Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
What happens when a contractual dispute arises and there is a choice of jurisdiction? If an EU dispute, and you wanted to bring proceedings in the jurisdiction which is the place of obligation for performance under the contract rather than where the defendant is domiciled, the starting point would be article 5(1) of Brussels I.
This was the issue recently before Mackie J in Canyon Offshore v GDF Suez E&P Nederland  EWHC 3810 (Comm). On the facts, Mackie J held that art 5(1) applied to found jurisdiction of the court even though there was a choice of jurisdiction for the performance of the obligation under the contract. That may well seem the pragmatic thing to do but having given judgment he gave permission to appeal.
The culprit for the difficulties in this area is the ECJ decision in Besix v Wasserreinigungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar Case C-256/00,  All ER (D) 280 (May) which set out a requirement that art 5(1) only applied if a single place of performance could be identified. Later English court judgments, considering cases in which there were differing places of performance, do not refer to Besix and do not set out a requirement for a sole place of performance. These apparently conflicting decisions combined, as they are, with an area of law where the principles are not straight forward creates difficulties not only for litigators but also commercial lawyers drafting contracts with an international element.
In Canyon Offshore, the place of performance was not set out in a contractual agreement but rather was stated in the invoices. However, the underlying principles applied by Mackie J arose out of cases dealing with places of performance within the contracts. Currently, it appears to be the case that if there is 'sufficient proximity and predictability' between courts in which proceedings are/have been commenced and the dispute itself, art 5(1) can still be applied. However, the position may well change if the appeal is pursued and a Court of Appeal judgment is handed down. For the moment, practitioners should advise clients that there is currently a question mark over whether the provision of more than one place of performance under a contract may result in art 5 not being available. The inability to rely on art 5 to bring proceedings in the place of performance of the contract, rather than the domicile of the defendant under the general rule in art 2, may well have a profound effect on any subsequent litigation.
Looking to the future, any guidance in this area will apply equally to Brussels I (recast) as the provisions in this area are identical. They now appear in art 7(1).
Subscribers to LexisPSL DR, can find analysis of the case here. Click here for a one week trial.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial. See our full terms here.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
Janna is a dispute resolution lawyer. She deals primarily with cross border issues and is active in the work being undertaken in relation to the implications of Brexit for Dispute Resolution lawyers. Janna also heads up a LexisNexis costs team bringing together expertise from across the company to deal with the costs issues facing the profession.
0330 161 1234