In Nanox Imaging PLC v David Schick 2024/GSC/043, Happold J at the Gibraltar Supreme Court dealt with applications for anti-suit, forum non conveniens and case management stays.
Claimant ‘Nanox Gibraltar’ is a Gibraltar registered company which until September 2019 carried on business in the field of medical imaging technology. Defendant is an electrical engineer and a US national resident in California. A Consultancy Agreement between them contains two jurisdiction clauses. The first, Clause 6.5 provides that:
“Both parties agree that any action, demand, claim or counterclaim relating to this Agreement, or to its breach, shall be commenced in the state of Gibraltar in a court of competent jurisdiction. This Agreement and the validity, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of Gibraltar without giving effect to conflict of law principles”
The second, in Clause 8 of Appendix B, is in different terms. It provides that:
“This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Gibraltar without giving effect to the rules respecting conflict of law, and the competent courts of Gibraltar shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute between the parties.”
Parties disagree as to the relevance of Clause 8 for the interpretation of Clause 6.
On 28 October 2021, Mr Schick brought proceedings before the US District Court for the Central District of California against current claimant, and Nano XImaging Inc. (‘Nanox Israel’), as well as Mr Ran Poliakine (the main beneficiary of the Nano Imaging vehicles) and eleven other defendants. Nanox Israel is a company registered in Israel to whom Nanox Gibraltar sold its assets in 2019, including its intellectual property rights. In July 2020, Nanox Israel IPOed on Nasdaq. Mr Shick argues he is entitled to outstanding fees for consultancy services under the Consultancy Agreement as well as to a One Time Bonus.
The Californian proceedings were dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. Israeli proceedings are still ongoing with there, too, contestation of jurisdiction. In order to hold in the fate of the Gibraltar proceedings, the first question is whether Clause 6.5 is an exclusive jurisdiction clause. Defendant argues Clause 6.5 is permissive, not mandatory, because it does not expressly refer to “irrevocable” submission to the Gibraltar courts, to those courts having “sole” or “exclusive” jurisdiction, or expressly prohibits proceedings being brought elsewhere; and because the term “shall” is not the language of obligation (that argument summarily dismissed if only on its ordinary meaning; as it should). In addition, Defendant says that Clause 8 of Appendix B is irrelevant to the interpretation of Clause 6.
Happold J [15] disagrees and in my opinion he is right. I do think his succinct discussion [17] of Brussels Ia (! which continues to apply by virtue of the European Union Gibraltar Act 2019) could have come before his discussion of the language of the choice of court clause outside the Brussels Ia context. Per A25 BIa, all choice of court clauses are exclusive lest agreed otherwise. Therefore the engagement with the wording of the clause should not focus on whether there is language that indicates its exclusivity; rather, whether there is clear language that suggests it is not exclusive.
A further most relevant point of discussion [19] ff is then whether despite Brussels Ia, a forum non conveniens stay might be possible in Gibraltar, despite s33 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1993. s33. This reads in relevant part
Nothing in this Act shall prevent any court in Gibraltar from staying, striking out or dismissing any proceedings before it on the ground of forum non conveniens or otherwise, where to do so is not inconsistent with the 1968 Convention or, as the case may be, the Lugano Convention or the 2005 Hague Convention.
The suggestion is that with Brussels Ia not mentioned in that list, it does not stand in the way of a forum non stay. Happold J justifiably as a matter of both statutory construction and the nature of BI and BIa as a directly applicable Regulation, holds [22] that a forum non stay is not possible, neither [23] is a case management stay see ‘otherwise’ in s33, above.
In the discussion of anti-suit one would have expected discussion of CJEU Turner (less so: Starlight Shipping (The Alexandros T for that judgment was issued post Brexit). Instead, anti-suit is granted on common law principles despite Brussels Ia still applying. Am I missing something here?: does Gibraltar’s continued use of Brussels Ia exclude any and all CJEU case-law?
An interesting case!
Geert.
