English Jurisdiction Clause - Effective in Restraining Court Proceedings Outside England

The dispute involved a warehouse company incorporated in the People’s Republic of China (Impala) and a trading company incorporated in Singapore (Wanxiang) which is part of a Chinese conglomerate.
The underlying dispute concerned a major fraud relating to aluminium ingots held at a bonded warehouse in Qingdao. Wanxiang had begun court proceedings against Impala in the Shanghai courts for recovery of the aluminium or damages.
The warehouse receipts stated that they were subject to Impala’s terms and conditions and referred to Impala’s website where the terms could be viewed. The jurisdiction clause in question was found in Impala’s terms, and provided that all contracts and claims between the parties relating to the goods would be governed by the law of England and disputes dealt with exclusively by the English courts.

Impala, in the light of the jurisdiction clause, had sought injunctions from the English court requiring Wanxiang to discontinue the proceedings in Shanghai and to restrain it from commencing a claim anywhere else other than the English courts.
Wanxiang argued that its claim was a non-contractual one which meant that the jurisdiction clause did not apply and the claim could be brought under Chinese law in the Chinese courts. Alternatively, it said that the clause had not been properly incorporated into the warehouse receipts and so was of no effect, or that there were other strong reasons why the clause should be departed from.
The English court rejected all of these arguments and granted Impala a final mandatory injunction requiring Wanxiang to discontinue the proceedings in Shanghai, and a final prohibitory injunction restraining Wanxiang from commencing or continuing proceedings relating to the warehouse receipts anywhere else except the English courts.

English Jurisdiction Clause – Effective in Restraining Court Proceedings Outside England