Campeau v Gottex Real Asset Fund 1 (OE) Waste SÀRL

Subject Matter

PRACTICE — Service out of Jurisdiction — Application to Set Aside Service — Defendant bringing foreign proceedings against claimant relating to share purchase agreement — Agreement containing exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of England and Wales — Claimant not party to agreement but seeking to rely on clause in proceedings in England — Claimant serving out without permission — Whether jurisdiction clause enforceable by third party — Whether proceedings validly served — CPR r 6.33(2B)(a)-(c) — Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (c 31), s 1(4)

[2025] EWHC 2322 (Comm); [2025] 2 Lloyd's Rep 389; [2025] WLR(D) 475, KBD

AI Summary & Issues

Content generated by AI, as supplied by Jurisage. Learn more about AI Case Summaries.

In the High Court, Mr Justice Butcher dismissed the Defendant's application to set aside the service of the Claim Form regarding jurisdiction. The court determined that Mr Campeau had a good arguable case that the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the sale and purchase agreement applied to his claims, even though he was not a party to the agreement. Additionally, the court granted an extension of the Claim Form's validity, permitting Mr Campeau to seek permission for service outside the jurisdiction.

Issues

• Did the court determine whether Mr Campeau was entitled to serve the Claim Form out of the jurisdiction without permission, given the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the SPA?
• Was there a consideration of whether the provisions of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 allowed Mr Campeau to enforce the exclusive jurisdiction clause despite not being a party to the SPA?
• Did the court assess if the claims made by Mr Campeau fell within the scope of the jurisdiction clause in the SPA, thereby justifying service out of the jurisdiction?