The High Court has declined to hear a dispute over pharmaceutical goods shipped from Cork, staying the Irish proceedings in favour of the courts of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Ms Justice Niamh Hyland ruled on 30 April 2021 that an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a sea waybill formed part of the contract between the parties. She proposed that the plaintiff pay the motion and proceedings costs, subject to submissions on costs within two weeks.
Teva (Canada) Limited alleges that 19 pallets of Novo Salbutamol were exposed to temperatures outside the acceptable range during carriage or storage, due to failings by Panalpina World Transport (Ireland) Limited. The goods travelled from Cork to Montréal, with Toronto as the stated place of delivery. The judgment says the alleged location of the temperature failure was not disclosed.
Panalpina applied for the High Court to decline jurisdiction in favour of Hong Kong, relying on a clause in waybill SNN318158. The waybill identified Pantainer (HK) Ltd as carrier and Panalpina as its agent. The judge noted that the shipper, Ivax Pharmaceuticals Ireland, and the carrier were not parties to the proceedings, and that the contractual link between Teva and Panalpina had not been explained.
The waybill was uploaded to Teva’s information system on 4 December 2017, after the ship left Cork on 3 December. The judge found that Teva received the complete waybill, including its reverse-side terms, and did not object before the goods were delivered. Teva argued that the terms had not been provided when the contract was made and that Ireland was the appropriate forum. It did not identify or produce an alternative contract or the bill of lading referred to in its claim endorsement.
The judge treated the waybill as strong evidence of the contract under Irish common law principles. She held that the Recast Brussels Regulation’s specific rules for jurisdiction clauses did not apply because the clause selected a non-EU court. Having found the Hong Kong clause applied, she considered whether there was strong cause to let the Irish case continue. She found Ireland’s connections—including the loading port and Panalpina’s Irish domicile—insufficient, given the international parties and the lack of evidence locating the alleged mis-storage or identifying relevant witnesses. No prejudice to Teva from litigating in Hong Kong was shown.
The order addressed the jurisdiction motion: the court declined to hear the action in Ireland in favour of Hong Kong. The judgment does not determine the underlying negligence or contract allegations. Costs remained subject to the proposed order and any submissions the parties filed.