Interpreting non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements

Abstract

This article will argue that exclusive and non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses are in some respects more similar but conversely in other respects less similar than is currently accounted for. Both involve a party submitting to the jurisdiction of a named court or courts which means that the result in cases involving stays or service out should usually be the same. Conversely, a key difference, which is not always given proper weight, is the preclusive effect of exclusive jurisdiction agreements on foreign proceedings. This should usually lead to a different result where a party is seeking an anti-suit injunction to restrain proceedings in a non-chosen court. It is crucial to start by identifying and construing the contractual promises contained in a jurisdiction agreement, both express and implied and both positive and negative. The difference between exclusive and non-exclusive agreements lies in the complex interplay between these positive and negative aspects