Surrey (UK) Ltd v Mazandaran Wood & Paper Industries
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE EDER
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Conflict of Laws
- Civil Procedure
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around Surrey's claims against MWPI regarding unpaid dues and damages under contracts for supply of wood products. MWPI challenged Surrey's right to sue and the jurisdiction of English courts. The court ruled in favor of MWPI, setting aside an earlier order allowing Surrey to serve proceedings out of jurisdiction and finding that Surrey did not establish a good arguable case, the contracts were governed by Iranian law, and Iran was the appropriate forum.
Mr Justice Eder:
Introduction
This is an application by the defendant (“MWPI”) to set aside the order of Flaux J dated 4 July 2013 granting the claimant (“Surrey”) leave to serve these proceedings out of the jurisdiction and other related relief.
As set out in its Points of Claim, Surrey advances certain claims in relation to contracts allegedly entered into between Surrey (as seller) and MWPI (as buyer) for the sale and shipment from Russia, China and Chile to Iran of wood products (i.e. woodchips, logs and wood pulp) for the manufacture of paper at MWPI’s paper mill in Sari, northern Iran. In particular, as set out in the Particulars of Claim, Surrey claims (i) monies allegedly due in the sum of approximately €105,000 and (ii) damages in respect of alleged repudiatory breaches by MWPI totalling approximately €880,000. In addition, Surrey claims a very large sum by way of interest and also costs. The total claims amount to approximately €3,300,000. MWPI denies any liability to pay the sums claimed inter alia on the basis that (i) Surrey was not party to any contract and therefore does not have title to sue; (ii) there are no sums due or outstanding; and (iii) MWPI was entitled to cancel the orders because the material delivered was not of the agreed specification (and indeed that some of it, for which it paid, was never delivered to Iran at all).
The original application for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction was supported by the first witness statement of Ms Caroline Buchan, a direct public access barrister acting on behalf of Surrey (“Buchan 1”). As set out in that statement, Surrey sought to rely upon three main grounds (“gateways”) in support of the application for permission to serve out viz (i) contract(s) made within the jurisdiction: CPR 6BPD para 3.1(6)(a); (ii) contract(s) governed by English law: CPR 6BPD para 3.1(6)(c); and (iii) breach committed within the jurisdiction: CPR 6BPD para 3.1(7). In the course of the present hearing, Mr Sinai on behalf of Surrey abandoned reliance upon this last “gateway”. In addition, I should mention that although Mr Sinai initially raised an argument that MWPI had submitted to the jurisdiction, this point was also abandoned in the course of the present hearing.
MWPI now seeks to set aside the order of Flaux J on the following grounds:
Surrey breached its duty to be full and frank in the presentation of its ex parte application for permission to serve out;
Surrey failed to serve the proceedings v