| Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court |
| Civil Case 53972-03-23 Bynet Electronics in Tax Appeal v. Spirent Communications PLC
|
| Request Number:8 | |||
| Before | The Honorable Judge Gershon Gontovnik | ||
| The Applicant (the Defendant) |
Spirent Communications PLC
By Adv. Dafna Klein and Adv. Maor Geriani Barnea, Jaffa, Lande & Co. |
||
| Against | |||
| The Respondent (the Plaintiff) |
Bynet Electronics Ltd.
By Adv. Dafna Kahan and Jonathan Kahn Jonathan Kahn & Co., Attorneys at Law |
||
| Decision |
An English electronics manufacturer has contracted with an Israeli distribution company to distribute its products in Israel. The relationship between them was long-lasting. After the two quarreled, the manufacturer announced that it was interested in ending the contract between them. The distributor claims that the manufacturer acted in bad faith and illegally, and therefore filed a lawsuit in the Israeli forum. However, the manufacturer claims that the contract between the two includes a jurisdiction clause, which states that the dispute between them must be clarified in England; It further states that the law of the contract will be English law, and its interpretation will be in accordance with English law.
Is this a unique jurisdictional stipulation or is it a parallel? How should the parasha be represented, and according to what law should the parasha be? And how should this law be proven?
And insofar as it is a parallel stipulation, is the Israeli forum appropriate to clarify the dispute between the parties? These are the main questions that must be discussed in the framework of the motion for summary dismissal, which was filed by the defendant, and which is about to be decided.
The Claim and its Background
- Spirnet Communications PLC (hereinafter: Spirnet, the defendant or the applicant) is a public company that operates, inter alia, in the field of distributing testing and security solutions in the world of communications. It is listed in England, and has been traded on the London Stock Exchange for many years.
The Applicant's products were distributed in Israel through Bynet Electronics in a tax appeal (hereinafter: Bynet, the plaintiff or the respondent) for a period of approximately 30 years. Although it was not defined as the exclusive distributor of Spirnet, according to the plaintiff, it was, in practice, such in relation to most of its products during the period of the engagement (with the exception of another product that was distributed through another exclusive distributor).