PAN OCEAN CO LTD V CHINA-BASE GROUP CO LTD (FORMERLY CHINA-BASE NINGBO FOREIGN TRADE CO LTD) AND ANOTHER

[2019] EWHC 982 (Comm), Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, Christopher Hancock QC (sitting as a High Court Judge), 16 April 2019

Jurisdiction - Anti-suit injunction - Exclusive jurisdiction clauses - Formalities required to establish exclusive jurisdiction clause - Brussels Regulation Recast, article 25

The defendants sought a declaration that the English court had no jurisdiction and an order setting aside the claim form; the claimant, Pan Ocean, sought an anti-suit injunction preventing the continuance of proceedings in Singapore. Pan Ocean had issued a bill of lading in respect of light cycle oil and gas oil loaded at Zhoushan in China and Taichung in Taiwan. That cargo had been topped up with a small amount of additional cargo at Subic Bay in the Philippines and it was alleged that switch bills had been issued for the whole cargo, mis-describing it as light cycle oil loaded in the Philippines. The cargo was discharged into onshore tanks in Nansha in China. No bills of lading were presented and no indemnity given. The purpose of the transaction was apparently to avoid import duties. The cargo was impounded by the China anti-smuggling bureau. The defendants commenced proceedings in Singapore on 13 April 2017, seeking damages against Pan Ocean for loss and damage suffered by reason of false statements in the switch bills and cargo manifests. Pan Ocean subsequently commenced proceedings in the English court. The questions before the judge were: (1) was there a contract between the claimant and the defendants? (2) If so, did it include an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English court? (3) did that exclusive jurisdiction clause satisfy the requirements of article 25 of the Recast Brussels Regulation? and (4) should an anti-suit injunction be issued?