James Kinman acted for the successful respondent to a jurisdiction challenge in Campeau v Gottex Real Asset Fund 1 (OE) Waste S.à r.l. [2025] EWHC 2322 (Comm), judgment in which has been handed down today.

The judgment clarifies important aspects of CPR 6.33(2B), the construction of jurisdiction clauses, and the operation of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. In particular:

• In order for a claimant to rely upon CPR 6.33(2B)(a) or (b), the defendant must be a party to a jurisdiction clause. There is no need for the claimant to be a party to the clause, provided the claimant’s claim falls within the clause properly construed.
• While the starting point is that jurisdiction clauses are generally not intended to cover disputes with third parties to the contract, this is no more than a default assumption. The clause must still be construed by reference to its text and its context in the usual way. The clause in this case did cover the claimant’s claim, notwithstanding that he was not a party to the contract.
• Section 1(4) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 will typically require third parties seeking to enforce rights conferred on them under that Act to comply with any jurisdiction clauses in the relevant contract. This, in itself, will entitle third parties to rely upon CPR 6.33(2B). The Court accepted James’s submission that the earlier judgment of JP Morgan International Finance Ltd v Werealize.com Ltd [2025] EWHC 1842 (Comm) was incorrect in concluding otherwise.

James was instructed by Nikolas Ireland and Noel Newman of Macfarlanes.

The claimant is represented in Luxembourg by Philippe Sylvestre of Brucher Thielgen & Partners.