G v R
[2023] EWHC 2365 (Comm)
Ebury Partners Belgium NV/SA v Grossiste Francochine SARL
3 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 3396 (Comm)
High Court
Two companies had a contract saying any disagreements would be settled in an English court. One company tried to go to a French court instead. The English court said no, the contract must be followed, even though the French company tried to argue it had special protections under French law. The English court said the contract is the most important thing here.
Key Facts
- •Ebury Partners Belgium NV/SA (claimant) sought an interim anti-suit injunction against Grossiste Francochine SARL (defendant) regarding French proceedings.
- •The dispute arose from the defendant's alleged failure to pay margin calls, leading to the termination of a Relationship Agreement.
- •The Relationship Agreement contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favor of the English courts.
- •The defendant argued the jurisdiction clause was void under French law, citing the French Consumer Code.
- •The defendant, a French company selling vaping products, argued it was a 'non-professional' under French law and entitled to greater protection.
Legal Principles
Grant of anti-suit injunctions to restrain foreign proceedings in breach of a jurisdiction agreement.
Section 37(1) Senior Courts Act; QBE Europe SA/NV v Generali Espana de Seguros Y Reaseguros [2022] EWHC 2062 (Comm)
Respect for comity is not a strong reason to refuse enforcement of a contractual choice of forum clause.
Males LJ in AIG Europe (cited in QBE Europe)
Existence of mandatory foreign law overriding a contractual choice of jurisdiction is not a strong reason to refuse an anti-suit injunction.
QBE Europe [2022] EWHC 2062 (Comm)
English courts generally adopt an uncompromising approach to conflicts in anti-suit injunction cases if the defendant is in actionable breach of contract by breaching an exclusive forum clause.
Thomas Raphael, KC, “The Anti-Suit Injunction”, 2nd edition, paragraphs 8.31 to 8.44
Rome I Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 determines the applicable law of the contract, but not jurisdiction agreements. The validity of the jurisdiction clause is governed by English law if the contract is governed by English law (Article 10.1 Rome I).
Rome I Regulation (EC) No 593/2008; Judge's reasoning
Outcomes
The claimant's application for an interim anti-suit injunction was granted.
The court found no strong reason to decline enforcing the exclusive jurisdiction agreement, despite the defendant's argument regarding French consumer protection laws. The court emphasized the importance of upholding the parties' freely chosen bargain and the difficulty of successfully invoking Article 3.3 of the Rome I Regulation to displace the English jurisdiction clause.
Claimant awarded £42,000 in costs.
The court considered the complexity of the application and the defendant's late instruction of English lawyers, but made deductions reflecting points raised by the defendant.