10. Article 1(2) provided that a case was “international” unless (amongst others) "the parties are resident in the same Contracting State". Here the claimant was resident in the United Kingdom whilst the defendant was resident in Italy so this was clearly an "international case". "Exclusive choice of court" agreements were defined in article 3. The choice of court agreement in this case was such an agreement because clause 19 of the contract designated the courts of Paris, France to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other court. 11. .Article 6 of the 2005 Hague Convention provided that a court of a contracting state (in this case the UK) other than that of the chosen court (in this case Paris, France) "shall suspend or dismiss proceedings to which an exclusive choice of court agreement applies unless …….(c) giving effect to the agreement would lead to a manifest injustice or would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the State of the court seised;
14. "Interim measures of protection" are not a defined term in the 2005 Hague Convention; but art. 4 (1) defined "judgment" as meaning "any decision on the merits given by a court, whatever it may be called, including a decree or order, and a determination of costs or expenses by the court (including an officer of the court), provided that the determination relates to a decision on the merits which may be recognised or enforced under this Convention. An interim measure of protection is not a judgment." 15. As neither party submitted evidence of Italian law, the implied term in the contract was to be interpreted in default in accordance with English law. 16. Neither party submitted any evidence of the availability or utility of summary judgment procedures in the courts of Paris, France. The Issues The claimant contended that giving effect to clause 19 of the contract would lead to manifest injustice or was manifestly contrary to the public policy to be derived from the Act. But that in any case the enforcement of the adjudicators’ award was an “interim measure of protection” within the meaning of the 2005 Hague Convention. The defendant contended the contrary in each case. The parties deployed detailed arguments citing cases on both the ‘old’ law on the Brussels Regulation and the 2005 Hague Convention, including its explanatory notes. The cases referred to are set out at the front of the judgment.
12. I t was common ground that Article 6 (a), (b), (d) and (e) were not engaged.
13. The claimant also relied on Article 7: "Interim measures of protection are not governed by [the Hague] Convention. [That] Convention neither requires nor precludes the grant, refusal or termination of interim measures of protection by a court of a Contracting State and does not affect whether or not a party may request or a court should grant, refuse or terminate such measures."
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker