Establishing the extent of the UK court’s jurisdiction (AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and others)

Establishing the extent of the UK court’s jurisdiction (AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and others)

The Supreme Court’s ruling in AMT Futures v Marzillier that the English courts lacked jurisdiction to hear a claim brought against a German firm of solicitors for the tort of inducing a breach of contract is examined by Pierre Janusz, barrister, of 3 Hare Court.

Original news

AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and others [2017] UKSC 13, [2017] All ER (D) 06 (Mar)

The Supreme Court, dismissing an appeal by a UK derivatives broker, held that the English courts did not have jurisdiction to hear its claim that its clients had been induced by the respondent German firm of lawyers to breach their contracts. For the purposes of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (Brussels I), which gave jurisdiction in tort claims to the courts for the place in which the harmful event had occurred or might occur, that place had been Germany.

What was the background to the case?

Investors from Germany and other countries had been introduced to the appellant by independent brokers in Germany. Many of the investors had lost money as a result of the options trades which the appellant had processed. Using the services of the respondent, they commenced legal proceedings in Germany, claiming that the introducing brokers had given them bad investment advice or had failed to warn them of the risks, and that the appellant had breached its duty in tort to prevent any transactions being undertaken contrary to their interests. The appellant paid out more than £2m in legal costs and settlement costs.

The appellant brought proceedings in the High Court against the investors and the respondent. The appellant claimed that by bringing proceedings in Germany, the investors had breached their contracts, which contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts. The appellant claimed that the respondent had committed the tort of inducing those breaches.

The respondent applied for a

Subscription Form

Related Articles:
Latest Articles:

Already a subscriber? Login
RELX (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis, and our LexisNexis Legal & Professional group companies will contact you to confirm your email address. You can manage your communication preferences via our Preference Centre. You can learn more about how we handle your personal data and your rights by reviewing our  Privacy Policy.

Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.

Read full article

Already a subscriber? Login

About the author:

Meet Neil:

1. Banking and finance lawyer with particular experience in asset finance

2. Likes Wales, wine, sport and anything else that means he doesn’t have the time to have to write personal information about himself

3. Thinks the law is a far broader topic than any of his family and friends who do not work in law

Neil specialises in banking and asset finance transactions with a particular emphasis in finance for shipping, aviation and renewable energy, as well as providing corporate transactional support. He trained and qualified at TLT LLP and spent a further four years working as a finance solicitor, acting for borrowers and lenders before joining the Asset Finance team at DLA Piper (UK) LLP.