AMT Futures Ltd v Gloeggler

A governing-law and exclusive-j jurisdiction clause in a client agreement may extend to tort claims arising from the contractual business relationship, even where those claims are pleaded solely in tort. Where the construction issue is clear and its early determination serves a substantial case-management purpose, summary judgment may properly be granted. Differences in the claimant’s jurisdictional route, the foreign court seized of related proceedings, and the version of the contractual terms will not alter the result where the material contractual provisions have the same effect.

AMT Futures Ltd sought summary judgment declaring that Dr Gloeggler’s German proceedings fell within the scope of clause 33.1 of the applicable Client Agreement and Terms of Business. Dr Gloeggler had filed a Defence but did not actively contest the merits or consent to judgment. The application concerned the construction of the governing-law and exclusive-jurisdiction provisions, together with whether the issues should be determined immediately or left to trial or a case management conference.

The court had previously determined equivalent issues in related proceedings involving other defendants.

1. Summary judgment granted. The court ordered a declaration that Dr Gloeggler’s German claim fell within clause 33.1 of the applicable Client Agreement and Terms of Business.
2. The material wording provided that the Agreement applied to the defendant’s account, instructions, transactions, investment advice and other related dealings. It further provided that the Agreement and all rights and obligations arising in respect of the account were governed by English law and that disputes were subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.
3. Properly construed, those provisions covered claims arising from the business conducted with Dr Gloeggler, including claims framed as tort claims under German law. The contractual description of the claim, whether contractual or tortious, did not determine the scope of the jurisdiction clause.
4. The court relied generally on the equivalent conclusions reached by Teare J in Mikic et al. [2016] EWHC 3157 (Comm) and on the judge’s own judgment in the related proceedings involving Grundman, Marti and Sigmund. The factual differences were immaterial: the defendant had submitted to the English jurisdiction by filing a Defence; the German proceedings were in Duisburg rather than Hamburg or Düsseldorf; no local anchor defendant had been used; and an earlier version of the Terms of Business contained materially equivalent provisions.
5. There was a strong case-management interest in deciding the clear construction issues immediately, enabling the claim to be managed with the related proceedings while leaving other issues potentially requiring trial for later determination. Costs were reserved pursuant to the claimant’s concession.