Tag Archives: Brussels Recast

PHP v Tobacco Carib Sarl v BAT Caribbean SA [2016] EWHC 3377 (Comm): Brussels Recast & third party claims

This blog is by Max Archer of 12 King’s Bench Walk.

 

The claimant in this case was French company engaged in importing tobacco products to Guadeloupe and Martinique. The defendant was Panamanian company within the wider BAT corporate group.

The claimant had a five-year distribution agreement with the defendant. The agreement provided for English law and exclusive jurisdiction. This agreement came to an end without any further agreement to renew it.

The claimant commenced English proceedings in pursuit of what it claimed was a ‘margin pay-out’ of €6.5 million. It was claimed that it was entitled to this pay-out pursuant to the agreement as a result of the failure to renew. The defendant denied any entitlement to a pay-out and counterclaimed for numerous unpaid invoices and for €8.5 million of VAT recovered from the French VAT authorities. The Defendant argued that it was to be paid these VAT monies pursuant to an oral agreement.

The claimant denied these allegations and alleged that there was no enforceable agreement. The claimant argued that the agreement in respect of the VAT monies did not lie with itself but with the other group companies (the proposed third and fourth defendants). These companies had been subcontracted to carry out distribution in the relevant territories and had recovered the VAT monies themselves. Continue reading PHP v Tobacco Carib Sarl v BAT Caribbean SA [2016] EWHC 3377 (Comm): Brussels Recast & third party claims

Harry Roberts (A Child) (Claimant) v (1) SSAFA (2) MoD (Defendants/Part 20 Claimants) & Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen GMBH (Third Party) [2016] EWHC 2744 (QB): Jurisdiction & the Brussels Recast Regulation

This blog is by Oliver Rudd of 12 King’s Bench Walk

The importance of (i) drafting a properly formulated application notice; and (ii) a thorough consideration of all extant contractual documentation and related evidence were starkly highlighted in this case in which the Court held that it did have jurisdiction to entertain Part 20 proceedings following alleged negligent medical treatment in Germany. The Court also gave useful guidance as to the interpretation of art. 8(2) of Brussels Recast (EU 1215/2012). Continue reading Harry Roberts (A Child) (Claimant) v (1) SSAFA (2) MoD (Defendants/Part 20 Claimants) & Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen GMBH (Third Party) [2016] EWHC 2744 (QB): Jurisdiction & the Brussels Recast Regulation