The High Court has accepted a contractual clause giving the Court of Rimini sole jurisdiction over disputes in a case brought by Dan O’Connor and Dan O’Connor Joinery Works Limited against Masterwood U.K. Limited, Masterwood SPA Italy and National Irish Investment Bank Limited.
Mr Justice de Valera delivered the judgment on 20 June 2006. The application was brought by the second defendant, Masterwood SPA Italy, which asked the court to declare that it had no jurisdiction over the dispute, set aside service of the proceedings on it, and strike out or stay the case against it.
The judge was satisfied that the original agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant made the sale subject to Masterwood SPA Rimini’s terms and conditions, though those terms were not specified. He also found that an agreement signed by Mr O’Connor on 19 March 2002 contained a clause at article 14 stating that “the Court of Rimini shall have sole jurisdiction” in any controversy. The clause appeared in the body of the agreement just above Mr O’Connor’s signature, the judge said.
The judgment records that the plaintiffs’ plenary summons was dated 27 June 2003. The first defendant entered an unconditional appearance in December 2003, while the second defendant entered a conditional appearance to contest jurisdiction. The first defendant later served a notice of indemnity and contribution on the second defendant, and a motion for judgment in default of defence was also served on the second defendant.
The judge said there was no reference in the papers to the second defendant taking steps to set aside or otherwise contest the indemnity notice. He also said articles 27 and 28 of Council Regulation EC 44/2001 did not appear to apply, because only one set of proceedings was before one jurisdiction.
De Valera J concluded that the plaintiff had agreed to the Rimini jurisdiction clause freely and without deceit or subterfuge by the second defendant. He held that the second defendant was therefore entitled to succeed in its application. The judgment does not specify the separate formal orders made on the requested reliefs.