[2025] EWHC 2089 (Comm)

On 25th March 2024, the Claimant (“the Charterers”) issued a claim form instituting these proceedings against the Defendants claiming damages and other relief relating to alleged breaches of a time charter contained in or evidenced by a fixture re-cap dated 25th March 2022 (“the Charterparty”), whereby the First and/or Second Defendants agreed to let and the Charterers agreed to hire four vessels for a period of 24 months plus or minus 15 days in the Charterers’ option.

The four vessels were MT Lada, MT Kupava, MT Midvolga 2, and MT Midvolga 3 (collectively, “the Vessels”).

The Charterparty incorporated an English law and jurisdiction clause (clause 55), which provided that:

“This Charter Party shall be construed and the relationship between the parties determined in accordance with the Laws of England. Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Charter Party, involving amounts in excess of United States Dollars Two Hundred Thousand (US$200,000), shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the English High Court …”

The Charterers relied on the jurisdiction agreement in clause 55 of the Charterparty in commencing these proceedings (Ms Barthet’s first witness statement, para. 22).

It is common ground between the parties that the First Defendant (“Middle Volga”), a Russian company, was at all material times the registered owner of the vessels MT Kupava, MT Midvolga 2, and MT Midvolga 3 and the bareboat charterer of the vessel MT Lada (Mr Ryzhik’s first witness statement, para. 8-9). The registered owner of MT Lada was Hai Ocean Shipping Co Ltd (“Hai Ocean”).

According to the Charterers, the Second Defendant (“North Global”) was the agent of Middle Volga and/or the technical operator of the Vessels and, therefore, Middle Volga was a contracting party to the Charterparty.

According to Middle Volga, the Charterers’ contractual counterparty under the Charterparty was North Global and Middle Volga was not a contracting party to the Charterparty.

This difference in the parties’ cases is significant as Middle Volga issued an application contesting the Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to CPR Part 11 on the basis that the only ground on which the Charterers can establish jurisdiction in respect of their claims is the English jurisdiction agreement in the Charterparty, but Middle Volga was not a party to that jurisdiction agreement and the Charterparty. The Charterers resist that application.

In considering this application, I had before me evidence in the form of witness statements dated 7th October 2024 and 29th November 2024 made by Mr Yan Ryzhik, an in-house lawyer employed by Middle Volga, on behalf of Middle Volga, and a witness statement dated 15th November 2024 made by Ms Maria Borg Barthet, a solicitor and a Director of the Charterers’ solicitors (Campbell Johnston Clark), on behalf of the Charterers. I also had before me an earlier witness statement dated 9th August 2024 made by Ms Maria Borg Barthet in support of an earlier application for an order permitting service on the Defendants by alternative means; the order was made by Dias J on 16th August 2024.

At the hearing of the application, Middle Volga, the applicant, was represented by Mr Alexander Wright KC and the Charterers were represented by Mr Nicholas Vineall KC.