DSG International Sourcing Ltd & Anor v Universal Media Corporation (Slovakia) SRO

Jurisdiction under the Judgments Regulation may be established through an exclusive or non-exclusive jurisdiction agreement where the claimant has the better of the argument that the agreement governs the transactions. The good arguable case standard requires the claimant to show that it has much the better of the argument on the material presently available.

A defective service notice does not necessarily prevent reliance on the Regulation. Where the error causes no material prejudice, the court may permit service under its procedural and case-management powers.

The claimants, members of the Dixons group, sought contractual refunds and related damages from a Slovakian television manufacturer. They contended that OEM televisions were supplied under the TTOPS agreement and branded televisions under an umbrella agreement incorporating purchase terms, both containing English jurisdiction provisions in different forms.

The defendant challenged the English court’s jurisdiction and objected to the claimants’ defective Form N510 notice. The central issues were whether the claimants had established jurisdiction under Articles 23 or 5 of Council Regulation EC 44/2001, and whether the proceedings could be served despite the procedural defect.

1. Jurisdiction under the contractual agreements. The claimants established a good arguable case, in the sense stated in Bols Distilleries v Superior Yacht Services [2006] UKPC 45, that OEM televisions were supplied under Version 7 of the TTOPS agreement. The agreement was between the relevant parties and its exclusive English jurisdiction clause applied to claims arising from delivery under the agreement.
2. The claimants also established a good arguable case that branded televisions were supplied under an umbrella agreement incorporating DSG Retail’s Trading Terms and Standard Purchase Terms. That agreement contained a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the courts of England and Wales. Article 23 of the Judgments Regulation therefore provided a sufficient basis for jurisdiction.
3. Alternative jurisdictional bases. It was unnecessary to decide the alternative grounds. The court nevertheless observed that delivery of the branded televisions in England brought the claim within Article 5(1), subject to the procedural issues. Article 5(1), as amended from the Brussels Convention, identifies the place of delivery rather than the place of payment for sales of goods.
4. Defective service notice. The claimants had filed an inapposite Form N510 referring to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgment Act 1982 rather than the relevant provisions of the Regulation. The notice could be treated as a nullity, so service required the court’s leave under CPR Part 6.34(2)(6).
5. The rules did not require the claim form or particulars of claim to specify the particular Regulation articles relied upon. The observation in The Wadi Sudr [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Reports 666 that solicitors should have a reasonable and transparently stated basis for jurisdiction did not impose such a requirement. The court’s discretion, considered with the overriding objective and CPR Part 3 case-management powers, should be exercised in favour of permitting service. The jurisdictional challenge therefore failed.

Not an appeal. The judgment determined an application concerning jurisdiction and service in the High Court.