Norbev Limited v CSI Hungary KFT
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Master Harvey |
| Judgment Date | 20 October 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] NIMaster 7 |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2023] NIMaster 7
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: 2023NIMaster7
ICOS No: 20/047315
Delivered: 20/10/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
___________
NORBEV LIMITED
Plaintiff
and
CSI HUNGARY KFT
Defendant
________________________________
Mr Fletcher BL (instructed by A&L Goodbody Solicitors) for the Defendant,
Mr McCausland BL (instructed by Hinds & Co Solicitors) for the Plaintiff.
_________________________________
Master Harvey
Introduction
[1] This is a two-fold application by the defendant in a commercial action seeking
to set aside service of the writ of summons together with a further application for a
stay of proceedings on the basis that exclusive jurisdiction to hear the claim is
contractually reserved to the courts in Hungary.
[2] Both counsel’s submissions were of a high standard and of great assistance to
the court.
Background
[3] The plaintiff is a Northern Ireland company based in Ballymena which
manufactures soft drinks on behalf of world leading brands for distribution globally.
The defendant is a supplier of closure devices for bottles based in Hungary. The cause
of action against the defendant alleges breach of contract for alleged failure to supply
2
closures that were fit for purpose. There was no bespoke supply agreement or contract
between the parties, therefore, a series of emails, purchase orders, order
confirmations, invoices and delivery notes represent the only documentation
exchanged.
[4] The Plaintiff issued a writ of summons on 10 July 2020 in which it claimed the
following relief:
“Damages for loss and damage sustained by the Plaintiff
by reason of the breach of contract of the Defendant, its
servants and agents, in or about the sale and supply of
goods by the Defendant to the Plaintiff from in or about
2017 to November 2018 in respect of sale and supply of
closures for bottles.
Interest on damages pursuant to section 33A of the
Judicature (NI) Act 1978.”
[5] The solicitors for the plaintiff sought to effect service of the writ of summons
(together with a notice of writ) directly to the defendant at its address in Hungary
under cover of a letter dated 28 August 2020. No personal service was effected nor
was a translation of the writ of summons or notice of writ provided at this stage.
[6] On 11 March 2021 the defendant issued the instant application. The plaintiff
then served the writ of summons and notice of writ again on 16 June 2021 via a
Hungarian lawyer, Dr Bohanek by post. On this occasion a Hungarian translation was
provided.
[7] In addition to the disputed method of service, an issue arises regarding the
proper jurisdiction for hearing the claim. The defendant asserts that the parties have
agreed to an exclusive jurisdiction clause which was incorporated into the contract
between the parties. Moreover, even if the court does not accept this, it is contended
that the circumstances of the case are such that the relevant EU Regulations point to
Hungary as the appropriate forum for the case to be heard. The plaintiff submits that
there was no direction to the exclusive jurisdiction clause, its existence was not drawn
to the plaintiff’s attention and the clause is an unfair term, therefore, asserting that the
correct jurisdiction for the proceedings is Northern Ireland.
The Service issue
The defendant’s submissions
To continue reading
Request your trial