It is appropriate for a court to take into account the relative merits of the parties' arguments in deciding whether a claimant has a 'good arguable case' that a jurisdictional gateway applies, following the Court of Appeal's decision in Kaefar Aislamientos SA de CV v AMS Drilling Mexico SA de CV.(1) Where the court does not have the evidence to decide which party has the better argument, a more flexible approach should be adopted.

What happened?

The claimant carried out work at an oil drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico and sought permission to serve four companies out of the jurisdiction for sums which were due under the relevant contract. The claimant argued that the jurisdictional gateway in Article 25 of the Recast Brussels Regulation applied, because the parties were bound by an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts.

However, only two of the defendants (AMS and AMS Mexico) were parties to the contract containing the exclusive jurisdiction clause and they were in financial difficulties. In order to establish that the jurisdictional gateway applied in respect of the other two defendants (AT1 and Ezion), the claimant had to show a good arguable case that they were acting as AMS and AMS Mexico's undisclosed principals in relation to the contract and so were bound by the exclusive jurisdiction clause.

Court of Appeal's decision

The Court of Appeal decided that it did not have jurisdiction over AT1 and Ezion because on the facts the claimant did not have a good arguable case that they had acted as AMS and AMS Mexico's undisclosed principals and were therefore bound by the exclusive jurisdiction clause.

How to show a good arguable case

The court confirmed that the test to be applied when determining whether the claimant has established a good arguable case that a jurisdictional gateway exists is as follows:

  • The claimant must have a plausible evidential basis that the relevant jurisdictional gateway applies. The court should consider whether the claimant has a better argument that the evidential basis exists, although a much better argument is not required. Therefore, the test is relative and a claimant's success will depend on the strength of its arguments compared with the defendant's arguments.
  • If there is an issue of fact or some other reason for doubting whether the jurisdictional gateway applies, the court must take a view on the material that is available if it can reliably do so. This acknowledges that an element of pragmatism is required where the decision on jurisdiction is taking place at an interim stage without all of the evidence that would be available at a trial.
  • If no reliable assessment can be made of the evidential basis for the gateway, then there will be a good arguable case if there is a plausible (albeit contested) evidential basis for it. In these circumstances, the court need not consider which party has the better argument.

Is it all relative?

It is now clear that a claimant must usually show that it has the better argument that a jurisdictional gateway has been established before it obtains permission to serve out of the jurisdiction. In circumstances where the evidence is thin, it is not all relative and a claimant is required only to demonstrate a plausible evidential basis that the gateway exists. However, the court warned that claimants should not try to engineer a lack of evidence by making extensive document requests from defendants.

This article was first published by the International Law Office, a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. Register for a free subscription.

Endnotes

(1) 2019 EWCA, Civ 10.

This article was first published by the International Law Office, a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. Register for a free subscription.