Nevertheless, the Judge found that the Ontario Court did have
jurisdiction over the dispute due to the Defendants» conduct in Ontario; the Defendants had submitted («attorned») to the jurisdiction of Ontario's Courts by filing a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim in the Ontario action.
The motion judge concluded that Ontario did not have
jurisdiction over the dispute because the dispute did not have a «real and substantial connection» with the province of Ontario, and that Nunavut was clearly the more appropriate forum to hear the dispute.
The Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the motion judge had not properly considered whether Ontario was the «forum of necessity» — i.e. the doctrine allowing the Court to
assume jurisdiction over a dispute, even though there is no «real and substantial connection» with Ontario, because there is no other forum in which the plaintiff can reasonably seek relief (see our previous posts regarding the doctrine of «forum of necessity» here and here).
The Svea Court of Appeal also dismissed the investors» arguments that a MFN - clause in the BIT meant that the dispute resolution clauses in Russia's other BIT's gave the arbitral
tribunal jurisdiction over the dispute.
The Russian defendant objected and argued that the SCC
lacked jurisdiction over the dispute, that the Russian party had not been duly notified of the arbitration, and that enforcement of the award would constitute a violation of Russian public policy.
At present, it is not uncommon for parties, both in the UK and overseas, to stipulate contractually that UK courts will have
jurisdiction over any disputes which arise and there is no reason for this to change following Brexit.
Given that arbitrators would not have the judicial discretion available to the judge in this case, it can be expected that an arbitral tribunal would be even less likely to
accept jurisdiction over the dispute if one party had ignored the DAB and sought to go straight to arbitration.
Ms. Redko worries that the principle set out in Trial Lawyers could be invoked by a party seeking to get out of an agreement to arbitrate or a choice of forum clause giving a foreign
court jurisdiction over a dispute that might be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of a Canadian province.
If the parties do not agree to binding arbitration, then the license should specify that the law of a particular state shall govern and the court that will have exclusive
jurisdiction over the dispute.
Article 7 (2) is based on the consideration that courts with a particularly close connecting factor should also have
jurisdiction over a dispute.
In 2009 the arbitral tribunal found that it had
jurisdiction over the dispute and in 2012 the arbitral tribunal delivered a final award on the merits, unanimously stating that the Russian Federation was guilty of expropriation and ordered Russia to pay compensation in accordance with the BIT.
It has, in the first place,
jurisdiction over all disputes and conflicts among family members, as well as all related domestic affairs of legal significance.
We can also advise you whether a dispute is within the scope of an arbitration agreement and / or whether an arbitrator has
jurisdiction over a dispute.
The essence of the claim between Father Hart and the Archdiocese is ecclesiastical in nature and this court has
no jurisdiction over that dispute.
Since most distribution agreements are between parties in different jurisdictions, or across borders, questions arise as to the proper law governing the contract or issues arising, and which court has
jurisdiction over the dispute and the parties.
At the motion hearing for summary judgment, Justice Edward M. Morgan of the Superior Court found that the Court had
no jurisdiction over the dispute due to a «choice of forum clause» as agreed to by both parties, which required that all disputes were to be resolved in the Cayman Islands.
Judgment on any award resulting from such arbitration may be entered by any court having
jurisdiction over the dispute.
There are no international courts which would have
jurisdiction over the dispute you describe.
At issue in this case then was not whether the court had
jurisdiction over the dispute, but rather whether the plaintiff had properly plead his claim.
The buyer broker contended that the board, the New Orleans Metropolitan Association of REALTORS ® («NOMAR») did not have
jurisdiction over the dispute, claiming that the arbitration request was not based on a contractual dispute as required by NAR's Code of Ethics.