Agreement Of Jurisdiction

Any international trade agreement must be subject to a legal system. Different countries have different laws and their content and application by the courts can vary considerably in individual cases. Whether or not an exclusive jurisdiction clause is used depends on the facts of this case. For example, in a share purchase agreement, a seller will probably prefer an exclusive jurisdiction clause, since the seller is the most likely party sued, and he may want certainty of where it will be. The risk of being sued in foreign courts with uncertain jurisdiction is not attractive. On the other hand, in a contract to purchase shares, the purchaser may wish for a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause in order to be sure that he can bring an action before the English courts (or the courts, regardless of the jurisdiction chosen) and in the courts of any other jurisdiction in which the seller owns or may have assets. However, these agreements are not considered to be exclusively governed by the Hague Convention on the Choice of Judicial Agreements. Given that this may be the mechanism by which we will maintain mutual applicability within the EU as soon as the UK leaves the EU, it may be not advisable to qualify two courts as exclusive jurisdiction in EU-related transactions. Also keep in mind that there is a risk of parallel proceedings outside the EU, especially in the case of a counterclaim against a claim, the application before a court and the counter-action before another court. The applicable rules on legislation and jurisdiction may ultimately change the interpretation and application of an international treaty (i.e. in accordance with the laws of a particular country or in accordance with precedents that bind a particular court).

Particular attention should therefore be paid to the wording of these clauses to ensure that there is no room for ambiguity. In addition, reference should be made to country-specific laws unless they relate to agreed existing legislation. It is helpful to seek legal advice in the development of international treaties. Not necessarily like that. In most cases, but not in all cases, the courts in England and Wales take effect with a jurisdiction clause that gives them jurisdiction, or to the courts of another state. Circumstances in which there may be problems include: as a general rule, a jurisdiction clause provides for either an exclusive or „non-exclusive“ jurisdiction. Interpretation of these concepts may vary across legal systems, but overall „exclusive jurisdiction“ means that only designated courts have jurisdiction to decide disputes; „Non-exclusive jurisdiction“ means that these courts may hear litigation, but the parties are not prevented from bringing an action in other jurisdictions or if they deem it appropriate. „When a dispute that is referred to an arbitration tribunal on the basis of an arbitration agreement is brought before a national court, the court must declare itself incompetent, unless the matter has not yet been brought before the arbitration tribunal and the arbitration agreement is manifestly non-applicable or manifestly inoperable.“ The parties agree that any dispute arising from or related to this contract is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Hamburg courts. In the case presented here, Company A had entered into a contract with several Group B companies to supply solar modules with a jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction on the French courts.

This contract included insurance policies that had been taken out by Group B companies with three insurers and which covered, among other things, possible electricity losses from solar modules.


Comments are closed.