The Subtle Variety Of Jurisdiction Agreements

65 cf. Fentiman (2013) CLJ 24 (n 51), 25 the French court did not directly apply French law, so the decision does not contribute to the known controversy over the relevance of national law in determining the validity of art. 23. Asymmetric jurisdiction clauses are clauses which contain different provisions concerning the jurisdiction of each party. They are widespread in international financial markets. However, the validity of this form of agreement has been questioned in several European jurisdictions. In addition, after Brexit, there could be an increasing focus on alternative methods of enforcement under the Hague Convention and in the common law, claims for compensation and injunctions. In addition to taking into account recent developments in case law and the impact of Brexit, this article stresses that all these questions can only be answered after the individual promises contained in a given agreement have been correctly identified and interpreted. Once this has been done, there is no reason why the asymmetrical nature of a clause should be a prohibition on hindering its application. 1 As Fentiman, R, International Commercial Litigation (2nd edn, Oxford 2015), [2.05] notes, dispute settlement clauses in commercial transactions now attempt to settle all aspects of a dispute, including the mechanism for notifying notification, waiver of the right to object to jurisdiction or enforcement, indemnification, etc.

This article focuses on the central aspect of these agreements, namely the mechanism and place of dispute settlement. 25) and Brussels I (recast) – Requirements for an effective jurisdiction agreement (Article 25) – These practice notes set out the rules applicable to jurisdiction agreements where the dispute is governed by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). . . .