Canara Bank v MCS International [2022] EWHC 2012 (Comm) is interesting with respect to Cooper J’s discussion of privity of choice of court and law, and the corporate carve-out of retained (post Brexit) Rome I.
Canara (an Indian bank) say that the Guarantee at the core of the issues, with English choice of law and court, was transmitted automatically to MCS France under the French Civil Code as a result of an amalgamation or merger of two French companies, namely the original guarantor and MCS France.
On the impact of Rome I, the judge [53] presumably with parties’ counsel approval, remarks that ‘pursuant to Article 1(2)(e) and (f), Rome 1 does not apply to questions governed by the law of companies or to the issue of whether or not an agent is able to bind a principal in relation to a third party. For both these issues, it is necessary to look to common law principles.’
[88] It is said again that whether an agent is able to bind a principal in relation to a third party is excluded from Rome 1 further to article 1(2)(g), the corporate carve-out. I do not think that is necessarily the case, even in combination with the Article 1(2)(e) carve-out for choice of court. The judge at any rate continues by applying the Dicey Rule 243 that where an agent acts or purports to act on behalf of a principal, their rights and liabilities in relation to each other are in general governed by the law applicable to the relationship or contract between them, with Dicey Rule 244(1) adding a bootstrap /von Munchausen /putative law element:
The issue whether the agent is liable to bind the principal to a contract with a third party, or a term of that contract, is governed by the law which would govern that contract or term, if the agent’s authority were established.”
[89] In light of the foregoing, ‘it was common ground between the parties, and rightly so, that Mr. Maurel’s actual authority on behalf of MIF fell to be determined under French law and the question of whether and to what extent Mr. Maurel was able to bind MIF in respect of the Guarantee given Canara’s knowledge of the resolution is a matter of English law.’
Common English conflict of laws is held to apply to the issue of transfer of a guarantee during the dissolution of a company, and parties agree [76] that whether a corporation has been amalgamated with another corporation is to be determined by the law of its place of incorporation: French law is held to be the relevant law for the dissolved guarantor issue, and expert reports were discussed.
Overall conclusion is [125]
Having considered the issue of good arguable case by reference to each of the issues raised by the parties in relation to the question of whether MCS France was a party to the Guarantee and therefore the jurisdiction agreement contained within it, it seems to me to appropriate to step back and consider whether overall Canara has a good arguable case on whether or not MCS France was a party to that jurisdiction agreement. In this regard, I consider that it does. Even were I to be wrong on one of the issues considered above, the balance of the evidence supports the conclusion that MCS France is a party to the Guarantee and to the jurisdiction agreement contained within it. In circumstances, where the evidence establishes that Canara, MCS France and MCS UK have done business since 2014 on the basis that the Guarantee was binding on MCS France, it would be a surprising conclusion that there was no good arguable case that MCS France was a party to the jurisdiction agreement.
Interesting, if flimsy on the corporate carve-out issue.
Geert.
gavc law - geert van calster 