Snookes v Jani-King (GB) Ltd., Court of Appeal - Queen's Bench Division, February 23, 2006, [2006] EWHC 289 (QB)

Extract

---

Snookes v Jani-King (GB) Ltd., Court of Appeal - Queen's Bench Division, February 23, 2006, [2006] EWHC 289 (QB)

Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 289 (QB)

Case No: 5SA 02043

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEENS BENCH DIVISON

SWANSEA DISTRICT REGISTRY

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR JSUTICE SILBER

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 23 February 2006

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Silber

- - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - -

Andrew Butler (instructed by Douglas-Jones Mercer of Swansea) for the Claimant

Jason Evans-Tovey (instructed by Andrew Pena, Solicitor to Jani-King (GB) Limited) for the Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - -

Hearing dates: 30 November 2006

Further written submissions received on 9 December 2005, 16 January 2006 and 18 January 2006

- - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT

The Honourable Mr Justice Silber:

I. Introduction:

1. Jani-King (GB) Limited (``the defendants'') grants franchises of commercial cleaning services. The claimant, Anthony Snookes, became a franchisee of the defendants on 24 June 1999 and 18 October 2000 while his fellow-claimant, Stephen Little, became a franchisee of the defendants on 16 May 2001 in both cases pursuant to written agreements (``the agreements'').

2. All the claimants' franchise agreements are in the defendants' standard form and clause 27.14 of both these agreements under the heading ``Interpretation'' provides that:-

``Save as provided herein any proceedings arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in London''.

3. Both claimants commenced the present proceedings in the Swansea District Registry alleging misrepresentation and breach of contract against the defendants, who have now applied to strike out or stay each of the claims on the basis that because of the provisions of clause 27.14, ``Swansea District Registry does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim''. It is common ground that the claimants each have the same grounds for resisting the present applications and that the result of both the present applications against each claimant should be the same.

4. At the start of the hearing, I inquired why these applications were so keenly contested and I was told that if the defendant's applications were granted and if the claimants were then forced to commence proceedings afresh in London, the defendants might then be able to sustain a limitation argument against some part of the claim of Mr Snookes. I am still puzzled as to why Mr. Little is so concerned about whether his claims (which are independent of the claim of Mr Snookes) have to be bought in London or in Swansea bearing in mind that he, like Mr Snookes, lives in the Birmingham area and has it seems no connection with Swansea, except that he has instructed a firm of solicitors based there, who have instructed London counsel.

II. The Issues

5. It is common ground between counsel that:

(a) the claims made by each claimant in the present action fall within clause 27.14 of their respective franchise agreements as ``arising out of or in connection with this agreement'';

(b) there are no other contractual provisions on jurisdiction relevant to these claims brought by the franchisees a...

See the full content of this document

---