High Court. 16.1.1 Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Master Agreement and/or any Confirmation Notice (including any dispute in relation to the existence, validity or termination of any agreement, and including any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in relation to the Master Agreement or a Confirmation Notice) shall be submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court in London.]
High Court. [58] In the High Court, PwC apparently argued its case on a broader basis than it does now. Its arguments based on traditional grounds of abuse of process were rejected by Xxxxx X.34 As they were not pursued in the Court of Appeal or this Court, we need say no more about them. In relation to the argument pursued by PwC before us, Xxxxx J found that there was no impermissible assignment of the cause of action in the assignment of the Allied GSA from Allied to SPF.35 He rejected an argument that the assignment was impermissible because SPF had no antecedent commercial interest in Allied or the Allied GSA. He considered SPF’s commercial interest was inherent in the assignment of the Allied GSA.36 Brown J also discussed PwC’s contention that the combination of the Funding Agreement and the Allied GSA gave SPF an excessive profit share. He did not accept that the whole was greater than the sum of its parts.37 31 At [56], declining to apply Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 41, (2006) 229 CLR 386. 32 At [57]. The Court did not comment on situations where assignments of personal causes of action may be permissible: at [62]. 33 At [57] and [76](e). 34 HC judgment, above n 4, at [62]. 35 At [80]–[90]. 36 At [82]. 37 At [90]. Court of Appeal [59] The Court of Appeal said the key issue before it was whether the SPF Documents were in substance a bare assignment of a claim in tort or personal claim, noting that such assignment remains unlawful after this Court’s decision in Waterhouse.38 [60] The Court accepted the SPF Documents had to be considered together;39 that SPF had no antecedent commercial interest in PVL;40 and that the Allied Assignment would not have been agreed to but for the Funding Agreement.41 But it did not accept the SPF Documents amounted to an assignment of a bare cause of action. Its reasons were:42
High Court. In connection with the aforesaid arbitration proceeding, only the High Court at Calcutta and its subordinate Courts shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try all actions and proceedings.
High Court. The HC dismissed the said application by holding that an arbitrator cannot be appointed as the appellant did not prove the existence of an arbitration agreement. The HC relied upon the judgement of the SC in M.R. Engineers and Contractors (p) Ltd-V- Som Datt Builders Ltd, (2009) 7 SCC 696, to hold that there is no special reference to the arbitration clause in the standard terms and conditions, so the arbitration clause cannot be said to have been incorporated in to the purchase order.