Repository logo

Implication of jurisdiction agreements

Accepted version

Repository DOI



Change log


Kupelyants, H 


jats:pIN jats:italicVizcaya Partners Ltd. v Picard</jats:italic> [2016] UKPC 5, the Privy Council considered an attempt to enforce a New York judgment in Gibraltar. The judgment debtor was not present in New York at the time the New York court assumed jurisdiction, which suggested that enforcement of the US judgment would be refused for want of jurisdiction. However, the argument of the judgment creditor was that an express choice of New York law in the contract, coupled with other factors, was sufficient to imply submission of the parties to the courts of New York (and, accordingly, vest the New York courts with jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcement of the New York judgment). The crux of the case was thus whether the terms of the contract could indicate submission to the jurisdiction of a foreign court, even if that submission was not crystallised in the form of an express contractual provision. The Privy Council held that, while, in principle, it might be possible to imply submission, on the facts, there was no such submission so that the judgment was unenforceable.</jats:p>


This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Cambridge University Press via


48 Law and Legal Studies, 4806 Private Law and Civil Obligations, 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Journal Title

Cambridge Law Journal

Conference Name

Journal ISSN


Volume Title



Cambridge University Press (CUP)