AMT Futures Limited v Marzillier, Dr Meier & Dr Guntner Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH

For jurisdiction in tort under article 5.3 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, the relevant connecting factor is the place where the event causing the damage occurred or the place of the direct and immediate damage. Consequential loss and the rationale of foreseeability or efficient administration cannot independently establish jurisdiction.

Where proceedings brought abroad breach an exclusive English jurisdiction clause, the direct harm caused by inducing that breach occurs where the foreign proceedings and resulting expenditure occur. The contractual choice of an English court does not relocate the tortious harm or justify a special jurisdictional rule.

AMT Futures Limited, an English derivatives broker, contracted with overseas clients under English-law and exclusive English-jurisdiction clauses. After dissatisfied clients brought German proceedings against it, AMT alleged that their German lawyers had induced those breaches of contract. It sought damages and injunctive relief in England.

The High Court held that England had jurisdiction under article 5.3 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001: [2014] EWHC 1085 (Comm). The Court of Appeal reversed that decision, holding that the relevant harm occurred in Germany: [2015] EWCA Civ 143.

The Supreme Court had to determine where the direct harm occurred, whether a special rule should apply to inducement of a breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause, and whether the issue required a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. A cross-appeal challenged the Court of Appeal's costs order.

1. The appeal and the costs cross-appeal were dismissed. Lord Hodge delivered the judgment, with which Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke and Lord Sumption agreed.

2. Article 5.3 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 permits proceedings either where the event causing the damage occurred or where the direct and immediate damage occurred. The former clients' German proceedings were both the event induced by the respondent and the source of the appellant's direct expenditure. The relevant harm therefore occurred in Germany. The claimed loss of the benefit or London focus secured by the jurisdiction clauses was consequential and could not confer jurisdiction.

3. The clients' clauses imposed an obligation not to sue outside England. They imposed no positive obligation to commence proceedings or perform an act in England. The case was therefore distinguishable from Dolphin Maritime & Aviation Services Ltd v Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening, where the induced breach concerned a positive obligation to pay money into an English bank account.

4. The rationale for special jurisdiction—foreseeability, proximity and sound administration of justice—is distinct from the connecting factor prescribed by article 5.3. Those benefits do not themselves confer jurisdiction. A claimant must establish that direct harm occurred or might occur within the jurisdiction.

5. No special rule could relocate the harm to the court selected by the contractual parties. The Regulation deliberately maintains distinct grounds for contractual and tortious jurisdiction. It may consequently require connected contractual and tortious claims to be heard in different states. Article 23 binds parties to a jurisdiction agreement, but it cannot be invoked against a non-party merely because that person allegedly induced its breach.

6. The CJEU's special rules for internet publication, intellectual property and cartel damage addressed situations where harm could not readily be located. No comparable difficulty arose here. Both the allegedly inducing conduct and the initial damage occurred in Germany. Creating a rule tailored to the domestic tort of inducing breach of contract would undermine uniformity, certainty and foreseeability.

7. The interpretation was acte clair under CILFIT v Ministero della Sanità, so no reference to the CJEU was required. The Court of Appeal's issue-based costs order also fell within its broad discretion under rule 44.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

1. United Kingdom Supreme Court: Dismissed AMT's appeal from [2015] EWCA Civ 143 and rejected MMGR's challenge to the costs order.
2. Court of Appeal: In [2015] EWCA Civ 143, reversed the High Court on jurisdiction and held that the relevant harm occurred in Germany. It made an issue-based costs order.
3. High Court: Popplewell J, in [2014] EWHC 1085 (Comm), refused MMGR's application and held that the English courts had jurisdiction because AMT had been deprived in England of the benefit of the exclusive jurisdiction clauses.