In a case handled by Sønderby Legal, both our client and the opposing party were members of the same trade association, and the contract between them included, among other things, a general reference to the association’s terms and conditions. These contained a provision stating that, in the event of any dispute in the collaboration, it was to be resolved either by arbitration or before the association’s own agreed venue, which in this case was the District Court of Esbjerg.
When a dispute arose between the parties, we brought proceedings on behalf of our client before the District Court of Bornholm, as we were firmly convinced that this was the defendant’s court of domicile, and because we did not consider the relevant jurisdiction clause applicable unless the association itself was a party to the case.
However, the District Court of Bornholm declined to hear the case on the basis of the jurisdiction clause in the terms and conditions and, in addition, referred the case to the District Court of Esbjerg.
We appealed the decision to the Eastern High Court. Based on an email in which the association itself had expressed doubt as to the proper procedure and venue in this case, as well as the fact that the wording in the terms and conditions had to be understood to mean that application of the jurisdiction clause would require the association itself to be a party to the dispute, the Eastern High Court accepted our submissions and upheld our interpretation of the jurisdiction clause. The District Court’s order was set aside and the case was remitted to the District Court of Bornholm. By maintaining our interpretation, we thus spared our client both inconvenience and the financial consequences of having to conduct proceedings at the other end of the country.
