i-law

Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY ROAD AND THE BRUSSELS DIVERSION

Adrian Briggs*

British American Tobacco v Exel Europe
Contracts for the international carriage of goods by road, concluded on the basis that the CMR Convention1 applies to them, are made against a specific and comprehensive background of substantive obligations and procedural regulations. Among the procedural regulations are provisions for the jurisdiction of certain courts and non-jurisdiction of other courts which might otherwise have had it. As the nature of such carriage is that the haulage may be subcontracted, and that more than once, the CMR Convention also deals with jurisdiction, and non-jurisdiction, over subcontractors. The question of jurisdiction will often have three components. The point of departure is to examine the contractual framework actually put in place by the parties, for if this gives the court jurisdiction over the particular claim, there will be little more to be said.2 If it does not give jurisdiction, the second question is whether the Convention provides a non-contractual basis for jurisdiction. The third question is whether European law displaces the answer which has been arrived at by superimposing on the CMR scheme certain non-negotiable principles of European law.3 All three of these questions came before the Supreme Court in British American Tobacco Switzerland SA v Exel Europe Ltd,4 and the three points may be taken in turn.

1. The contractual framework created by the parties

The CMR Convention concerns “the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road”. It therefore makes sense to start with the contractual framework, for this will provide the foundation for an assessment of the jurisdictional provision. In summary, if the relevant parties to the claim5 had agreed by contract that the English court would have jurisdiction to entertain the claim made by the one against the other, that would be both beginning and end6 of the jurisdictional argument.
If A contracts with B for the carriage of goods from and to various countries, and B subcontracts some or all of the haulage to C, two distinct contractual relationships come into existence. If, as in the present case, the contracts between A and B, and between B and C, each provide for the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts, it is seductive

198

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, click Log In button.

Copyright © 2024 Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited. Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 13831625 and address 5th Floor, 10 St Bride Street, London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom. Lloyd's List Intelligence is a trading name of Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited.

Lloyd's is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's.