Unidare Plc v James Scott Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: FINLAY C.J.
• Judgment Date: 08 May 1991
• Neutral Citation: 1991 WJSC-SC 2442
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 313 of 1990]
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 08 May 1991

UNIDARE PLC v. SCOTT LTD

BETWEEN

UNIDARE PLC AND UNIDARE CABLE LIMITED

Plaintiff/

Respondent

and

JAMES SCOTT LIMITED

Defendant/

Appellant

1991 WJSC-SC 2442

313/90

THE SUPREME COURT

Synopsis:

PRACTICE

Service

Summons - Service abroad - Order - Validity - Motion to set aside - Proper law of contract - Sale of goods - Payment - Breach of contract committed within jurisdiction - Debt - Place of payment - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, order 11, r. 1(e) - Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments (European Communities) Act, 1988, ss. 3, 13 and articles 5, 17 of 1st schedule - (313/90 - Supreme Court - 8/5/91) - [1991] 2 I.R. 88

|Unidare Plc. v. James Scott Ltd.|

Citations:

JURISDICTION OF COURTS & ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS (EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES) ACT 1988 SCHED 1 ART 17

JURISDICTION OF COURTS & ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS (EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES) ACT 1988 SCHED 1 ART 5

1 JUDGMENT delivered on the 8th day of May 1991 by FINLAY C.J. [NEM DISS]

2 This is an appeal brought by the Defendant against the refusal in the High Court by MacKenzie J., on the 30th July 1990, of a motion brought by the Defendant to set aside the service upon it of notice of a Summons issued on behalf of the Plaintiffs claiming a sum of £91,454.40 monies due together with interest.

3 The Plaintiff Companies are, respectively, a public liability company and a private limited company, both incorporated in the State, and having their registered offices in the City of Dublin. They carry on business in Dublin, inter alia, manufacturing and selling conductors for electric current.

4 The Defendant is a limited liability company incorporated in the United Kingdom and having its registered offices in Glasgow. It carries on business as a contactor involved in civil engineering projects requiring electric cabling. In the years 1987 and 1988 the Defendants were engaged in erecting electricity power lines in Northern Ireland. For that purpose they entered into a contract to purchase from the Plaintiff conductors for such cabling. The claim of the Plaintiff Companies against the Defendant Company arises out of the contract to purchase, and the Court has been informed that it is the intention of the Defendant Company to counterclaim or seek to set off a claim for damages for breach of contract or defective workmanship.

5 The Defendant's Motion in the High Court was apparently based on two broad contentions. The first was that by virtue of the acceptance by the Plaintiff of a formal order for purchase of the goods, issued by the Defendant on the 12th November 1987 and, in particular, of clause 18 of the Standard Terms and Conditions of Sale printed on the reverse side of such order, that it was agreed between the parties that in respect to the validity and performance of the Contract, not only should that be governed by the law of England, but that the parties submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts of England in that respect. It was contended by virtue of Article 17 of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, contained in the First Schedule to the Jurisdicition of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments (European Communities) Act 1988, this agreement gave to the courts of England exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising out of the Contract, and the service of proceedings in this jurisdiction should, therefore, be set aside. In the alternative, it was submitted that even if this term and condition did not bring into operation the provisions of...