Advertisement

United Kingdom: Giving Effect to Optional Choice of Court Agreements—Interpretation, Operation and Enforcement

  • Louise MerrettEmail author
  • Janeen Carruthers
Chapter
  • 302 Downloads
Part of the Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law book series (GSCL, volume 37)

Abstract

This chapter begins by explaining that respect for party autonomy is an important feature of the national common law rules and the European rules which together govern jurisdiction and choice of law in civil and commercial matters in the UK. The chapter considers the approach to optional jurisdiction agreements in the four main regimes which apply to determine jurisdiction: the BIR recast, the Hague Convention, the Lugano II Convention and the residual national rules. The chapter explains how the various regimes distinguish between exclusive and non-exclusive agreements. At common law, the starting point is to construe the express and implied positive and negative promises contained in the choice of court agreement. The key difference between exclusive and non-exclusive agreements is that while both contain a positive promise to submit to the jurisdiction of the chosen court, only an exclusive agreement also contains a negative promise not to sue anywhere else. When it comes to the effect of those promises, the unique feature of the English national rules (which are broadly mirrored by the Scottish national rules) is that jurisdiction is always discretionary. However, because of the respect for party autonomy, the courts will give effect to the promise to submit in a non-exclusive agreement unless there is a strong reason for not doing so. By contrast, it is only in the case of an exclusive agreement that suing in another jurisdiction amounts to a breach of contract. This means that remedies founded on breach of contract, including damages, anti-suit injunctions, and defences to the enforcement of judgments, should be available only where there is an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. The chapter also considers asymmetric agreements, which are usually optional in respect of one party, but exclusive in relation to another. Finally, the authors outline the potential impact of Brexit and possible ways forward.

References

  1. Ahmed M, Beaumont P (2017) Exclusive choice of court agreements: some issues on the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and its relationship with the Brussels I recast especially anti-suit injunctions, concurrent proceedings and the implications of Brexit. J Private Int Law 13:386–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baatz Y, Sandiforth A (2010) Forum non conveniens further constrained. J Bus Law 6:522–528Google Scholar
  3. Beale N, Clayson C (2013) One-way jurisdiction clauses: a one-way ticket to anywhere? J Int Bus Law 463Google Scholar
  4. Briggs A (2008) Agreements on jurisdiction and choice of law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Briggs A (2012) The subtle variety of jurisdiction agreements. Lloyd’s Marit Commercial Law Q 364–381Google Scholar
  6. Briggs A (2014) Private international law in English Courts. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Carruthers JM (2017) Brexit – the implications for civil and commercial jurisdiction and judgment enforcement. Scots Law Times (21):103–108Google Scholar
  8. Collins L (2012) Dicey, Morris and Collins on the conflict of laws, 15th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Crawford EB, Carruthers JM (2015) International private law: a Scots perspective, 4th edn. W Green, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  10. Dickinson A (2016) Back to the future: the UK’s EU exit and the conflict of laws. J Private Int Law 12:195–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dickinson A, Lein E (2015) The Brussels I Regulation Recast. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Draguiev D (2014) Unilateral jurisdiction clauses: the case for invalidity, severability or enforceability. J Int Arbitration 31:19–46Google Scholar
  13. Fentiman R (2013) Unilateral jurisdiction agreements in Europe. Camb Law J 72:24–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fentiman R (2015) International Commercial Litigation, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Financial Markets Law Committee (2016) Report on issues of legal uncertainty arising in the context of asymmetric jurisdiction clausesGoogle Scholar
  16. Garvey S (2016) Hybrid jurisdiction clause: time for a rethink? Br J Int Bus Financ Law 1:6Google Scholar
  17. Harris J (2016a) How will Brexit impact on cross-border litigation? Solicitors’ J 160Google Scholar
  18. Harris J (2016b) Brexit & cross-border dispute resolution. New Law J 166Google Scholar
  19. Hartley T, Dogauchi M (2013) Explanatory report on convention of 30 June 2005 on choice of court agreements. Hague Conference on Private International Law, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  20. Joseph D (2015) Jurisdiction and arbitration agreements and their enforcement, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Keyes M, Marshall B (2015) Jurisdiction agreements: exclusive, optional and asymmetric. J Private Int Law 11:345–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liang W (2015) Unilateral jurisdiction clauses under Chinese law. J Int Bank Law Regul 30:341Google Scholar
  23. Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) (2016) European commentaries on private international law, Brussels Ibis Regulation. Otto Schmidt, KölnGoogle Scholar
  24. Maher G, Rodger B (2010) Civil Jurisdiction in the Scottish Courts. W Green, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  25. Petch T (2016) The treatment of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses in financial contracts in France and England. UCL J Law Jurisprudence 5:313–334Google Scholar
  26. Pillet G (2016) The reform of French contract law and the general rules on obligations: the civil code faces the challenges of the market. Int Bus Law J 235Google Scholar
  27. Rogerson P (2013) Collier’s conflict of laws, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rogerson P (2017) Litigation post-Brexit. N Law J 166Google Scholar
  29. Rowan S (2017) The new French Law of contract. Int Comp Law Q 66:805–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Government Papers

  1. HM Government (2017) Providing a cross-border civil judicial cooperation framework. A Future Partnership Paper, 22 August 2017Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Cambridge, Faculty of LawCambridgeUK
  2. 2.University of Glasgow, School of LawGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations