Agreement Without Jurisdiction Clause
The High Court stated that Article 23 of Brussels II invented, for the application of the exclusivity clause, an “effective consent” or “effective acceptance” of the clause, which must be “clearly and precisely demonstrated”. It appears that the applicant, AEL, has demonstrated that the conditions of Article 23 are fulfilled. The EYL decision provided useful guidance for the inclusion of jurisdiction clauses by reference. In the event that reference is made to a separate contract, the courts consider the extent to which the clause is closely related to the new contract. On the basis of AEL, it will be difficult for the parties to demonstrate that, in these circumstances, their jurisdiction clause is closely linked. Here is a typical clause of the legislation in force: “This agreement is subject to the laws of [Thailand / England / Singapore / etc. and must be interpreted in accordance with them. In the case commented on here, the judges did indeed annul the arbitration clause, but did not recognise that such a clause could apply only between the insurer and the insured, that that clause was manifestly null and void or unenforceable, in breach of Article 1448(1) of the French Code of Civil Procedure. This contract for transport services (the contract) subsequently collapsed amid claims by both parties that the other party had committed an infringement. AEL brought proceedings against Socofi and DAM in the English High Court, where it applied for the jurisdiction clause in the charter contract. A jurisdiction clause may provide for jurisdiction in a country related to one or more of the parties or may provide for jurisdiction in a neutral forum. There are three main reasons for indicating which court has jurisdiction: the use of non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses is common in cross-border commercial contracts. In general, they indicate that the parties have given their consent to bring all disputes (arising from the treaty) before the courts of a given jurisdiction, while leaving the parties free to bring an action before the courts of another jurisdiction.
This contrasts with exclusive jurisdiction clauses, which are more restrictive and require that the parties can only submit a dispute to the jurisdiction indicated in the clause. Therefore, when drafting the applicable law clause, it is necessary to consider whether it should be limited to the agreement itself or extended to cover other non-contractual obligations related to the Treaty7. which regulates the non-contractual obligations of the parties. . . .