Bahrain Court Declines Jurisdiction in $400,000 Arabic Film Rights Dispute

The High Commercial Court in Bahrain has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to hear a $400,000 dispute over worldwide distribution rights to an Arabic feature film. The decision was upheld by the High Commercial Court of Appeal, lawyer Abdul Adheem Hubail confirmed.

The case was brought by a Bahraini company against an international firm and one of its executives, alleging that they had agreed to pay $400,000 in instalments for the external exploitation and global distribution rights to the film. The agreement was documented through a contract for the purchase of all exploitation rights, as well as two exclusive distribution deals covering commercial screenings worldwide.

The claimant maintained that it had fully honoured its contractual obligations while the defendants failed to pay $200,000 half of the agreed amount yet continued to profit from the film, which has since appeared on Netflix. It argued that, as a Bahraini company with bank statements showing relevant transfers, it had the right to pursue the case in Bahrain’s courts.

However, the court of first instance reviewed copies of the contracts and found they had been drafted on the defendant company’s letterhead, bearing only a signature attributed to that company. The documents identified the company’s registered office as being located in another GCC state. The court noted that nothing in the preambles or footers suggested the contracts were concluded in Bahrain, nor was there any indication that the obligations were performed or intended to be performed within Bahraini territory.

Based on these findings, the court ruled that Article 15 of the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law relating to jurisdiction based on the place of performance did not apply. The judges observed that the subject of the agreements concerned international distribution rights, and nothing in the clauses or annexes pointed to Bahrain as a venue for distribution, screening, payment, or delivery. With no meaningful territorial link established, the court concluded it lacked international jurisdiction.

Further weakening the claimant’s position, the court highlighted that no contractual clause assigned jurisdiction to Bahraini courts. Instead, clause sixteen of the exploitation-rights contract granted jurisdiction to the courts of the Arab Republic of Egypt, while clause eleven of the worldwide distribution contract (excluding Egypt) reinforced the same jurisdictional assignment.

With these factors combined, the courts reaffirmed that Bahrain has no legal grounds to hear the dispute, leaving the claimant to pursue the case in the jurisdiction stipulated by the contracts.