BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO SWITZERLAND SA AND OTHERS V EXEL EUROPE LTD AND ANOTHER

[2013] EWCA Civ 1319, Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Lord Justice Mcfarlane, Sir Bernard Rix and Sir Timothy Lloyd, 30 October 2013

Carriage of goods by road - Effect of jurisdiction agreement - Carrier based in England having agreed exclusive English jurisdiction - Cargo interest also suing successive carriers to whom carriage had been delegated - Successive carriers - Relationship between Brussels I Regulation and international Conventions - Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, 1956 (CMR)

BAT was the cargo owner whose cargo of tobacco had allegedly been stolen during transport. The carrier, Exel, had agreed an exclusive English jurisdiction clause and had delegated the carriage to sub-carriers, or in CMR terminology "successive carriers". The sub-carriage contracts provided for English law and jurisdiction, but made no reference to Exel's contract with BAT. All contracts were subject to CMR and its jurisdiction provisions. Exel was unrepresented and the litigation was in practice between BAT and the successive carriers. It was common ground that BAT could sue the successive carriers; the question was whether they could be sued in England or whether they had to be sued in Holland where they were present or in the place where the goods had been taken over or where they ought to have been delivered, which were different for each cargo.