Facts
On 21 February 1996, the 1st Civil Law Court of the Federal Court handed down a judgment in the case of [B.] v. K. The plaintiff, Ms. K., had brought an action against the defendant, Mr. [B.], before the Zurich District Court in April 1993, seeking a declaration and payment of two alleged loans, amounting to $63,000 and $111,750, which were allegedly granted to the defendant in 1982. The plaintiff invoked the territorial jurisdiction of the Zurich court, as she considered Zurich to be the place of performance of the obligation and the defendant had his domicile in Rome or London. The defendant contested the territorial jurisdiction of the court and denied the existence of the loan agreements.
The District Court dismissed the objection to territorial jurisdiction on 17 February 1994. On 2 August 1994, the Zurich Cantonal Court dismissed the defendant's appeal and confirmed the first-instance decision. The defendant filed a appeal against this decision, which was admitted by the Federal Court.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the question of whether the Zurich court had jurisdiction to hear the case due to the place of performance of the obligation. The Lugano Convention (LugÜ) provides that a person who has their domicile in the territory of a contracting state may be sued in the court of the state where the obligation was performed or should be performed.
The Federal Court considered that the jurisdiction of the court is determined in principle by the nature of the claim and that the jurisdiction of a court cannot depend on the question of whether the claim is well-founded or not. However, if the jurisdiction of the court depends on the existence of an agreement regarding the place of performance, the court must take evidence on this point if necessary.
The Federal Court also considered that the burden of proof lies with the…