Sentences with phrase «exclusive jurisdiction clause»
An exclusive jurisdiction clause is a provision in a contract that designates a specific court or forum to have sole and exclusive authority to resolve any disputes arising from the agreement. Full definition
Since none of the parties was domiciled in England, UBS relied on the English exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Dealer's Confirmation so as to establish the English court's jurisdiction.
newlawjournal.co.uk
In a scenario which played itself out in various European capitals the measures imposed by the Icelandic government in order to prop up its banking system potentially undermined the agreement's exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English High Court as well as its governing English law provision.
A different route would be for the UK to ratify the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Law Agreements (which applies to all EU Member States except Denmark), but this Convention only requires recognition of exclusive jurisdiction clauses.
A further disadvantage is the Hague Convention's limited application only to agreements that contain exclusive jurisdiction clauses.
Had the agreement containing the English exclusive jurisdiction clause stood on its own, then the court would have had sympathy with UBS's submissions that the clause should be given a wide construction.
Where proceedings are brought pursuant to an English exclusive jurisdiction clause, the clause has mandatory effect, and the court is deprived of its common law discretion to stay proceedings in favour of another jurisdiction on classic forum non conveniens grounds.
He ruled that the agreement's English governing law and exclusive jurisdiction clause was sacrosanct.
Such arguments did not constitute the strong and compelling grounds required to stay proceedings before the High Court under an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of foreign insolvency proceedings.
When is an exclusive jurisdiction clause not an exclusive jurisdiction clause, asks James Watthey
There are, however, several holes in the convention — the biggest one being that it only applies to exclusive jurisdiction clauses — and there are substantial numbers of carveouts, but it would be a lot better than nothing.
Depending on what these provisions say, they are known as preclusive clauses, finality clauses, privative clauses or exclusive jurisdiction clauses.
If it were otherwise it would appear to follow that a defendant who had at least as good a chance of showing that he did not agree to litigate in England as the claimant had of showing that he did, would be likely to find himself compelled to litigate in England, on the footing that, once a good arguable case was made out in favour of an English exclusive jurisdiction clause, discretionary considerations would be unlikely to call for the case to be decided elsewhere.
The only difference in this case was that there was no forum selection or exclusive jurisdiction clause, so the court could not rely on the «strong cause» test and had to essentially ignore the contractual nexus of the subject - matter of the litigation.
Novatrust v Kea Investments (2014), BVI Joint venture dispute; statutory winding up jurisdiction of the BVI court took precedence over an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of England contained in the shareholders» agreement between the parties.
In particular, Jeremy was the successful Junior Counsel for Scott Law in the Court Appeal, in the leading case of RBS v Highland, where the Court found that the «unclean hands» of RBS meant it should not be granted anti-suit injunctive relief, despite an exclusive jurisdiction clause.
Conversely, in Ryanair Ltd v Esso Italiana Srl [2015] 1 All ER (Comm), the Court of Appeal held that the absence of any viable form of contractual complaint about an allegedly cartelised price rendered it impossible to claim that a competition law complaint about the same price was within an exclusive jurisdiction clause.
HSH's position was that the particular dispute between the parties related to parts of the relationship with UBS which were not subject to the English exclusive jurisdiction clause and the New York clauses should apply.
UBS contended that the English exclusive jurisdiction clause should be construed widely, with a presumption that disputes would be heard by the same tribunal.
Claimant argues that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 25 Brussels I Recast because the relevant contract contains an English exclusive jurisdiction clause and further contends that the relevant contract was concluded by AMS Mexico and / or AMS on behalf of AT1 and Ezion as undisclosed principals and that, as undisclosed principals, the contract — together with the jurisdiction agreement — was binding on AT1 and Ezion.