Wright v (Deccan Chargers Sporting Ventures Ltd & Anor

On an application to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction, the claimant must show that England and Wales is clearly the appropriate forum. The court should identify the issues likely to arise and compare the competing jurisdictions in relation to each issue. Relevant connecting factors include the governing law, the parties’ places of residence and business, contractual places of performance, witnesses and convenience. An English choice-of-law clause is significant, but its weight depends on the circumstances and does not itself establish English jurisdiction. An appellate court reviews the first-instance assessment for error of law or principle; it does not conduct a rehearing.

The defendants appealed against the Master’s refusal to set aside permission to serve proceedings in India. The claimant, an English-resident chief executive, sued in contract under an agreement governed by English law. The dispute concerned alleged repudiatory breaches, a substantial severance guarantee, unpaid salary and related contractual obligations. The Master concluded that England and Wales was the proper forum, principally because of the English governing law, the claimant’s residence and the agreed London office, despite factual connections with India. The appeal challenged that assessment and the weight given to those factors.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Master’s decision involved an evaluative assessment under CPR 6.37(3). The appellate court’s task was to review for error, not to reconsider the evidence or ask whether it would have reached the same conclusion.
2. The applicable forum conveniens principles were those in Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460, as summarised in Cherney v Deripaska (No 2) [2009] EWCA Civ 849. The claimant bore the burden of showing that England was clearly the appropriate forum. The court had to identify the natural forum and consider all relevant connecting factors and the interests of justice.
3. The issues should be identified separately and the competing jurisdictions considered in relation to each issue, following Sawyer v Atari [2005] EWHC 2351 (Ch). The required standard was a good arguable case, not a mini-trial, as reflected in WPP Holdings Italy SRL v Benatti [2007] EWCA Civ 263 and Bols Distilleries BV v Superior Yacht Services Ltd [2007] 1 WLR 12.
4. The English choice-of-law clause was a significant factor. Its weight was context-sensitive and did not automatically require English jurisdiction. Here, the issues concerning repudiation and the enforceability of the severance guarantee were sufficiently connected with English law for the clause to favour England, or at least not favour India. The Master was entitled to regard the relevant English law as not wholly straightforward.
5. The claimant’s English residence, the contractual requirement that he be based initially in London, and the promised London office were relevant connecting factors. The work also concerned an Indian business and included performance in India, but the contractual obligations were not confined to India. The Master was entitled to conclude that England was the forum best suited to resolving the employment disputes.
6. The remaining factors were matters of assessment. No error of law was shown, and the court therefore upheld the Master’s conclusion that England and Wales was the proper place for the claim.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): The appeal from the Master’s refusal to set aside permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction was dismissed.