ICBCL Financial Leasing v CG Commercial Finance
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Males |
| Judgment Date | 14 August 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 3156 (Comm) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Date | 14 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2014-954 |
[2014] EWHC 3156 (Comm)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Males
Case No: 2014-954
Mr Nigel Jacob QC appeared on behalf of the Claimant
The Defendant was not represented
Thursday, 14 August 2014
This is the return date following the grant by Mr Justice Andrew Smith on 7 August of an anti-suit injunction to restrain the defendant from pursuing proceedings in California. The injunction was granted on an interim basis. Since then the parties' representatives, the defendant being represented by Covington and Burling LLP in New York, have been discussing the procedure with a view to adjourning the return date to as to enable the defendant to file evidence resisting the injunction. However, that process did not in the end result in agreement, and the matter has therefore come before me today.
The defendant has not been represented but I have read a letter dated 13 August, that is, yesterday, from Covington and Burling in New York, signed by Mr C. William Phillips, which was written to the claimant's solicitors, and requested that it should be brought to my attention, as it has been. It is said in that letter that it is hoped that next week the defendant will be able to appoint English counsel, and to address a reasonable schedule for the finding of evidence. I would expect that the reference to English counsel is simply the US way of referring to English lawyers, and therefore in practice probably means solicitors.
It seems to me that it is appropriate for this matter to be adjourned, and for the injunction which was granted by Mr Justice Andrew Smith to be continued in the meanwhile. The essential issue appears to be whether the jurisdiction clause in the agreement between the parties provides for exclusive English jurisdiction or only non-exclusive English jurisdiction. It appears to me that there is at least a good arguable case that, on its true construction, it does provide for exclusive jurisdiction, and on that basis the injunction should continue in the meanwhile.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arjowiggins Hkk2 Ltd v Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Ltd
...the JV Contract between the Claimant and the Respondent. Like the English Court in ICBCL Financial Leasing v CG Commercial Finance [2014] EWHC 3156 (Comm), I am prepared to extend the injunction sought by the Claimant to restrain the further conduct of the 2017 Proceedings against Unconscio......