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

Mukarrum Ahmed, Paul Beaumont

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)
4 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This research paper argues that the Hague Convention’s system of ‘qualified’ or ‘partial’ mutual trust may permit anti-suit injunctions, actions for damages for breach of exclusive jurisdiction agreements and anti-enforcement injunctions where such remedies further the objective of the Convention. However, intra-EU Hague Convention cases may arguably not permit remedies for breach of exclusive jurisdiction agreements as they may be deemed to be an infringement of the principle of mutual trust and the principle of effectiveness of EU law (effet utile) which animate the multilateral jurisdiction and judgments order of the Brussels I Recast Regulation. The dynamics of the relationship between Article 31(2) of the Recast Regulation and Articles 5 and 6 of the Hague Convention will also be mapped in this paper. It will be argued that the Hartley-Dogauchi Report’s interpretative approach has much to commend it as it follows the path of least resistance by narrowly construing the right to sue in a non-chosen forum as an exception rather than the norm. This exceptional nature of the right to sue in the non-chosen forum under the Hague Convention can be effectively reconciled with the Brussels I Recast Regulation's reverse lis pendens rule under Article 31(2). This will usually result in the stay of the proceedings in the non-chosen court as soon as the chosen court is seised. The likely outcome post-BREXIT is that the regime applicable between the UK and the EU (apart from Denmark) in relation to exclusive jurisdiction agreements within the scope of the Hague Convention will be the Hague Convention.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)386-410
Number of pages24
JournalJournal of Private International Law
Volume13
Issue number2
Early online date23 Aug 2017
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

jurisdiction
regulation
remedies
EU
European Law
Denmark
damages
regime

Keywords

  • Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, Brussels
  • anti-suit injunctions
  • conflicts of laws
  • Brexit
  • private international law
  • international commercial litigation
  • Recast Regulation
  • exclusive jurisdiction agreements
  • parallel proceedings
  • lis pendens

Cite this

@article{accaebeaafc2460f8da84c7be0a67715,
title = "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",
abstract = "This research paper argues that the Hague Convention’s system of ‘qualified’ or ‘partial’ mutual trust may permit anti-suit injunctions, actions for damages for breach of exclusive jurisdiction agreements and anti-enforcement injunctions where such remedies further the objective of the Convention. However, intra-EU Hague Convention cases may arguably not permit remedies for breach of exclusive jurisdiction agreements as they may be deemed to be an infringement of the principle of mutual trust and the principle of effectiveness of EU law (effet utile) which animate the multilateral jurisdiction and judgments order of the Brussels I Recast Regulation. The dynamics of the relationship between Article 31(2) of the Recast Regulation and Articles 5 and 6 of the Hague Convention will also be mapped in this paper. It will be argued that the Hartley-Dogauchi Report’s interpretative approach has much to commend it as it follows the path of least resistance by narrowly construing the right to sue in a non-chosen forum as an exception rather than the norm. This exceptional nature of the right to sue in the non-chosen forum under the Hague Convention can be effectively reconciled with the Brussels I Recast Regulation's reverse lis pendens rule under Article 31(2). This will usually result in the stay of the proceedings in the non-chosen court as soon as the chosen court is seised. The likely outcome post-BREXIT is that the regime applicable between the UK and the EU (apart from Denmark) in relation to exclusive jurisdiction agreements within the scope of the Hague Convention will be the Hague Convention.",
keywords = "Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, Brussels , anti-suit injunctions , conflicts of laws , Brexit, private international law, international commercial litigation, Recast Regulation, exclusive jurisdiction agreements, parallel proceedings, lis pendens",
author = "Mukarrum Ahmed and Paul Beaumont",
year = "2017",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "386--410",
journal = "Journal of Private International Law",
issn = "1744-1048",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exclusive choice of court agreements

T2 - 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

AU - Ahmed, Mukarrum

AU - Beaumont, Paul

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - This research paper argues that the Hague Convention’s system of ‘qualified’ or ‘partial’ mutual trust may permit anti-suit injunctions, actions for damages for breach of exclusive jurisdiction agreements and anti-enforcement injunctions where such remedies further the objective of the Convention. However, intra-EU Hague Convention cases may arguably not permit remedies for breach of exclusive jurisdiction agreements as they may be deemed to be an infringement of the principle of mutual trust and the principle of effectiveness of EU law (effet utile) which animate the multilateral jurisdiction and judgments order of the Brussels I Recast Regulation. The dynamics of the relationship between Article 31(2) of the Recast Regulation and Articles 5 and 6 of the Hague Convention will also be mapped in this paper. It will be argued that the Hartley-Dogauchi Report’s interpretative approach has much to commend it as it follows the path of least resistance by narrowly construing the right to sue in a non-chosen forum as an exception rather than the norm. This exceptional nature of the right to sue in the non-chosen forum under the Hague Convention can be effectively reconciled with the Brussels I Recast Regulation's reverse lis pendens rule under Article 31(2). This will usually result in the stay of the proceedings in the non-chosen court as soon as the chosen court is seised. The likely outcome post-BREXIT is that the regime applicable between the UK and the EU (apart from Denmark) in relation to exclusive jurisdiction agreements within the scope of the Hague Convention will be the Hague Convention.

AB - This research paper argues that the Hague Convention’s system of ‘qualified’ or ‘partial’ mutual trust may permit anti-suit injunctions, actions for damages for breach of exclusive jurisdiction agreements and anti-enforcement injunctions where such remedies further the objective of the Convention. However, intra-EU Hague Convention cases may arguably not permit remedies for breach of exclusive jurisdiction agreements as they may be deemed to be an infringement of the principle of mutual trust and the principle of effectiveness of EU law (effet utile) which animate the multilateral jurisdiction and judgments order of the Brussels I Recast Regulation. The dynamics of the relationship between Article 31(2) of the Recast Regulation and Articles 5 and 6 of the Hague Convention will also be mapped in this paper. It will be argued that the Hartley-Dogauchi Report’s interpretative approach has much to commend it as it follows the path of least resistance by narrowly construing the right to sue in a non-chosen forum as an exception rather than the norm. This exceptional nature of the right to sue in the non-chosen forum under the Hague Convention can be effectively reconciled with the Brussels I Recast Regulation's reverse lis pendens rule under Article 31(2). This will usually result in the stay of the proceedings in the non-chosen court as soon as the chosen court is seised. The likely outcome post-BREXIT is that the regime applicable between the UK and the EU (apart from Denmark) in relation to exclusive jurisdiction agreements within the scope of the Hague Convention will be the Hague Convention.

KW - Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, Brussels

KW - anti-suit injunctions

KW - conflicts of laws

KW - Brexit

KW - private international law

KW - international commercial litigation

KW - Recast Regulation

KW - exclusive jurisdiction agreements

KW - parallel proceedings

KW - lis pendens

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 386

EP - 410

JO - Journal of Private International Law

JF - Journal of Private International Law

SN - 1744-1048

IS - 2

ER -