The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Dan O’Connor and Dan O’Connor Joinery Limited, upholding a High Court decision that a jurisdiction clause in the sale conditions for a woodworking machine gave the courts of Rimini exclusive jurisdiction over disputes with the Italian supplier.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Fennelly on 1 July 2009, concerned the procedural question of which court could hear the dispute. It did not decide the plaintiffs’ complaints about alleged defects or their claim that the machinery caused severe loss and damage to their business.
The plaintiffs ran a joinery business in Abbeydorney, Co Kerry. In December 2001, they signed an order for a CNC router to be supplied by Masterwood (UK) Limited. The order referred to Masterwood SpA’s terms and conditions but contained no jurisdiction clause. After a dispute over the delivery date, Masterwood SpA sent a further order form in March 2002, which was signed and returned. The first plaintiff also signed printed conditions stating that the Court of Rimini would have sole jurisdiction over controversies arising from or connected with the contract.
Masterwood SpA appeared in the proceedings solely to contest jurisdiction. It argued that the clause gave the Italian courts exclusive jurisdiction under Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation. The plaintiffs did not dispute that the March documents had been signed on their behalf. Their affidavit said the clause had not been drawn to the first plaintiff’s attention, and their submissions relied on the December agreement with the UK company. The Supreme Court said it was unnecessary at this stage to determine whether a contract existed with that company. The appeal proceeded on the assumption that a contract with Masterwood SpA was alleged.
Mr Justice Fennelly held that the signed written conditions satisfied Article 23. He said the regulation required consensus on a jurisdiction clause to be clearly and precisely demonstrated, and found the clause was part of any agreement between the plaintiffs and Masterwood SpA. He also said the international-trade provision applied, observing that traders must be taken to know that printed conditions can affect their rights.
The court therefore dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court’s order in favour of Italian jurisdiction. The judgment did not determine the underlying machinery-defect claims. National Irish Investment Bank Limited, which had financed the transaction, was a defendant but was not a party to the appeal.