The Mayor, Company, of Limerick v Crmpton and Company, Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 12 February 1909
• Date: 12 February 1909
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)

The Mayor, &c., of Limerick

and

Crompton and Company, Limited (1).

Appeal.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1910.

Contract — Action of — Practice — Staying proceedings — Agreement to refer matters in dispute to English Court.

A contract made between the Corporation of L., in Ireland, and C. & Co., Ltd., a Company having its registered office in England, and carrying on business there, contained a clause that the contract should “in all respects be construed and operate as an English contract, and in conformity with English law.” The contract was made in Ireland, and the works to be done under it were to be executed there. An action for damages for breach of the contract having been instituted in the Irish Court by the Corporation of L. against C. & Co., on a motion by C. & Co. to stay all further proceedings in the action:—

Held, affirming the decision of the King's Bench Division, that upon the true construction of the contract the parties thereto had agreed (while not purporting to oust for all purposes the jurisdiction of the Irish Courts) that the contract should be carried out in procedure under it, as if it had been made in England, and that therefore the King's Bench Division had rightly exercised its discretion in staying the action.

Appeal by the plaintiffs from an order of the King's Bench Division staying the action. See [1909] 2 I. R. 120, where the material portions of the contract sued on are given.

Ronan, K.C., and Charles F. Doyle, K.C. (with them P. Kelly), for the appellants:—

The order appealed from was based on a misconstruction of the contract. It is plain that the judgment of the Court as

delivered by Andrews, J., proceeded on the assumption that the parties had thereby agreed that the Irish Courts should have no jurisdiction to determine any dispute arising out of the contract, that English jurisdiction was exclusive, and the English Court was the forum selected for the determination of such questions, under Nash v. Fischer (1), which was erroneously supposed to be applicable. Even if such a stipulation were valid in law, it is not to be found in the contract according to its true construction. What is there in clause 48 to oust the jurisdiction of the Irish Courts, and to deprive the plaintiffs of the right as plaintiffs domiciled in Ireland to sue on a contract made in Ireland...