Interpreting non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements
View / Open Files
Authors
Merrett, Louise
Publication Date
2018-05-25Journal Title
Journal of Private International Law
ISSN
1744-1048
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
38-65
Language
ENG
Type
Article
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Merrett, L. (2018). Interpreting non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements. Journal of Private International Law, 14 (1), 38-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2018.1433450
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
Keywords
jurisdiction agreements, non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements, exclusive jurisdiction agreements, construction of jurisdiction agreements, stays, anti-suit injunctions
Identifiers
External DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2018.1433450
This record's URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/284487
Rights
Licence:
http://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
Statistics
Total file downloads (since January 2020). For more information on metrics see the
IRUS guide.