. However, the claim would only proceed in England if both of the other two requirements could also be satisfied.
  6. The existence of a CPR "jurisdiction gateway" was dependent upon the governing law, or rather the likely governing law, of the Guarantees. In particular, the issue was:

    Was there a "good arguable case" that the Guarantees were governed by English law for the purposes of CPR 6BPD para 3.1(6)(c)?
  7. The question of whether England was the forum conveniens in essence involved a "weighing up" of the various factors connecting the dispute to England as against those connecting the dispute with Russia.

THE GOVERNING LAW QUESTION

  1. Although applicable to the question of jurisdiction as a whole, the "common law" was irrelevant to the sub-issue as to the governing law of the Guarantees. That issue would instead be determined pursuant to the Rome Convention.
  2. The Rome Convention has now largely been superseded by Regulation 593/2008 (colloquially referred to as "Rome I"). Many of the rules in Rome I are similar to those in the Rome Convention, but there are some key differences. However, the Rome Convention still applied in this case since Rome I only concerns contracts concluded after 17 December 2009, and the Guarantees dated back to October 2008.
  3. Star Reefers contended that English law governed the Guarantees. It did so on the basis of Article 3.1 of the Rome Convention, or, failing that, under Article 4.
  4. Article 3.1 of the Rome Convention provides:

    "A contract shall be governed by the law chosen by the parties. The choice must be express or demonstrated with reasonable certainty by the terms of the contract or the circumstances of the case..."

    (Note that the equivalent provision in Article 3.1 of Rome I is slightly different – and perhaps more onerous. It provides that "...The choice shall be made expressly or clearly demonstrated by the terms of the contract or the circumstances of the case".)
  5. Star Reefers argued that, although there was no express choice of law contained in the Guarantees, it could be "demonstrated with reasonable certainty" that the parties had chosen English law to govern them, pursuant to Article 3.1 of the Rome Convention. That was on the basis that:

    1. The Charterparties themselves contained an express choice of English law.
    2. There was a particularly close connection between the Charterparties and the Guarantees and between the charterer (Kalistad) and the guarantor (JFC). In particular:

      1. Kalistad was effectively the nomineecompany of JFC and that is how JFC chose to describe Kalistad in the Guarantees themselves;
      2. JFC engaged in the negotiations of the Charterparties and agreed their wording;
      3. copies of the Charterparties were sent by Star Reefers to JFC rather than Kalistad in order for them to be signed;
      4. a provision in the Charterparties themselves required that the Guarantees be given; and
      5. JFC had previously entered into an agreement with Kalistad which was expressed to be governed by English law, and it was pursuant to that agreement that the vessels chartered were hired.

  6. Further and alternatively, Star Reefers contended that English law governed the Guarantees even if there was no such choice of law by the parties. It did so on the basis that England was the country with which the Guarantees were most closely connected under Article 4 of the Rome Convention.
  7. For the latter argument to be successful, it would be necessary (by Article 4.5) to rebut the presumption that the Guarantees were most closely connected with Russia. That presumption arose under Article 4.2 - because JFC (as the guarantor) was the party to effect the performance which was characteristic of the Guarantees, and its "principal place of business" was in Russia.

THE DECISION ON THE GOVERNING LAW QUESTION

  1. The Judge decided that there was a "good arguable case" that the Guarantees were governed by English law pursuant to Article 3.1 of the Rome Convention. He therefore did not need to consider the alternative argument advanced pursuant to Article 4. His reasoning was as follows:

    1. There were a number of "common law" authorities on the question of governing law which indicated that it was often to be inferred that a guarantee was to be governed by the same law as the contract giving rise to the primary obligations. However, such authorities were inapplicable when applying the Rome Convention, which envisaged the application of a different test.
    2. Thus, under Article 3.1 of the Rome Convention, the role of a Court was not to "imply" a choice of law from a close connection with a particular country, but rather to discern whether a choice of law could be "demonstrated with reasonable certainty" in the circumstances of the case. In other words, for Article 3.1 to apply, the parties must have had a clear intention to make such a choice - and, without that clear intention, no choice could be implied.
    3. One example given in the Giuliano-Lagarde Report (a report on the effect of the Rome Convention) of circumstances in which such a choice of law, not expressly made, might be so demonstrated was where there is an express choice of law in related transactions between the same parties.
    4. That said, if the parties to the transactions were different (as here), then that would, in some instances, be a persuasive reason for distinguishing the case from the example given in the Giuliano-Lagarde Report.
    5. However, in this case the charterer (Kalistad) and the guarantor (JFC) were so closely related and JFC's involvement in the Charterparties was such that there was no sensible basis for distinguishing these circumstances from the exemplar circumstances in the Giuliano- Lagarde Report.
    6. Consequently, there was a "good arguable case" that a clear intention to make a choice of English law would, in this case, be "demonstrated with reasonable certainty", and thus that English law governed the Guarantees.

THE DECISION ON JURISDICTION

  1. As a result of the Judge's conclusion that there was a "good arguable case" that English law governed the Guarantees, a CPR "jurisdiction gateway" was established.
  2. Thus, the question of whether or not the English Court should hear the claim turned on the question of whether or not England was the "forum conveniens" – i.e. the most appropriate forum for the dispute.
  3. The Judge decided that England was clearly the forum conveniens. His reasoning was as follows:

    1. The likelihood that English law governed the Guarantees was significant, but not determinative in this respect.
    2. However, other factors pointed to England too, specifically:

      1. The documents were in English and would not need to be translated if the dispute was heard in England.
      2. It made sense for any litigation to take place in England since the underlying dispute (in relation to the Charterparties) was to be arbitrated in England. Thus, any dispute about the Guarantee could deploy the same lawyers and experts as in the arbitration.

    3. By contrast, the only connection with Russia was that JFC was Russian and resident in Russia.
    4. Although JFC suggested that there might be a question about the capacity of those giving the Guarantees, there was no evidence supporting that suggestion and, on the face of it, it was difficult to understand how such an argument could be advanced. Even if that assertion was made, it would not outweigh the other considerations pointing towards England as the appropriate forum.

  4. As a consequence, the Judge decided that JFC's application to contest juridiction failed and that thus the claim would proceed in the English Courts.

COMMERCIAL IMPLICATIONS

  1. The Judgment is of the following general interest:

    1. First, it illustrates how the questions of forum and governing law are distinct, and yet provides an illustration of how one may sometimes affect the other.
    2. Second, it considers some of the relevant tests, under the Rome Convention, for establishing the governing law of a contract in the absence of an express choice.
    3. Third, it explores some of the hurdles to be overcome before English proceedings may be pursued against non-European Defendants in circumstances in which there is no English jurisdiction clause.

  2. The decision itself has a number of practical implications:

    1. It highlights the importance of including both a forum selection clause and a governing law clause in all commercial contracts (and indeed in each contract if there are a number of separate, but related, contracts).
    2. It shows that, in some circumstances, the existence of a choice of law by the parties might still be established despite the absence of an express choice.
    3. It notes that, in the absence of a choice made by the parties, the question of the governing law is determined by uncertain "closest connection" tests under Article 4 of the Rome Convention or Rome I. These involve the application, and possible rebuttal, of specified presumptions or rules, which might produce unexpected results.

Learn more about our Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice.

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the Mayer Brown Practices). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP, a limited liability partnership established in the United States; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership, and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2011. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.