Med Marine v Castillo Schiffahrts-Gmbh & Co. KG MS & Anor
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR. STEPHEN HOFMEYR QC
Areas of Law
- Maritime Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a Turkish maritime company and the owners and charterers of a vessel contesting jurisdiction. The English court held it had jurisdiction based on the Booking Note incorporating UK Standard Towage Conditions, including an exclusive English jurisdiction clause. Despite an Istanbul jurisdiction clause for unpaid services, the clause did not conflict with the English jurisdiction agreement for other disputes. The procedural history included filing of the Claim Form and applications contesting jurisdiction, leading to a detailed examination of contractual terms and jurisdiction clauses.
J U D G M E N T
MR. STEPHEN HOFMEYR QC:
This is the defendants' application pursuant to CPR Part 11 for orders that (1) the defendants' application contesting the jurisdiction of this court is granted; (2) the service of the claim form on the defendanst is set aside, and (3) the claimant's claim is dismissed.
Parties
The claimant is a Turkish company that provides tugboat, pilotage and mooring boat services to vessels entering various ports in Turkey.
The first defendant is the registered owner and the second defendant the demise charterer of the vessel Conti Cartagena to which I will refer as "The Vessel".
The claim
In the Claim Form the claimant alleges four things: (1) On or about 5th August the first and/or the second defendant entered into a contract with the claimant for the provision of services in the Yalova Port; (2) the contract incorporated the UK Standard Conditions for Towage and Other Services (Revised 1986); (3) the vessel suffered damage whilst in port, and (4) the defendants are seeking to recover damages from the claimant.
None of these facts is denied.
In these proceedings the claimant claims a declaration of non-liability against the first and/or second defendant "in respect of all claims arising under or related to the contract and/or services".
The procedural history
The Claim Form in this matter was issued on 13th September 2013 and marked "not for service out of the jurisdiction".
The N510 form which accompanied the Claim Form indicated that the Claim Form was being served out of the jurisdiction without permission of the court on the basis that the first defendant was a party to an agreement conferring jurisdiction to which Article 23 of the Judgment Regulation applies.
Not only the first but also the second defendant filed an acknowledgement of service on 25th October 2013 indicating that it intended to defend all of the claim and that it intended to contest the court's jurisdiction.
The application
On 27th November 2013 both defendants issued the application which is before me today.
In support of the application they served witness statements of Selin Atakan and Colin Ferris dated 26th and 27th November 2013 respectively. Mr. Atakan is an Associate Attorney at Cavus and Coskunsu, a law firm of Istanbul, and is registered to the Istanbul Bar Association. Mr. Ferris is a solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales and a partner in the firm Keats Ferris, the defendants' solicitors.
The application focused o