Matter
Claxton Engineering Services Limited v TXM Olaj-Es Gazkutato KTF (High Court of Justice, Commercial Court 2010 Folio 0047)
- 15 October 2010United Kingdom
15 October 2010United Kingdom
Judgment of the High Court of Justice, Commercial Court dated 15 October 2010
High Court of Justice, Commercial Court
- Decision summary
- The court rejected TXM Olaj-Es Gazkutato KTF's jurisdictional challenge. Except for disputed invoice 861, it held that the parties had agreed an exclusive English jurisdiction clause; alternatively, it held that the English court had jurisdiction under Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001.
Supporting details
6 authorities · 5 participantsClaxton Engineering Services Limited
- Representative
- Matthew Cook (For: Claxton Engineering Services Limited)
TXM Olaj-Es Gazkutato KTF
- Representative
- Stewart Shackleton (For: TXM Olaj-Es Gazkutato KTF)
High Court of Justice, Commercial Court
- Judge
- Gloster
2 months and 1 day later · 62 days
- 16 December 2010United Kingdom
16 December 2010United Kingdom
Decision of the Court of Appeal dated 16 December 2010
Court of Appeal
- Decision summary
- The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal on paper and refused the application to stay the proceedings pending permission to appeal. It held that the judge was correct to determine whether an arbitration agreement existed, that no such agreement existed, and that the English court had jurisdiction under Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001.
Supporting details
2 authorities · 3 participants1 month and 16 days later · 47 days
- 1 February 2011United Kingdom
1 February 2011United Kingdom
Judgment of the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court in the case 2010 Folio 0047 dated 1 February 2011
High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court
- Citation
- [2011] EWHC 345 (Comm)
- Decision summary
- The court granted an anti-arbitration injunction restraining TXM from pursuing the Hungarian arbitration. It held that it had jurisdiction because the arbitration fell outside the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, and found exceptional circumstances because the English court had already determined that the parties were subject to an exclusive English jurisdiction clause and that no arbitration agreement existed; the injunction was subject to the position changing if TXM succeeded in its pending appeal.
Supporting details
26 authorities · 9 participantsClaxton Engineering Services Limited
- Representative
- C Reffin (For: Claxton Engineering Services Limited)
- Representative
- Birketts LLP (For: Claxton Engineering Services Limited)
TXM Olaj-Es Gazkutato KTF
- Representative
- Stewart Shackleton (For: TXM Olaj-Es Gazkutato KTF)
- Representative
- Mundays LLP (For: TXM Olaj-Es Gazkutato KTF)
High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court
- Judge
- Hamblen
Other