Top

Published in:

2020 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private International Law: General Report

Author : Mary Keyes

Published in: Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private International Law

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

The law in relation to choice of court agreements has developed significantly in recent years, but most of this development has concerned exclusive choice of court agreements. Optional choice of court agreements have not been the focus of attention by lawmakers or by commentators. This chapter provides an overview of this area of the law, synthesising the national reports which comprise this collection, and drawing out the themes that emerge from those reports. It shows that the legal treatment of optional choice of courts differs substantially between legal systems, and argues that this topic warrants greater attention from scholars and lawmakers.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

next chapter Australia: Inconsistencies in the Treatment of Optional Choice of Court Agreements

E.g. Gienar v Meyer (1796) 2 H Bl 603.

The main exceptions to this are the Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations OJ L 177 (“Rome I Regulation”), and the Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts 2015, each of which has generated scholarly commentary: see, e.g. (2017) 22 issue 2 Uniform Law Review, a special issue devoted to the Hague Principles.

United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958, entered into force 7 June 1959 (“New York Convention”).

Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements 2005, entered into force 1 October 2015.

Hartley and Dogauchi (2010), p. 791, para 1; Hartley (2013), p. 19, para 1.47.

The Council Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast) noted that “granting priority to the chosen court to decide on its jurisdiction…would largely accord with the system established in the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention, thus ensuring a coherent approach within the Union and at international level were the Union to decide to conclude the 2005 Convention in the future.” (Brussels, 14.12.2010 COM(2010) 748 final 2010/0383/COD, pp. 5, 9). See likewise, Council Decision of 4 December 2014 on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (2014/887/EU, OJ L 353/5 10.12.2014), which states in recital (5) that “[w]ith the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 the Union paved the way for the approval of the Convention, on behalf of the Union, by ensuring coherence between the rules of the Union on the choice of court in civil and commercial matters and the rules of the Convention.”

Oprea (2019), Section 1.1.3.

In South Africa, until recently, “South African courts treated foreign arbitration agreements in the same way as exclusive foreign choice of court agreements”: Schoeman (2019), Section 4, text to note 62. The situation is similar in Taiwan: Chen (2019), Section 1.3.2. In Australia, arbitration agreements and exclusive choice of court agreements are treated as “legally cognate” (Marshall 2019, text to note 45, citing Global Partners Fund Ltd v Babcock & Brown Ltd (in liquidation) [2010] NSWCA 196, para 60).

This includes in Greece (Panapoulos 2019, Section 1.2); Germany (Weller 2019, Section 1.2); and the People’s Republic of China (Tu and Huang 2019, Section 2 (text following note 35)).

For example, in Japan, amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with international jurisdiction, including choice of court agreements, came into effect in April 2012; in Switzerland, the Code of Civil Procedure was enacted in 2011. The Brussels I Recast came into effect in 2015.

Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation “partially inspired” the Belgian Private International Law Act in relation to the effect of choice of court agreements: Van Calster and Poesen (2019), Section 2.1.

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012, OJ l 351/1 (“Brussels I Recast”).

The Brussels I Recast influenced the Romanian Civil Code: Oprea (2019), Section 1.1.3. On the other hand, these instruments did not influence German law: Weller (2019), Section 1.2.

This influence relates to the introduction of special rules for consumer contracts and individual employment relations. The Japanese rules in this respect are not identical to those found in the Brussels I Recast. Chen reports that the Hague Choice of Court Convention and the EU instruments “are highly valued and referred to by Taiwanese courts in some cases”: (2019), Section 1.3.3.

This is the term used in England and in some common law jurisdictions, including Australia and Singapore.

Yeo (2005), pp. 307–308. At the time of writing this chapter in September 2018, there were no books written in English devoted solely to optional choice of court agreements. There are a number of books, in English as well as in other languages, which deal only with choice of court agreements, but these address optional choice of court agreements in passing and focus on exclusive choice of court agreements: e.g. Hartley (2013) and Joseph (2015).

Van Calster and Poesen (2019), Section 5.

France (Mailhé 2019, text to note 7).

Cass civ, 1ère, 26 September 2012. This case and a number of subsequent decisions of the French Cour de Cassation are discussed in detail by Mailhé (2019), Section 3.

At the time this collection was written, in 2018, the UK was still a member state of the European Union, and the national report for the UK reflects this.

Chong (2019).

Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 339, 21.12.2007, entry into force 01/01/2010 (“Lugano II Convention”).

Haas and MacCabe (2019).

The Canadian civil law and common law are both covered in this collection: Guillemard and Sabourin (2019) and Saumier (2019).

Buxbaum (2019), Section 2; Guillemard and Sabourin (2019), Section 1, text to notes 30–32. See similarly, Tarman and Oba, referring to cases from the Turkish Cour de cassation, which establish that “a refusal of jurisdiction by the Turkish courts due to a jurisdiction agreement would indicate a mistrust of the adjudication of Turkish courts and would be contrary to public order”: (2019), Section 3.3 (text to note 31).

Mailhé (2019), Section 1.

Weller (2019), Section 1.1, text to note 3, citing the Zivilprozessordnung, section 38.

Chen (2019), Section 1.2.1.

Saumier (2019), Section 1.

Buxbaum states that “[i]n the vast majority of US states, choice of court agreements, both optional and exclusive, are viewed with approval.”: (2019), Section 3.1. See similarly Belgium (Van Calster and Poesen 2019, Section 2.1); Romania (Oprea 2019, Section 1.1.3); and South Africa (Schoeman 2019, Section 3.3, text to notes 34 and 35).

Weller (2019), Section 1.1, text to note 9, citing the Law to Change the Code of Civil Procedure of 21 March 1974, Federal Law Gazette, BGBl 1974 I 753, which came into effect on 1 April 1974.

Weller (2019), Section 1.1, text to note 10.

Buxbaum (2019), Section 3.1.

See below, Sect. 8.

Tu and Huang (2019), Section 2 (text to note 27).

Rammeloo (2019), Section 1.1. Likewise, in Québec, the Civil Code does not distinguish between exclusive and optional choice of court agreements: Guillemard and Sabourin (2019), Section 2.2.1.

This is the case in South Africa: Schoeman (2019), Section 3, text to note 26.

Schoeman (2019), Section 6.

E.g. France (Mailhé 2019, text to note 7).

This is so in South Africa (Schoeman 2019, Section 3.1). The position may be different in China (Tu and Huang 2019, Section 3, text to note 42). In England, it is presumed that the applicable law for the choice of court agreement is the same as the applicable law for the contract as a whole: Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Section 2.1.1 (citing Mauritius Commercial Bank v Hestia [2013] EWHC 1328 (Comm)). In Shandong Jufeng Network v MGame & Tianjin Fengyun Network, the Supreme People’s Court of China “held that the choice of law agreement and the choice of court agreement are two separate legal acts and therefore different applicable laws should be applied to regulate them.”: (2009) Min San Zhong Zi No 4; Model Case No 44, Notice of the Supreme People’s Court on Issuing 10 Major Cases and 50 Model Cases on China’s Judicial Protection of the Intellectual Property Rights in 2009 [2010] Fa No 172, promulgated on 14 April 2010, cited in Tu and Huang (2019), Section 3, text to note 46.

Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Section 2.1.1, note 20 (citing Collins 2012, para 12-105 and Maher and Rodger 2010, para 17-17); Chong (2019), Section 2.2.

This is so, for example, in South Africa: Schoeman (2019), Section 3.1.

This is so in common law Canada (Saumier 2019, Section 2); France (Mailhé 2019, Section 1.1); Japan (Takahashi 2019, text to note 13); the Netherlands (Rammeloo 2019, Section 2.2).

Takahashi (2019), text following note 22.

Takahashi (2019), Section 4.

Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention, Article 6.

Supreme Court of Judicature Act Cap 322, Rev Ed 2007, section 18F which relevantly provides that “if there is no express provision to the contrary” in the choice of court agreement, then “an agreement to submit to the jurisdiction of the Singapore International Commercial Court shall be considered to have agreed – (a) to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Singapore International Commercial Court”. This provision is discussed in Chong (2019), Section 2.2.

Chong (2019), Section 2.2.

Panapoulos (2019), Section 2.2.

Van Calster and Poesen (2019), Section 3.3.2.

Greece (Panapoulos 2019, text to note 8); Germany (Weller 2019, Section 3.2.1); Romania (Oprea 2019, Section 2.1).

Under the Québec Civil Code, this is determined by the law of the court seised: art 3078. See Guillemard and Sabourin (2019), Section 2.1, text to note 74.

Under the Québec Civil Code, this is determined by the law of the court seised: art 3132. See Guillemard and Sabourin (2019), Section 2.1, text to note 75.

Rozehnalová et al. (2019), Section 2.2 (sentence before note 49).

Tu and Huang (2019), Section 3, text to notes 42-42.

Tu and Huang (2019), Section 3, text to notes 44-45.

Hague Choice of Court Convention, Article 3(a). The Convention also defines “non-exclusive choice of court agreement”, in Article 22(1).

Hague Choice of Court Convention, Article 3(b).

Brussels I Recast Regulation, Article 25(1). The Recast does not contain a definition of non-exclusive choice of court agreements.

Lugano II Convention, Article 23. This Convention does not contain a definition of non-exclusive choice of court agreements.

Oprea (2019), note 42, citing the Romanian Civil Procedure Code, article 1068(1).

Greek Code of Civil Procedure, Art 44.

Swiss Code on Civil Procedure, Article 17(1); Swiss Private International Law Act, Article 5(1); Haas and MacCabe (2019), Section 5, text to note 53.

Rozehnalová et al. (2019), Sections 2.2.1, 2.8.

Takahashi (2019), Section 2.3, text to note 12.

Takahashi (2019), Section 2.3.

This includes Germany: Weller (2019), Section 1.2. The Scottish law is based on the Brussels Convention, and therefore does not include a presumption of exclusivity: Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Section 1.1.

Netherlands (Rammeloo 2019, Section 2.3); Taiwan (Chen 2019, Section 2.2.2).

Including China (Tu and Huang 2019, Section 3, text to note 48; although they also note that some courts, including the Supreme People’s Court, have implicitly and explicitly adopted a presumption of exclusivity in some cases) and Taiwan (Chen 2019, Section 2.2.2).

This is so in the Czech Republic (Rozehnalová et al. 2019, Section 2.1) and Japan (Takahashi 2019, Section 2.3), for example.

For China, see Tu and Huang (2019), Section 3, text to and following note 51.

E.g. BNP Paribas SA v Anchorage Capital Europe LLP [2013] EWHC 3073 (Comm), para 87 and 88, cited by Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Section 2.2.1, text to note 47.

E.g. Takahashi (2019), Section 2.3.

Buxbaum (2019), Section 4.

Chen (2019), Section 2.2.2.

Zheijiang High People’s Court (2013) Zhe Xia Zhong Zi No 42, cited by Tu and Huang (2019), Section 3, note 52.

[2015] EWCA 401 (Civ).

Armacel Pty Ltd v Smurfit Stone Container Corporation [2008] FCA 592. In this case, the Australian court held that because of the US judgment, the plaintiff “was barred by an issue estoppel from contending that [the clause] was an exclusive jurisdiction clause”: para 66 and 90.

See likewise Tang et al. (2016), p. 65.

[2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 571.

Briggs (2008), p. 118, para 4.21.

Briggs (2012), p. 118, para 4.21. See, likewise, Collins (2012), para 12–102.

Although it is possible that the parties can include what Merrett and Carruthers refer to as an “exclusively non-exclusive” choice of court agreement, which nominates the courts of one country as having exclusive jurisdiction if one party is claimant, and the courts of another country as having exclusive jurisdiction if the other party is claimant: (2019), Section 2.2.1, text to note 38. The choice of court agreement in Meeth v Glacetal Case 23/78 [1978] ECR 2133 was of this kind. See also Keyes and Marshall (2015), pp. 357–358.

See also Oprea (2019), Section 2.6; Noble Power Investments Ltd v Nissei Stomach Tokyo Co Ltd [2008] 5 HKLRD 631, para 24.

Hartley and Dogauchi (2010), p. 845, para 246.

Hartley and Dogauchi (2010), p. 845, para 247 (emphasis original).

Van Calster and Poesen (2019), Section 3.1.

Oprea (2019), Section 1.2.

Oprea (2019), Section 2.6, text to notes 36–38.

Hartley (2013), p. 5, para 1.08.

E.g. Brussels I Recast Regulation, Article 25(1); Lugano II Convention, Article 23(1); Greece (Greek Code of Civil Procedure, Arts 42–44); Québec (Civil Code of Québec, article 3148(4)); Singapore (Astrata (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Portcullis Escrow Pte Ltd [2011] 3 SLR 386); Switzerland (Swiss Code on Civil Procedure, Article 17), and the UK (Merrett and Carruthers 2019, Section 1.1).

Including the Czech Republic (Rozehnalová et al. 2019, Section 1.3) and Switzerland (Haas and MacCabe 2019, Section 6.1 (citing the Swiss Code on Civil Procedure, Article 17, and the Lugano II Convention, Article 23)).

This is the case in South Africa (Schoeman 2019, Section 3.5) and in some US states (Buxbaum 2019, text to note 76, referring in particular to Florida).

Keyes (2015), p. 225.

Marshall (2019), Section 2.3.1.1.

Brussels I Recast Regulation, Article 26(1); Lugano II Convention, Article 24(1); Greek Code of Civil Procedure, Art 42 § 2; Japanese Code of Civil Procedure, Article 3-8; Taiwanese Code of Civil Procedure, Article 25.

Piscator, HR February 1, 1985, NJ 1985, 698 (discussed by Rammeloo 2019, Sections 1.1 and 2.5).

1991 Chinese Civil Procedure Law, Articles 25 and 224 (promulgated and entered into force on 9 April 1991). These provisions were replaced by Article 34 of the 2012 Chinese Civil Procedure Law (which was in turn replaced by Article 34 of the 2017 Chinese Civil Procedure Law). See Tu and Huang (2019), Section 2, text to notes 13–16.

Oprea (2019), Section 1.1.3, text to notes 14–15.

100

Rammeloo (2019), Section 1.1, text to note 1.

101

Chen (2019), Section 2.1.

102

Nygh (1999), p. 15.

103

Nygh (1999), pp. 15, 19.

104

This is so in England and Scotland (Merrett and Carruthers 2019, Section 2.3); Germany (Weller 2019, Section 3.3); Japan (Takahashi 2019, Section 2.1); Singapore (Chong 2019, Section 2.2); Taiwan (Chen 2019, Section 2.3.1); the US (Buxbaum 2019, Section 6.1).

105

Saumier (2019), Section 3.1.

106

Hartley (2013), p. 5, para 1.08.

107

Under the common law, exclusive choice of court agreements are not strictly enforceable; the courts will generally enforce them, but this is subject to the courts’ discretion, and the courts may not enforce even an exclusive choice of court agreement if there are strong grounds, cause, or reasons for non-enforcement: Donohue v Armco [2001] UKHL 64 (UK House of Lords); Akai Pty Ltd v The People’s Insurance Co Ltd (1996) 188 CLR 418 (Australian High Court); ZI Pompey Industrie v ECU-Line NV 2003 SCC 27 (Supreme Court of Canada); Amerco Timbers Pte Ltd v Chatsworth Timber Corp Pte Ltd [1977-78] 2 SLR 112 (Singapore Court of Appeal).

108

Article 6.

109

Turkey (Tarman and Oba 2019, Section 3.3, text to note 33). Note, however, that the Turkish courts sometimes establish their jurisdiction on the basis of the principle of good faith, if the respondent is domiciled in Turkey. Tarman and Oba note that this “reasoning is heavily criticized in the academic commentary”: (2019), Section 3.3.2.1, text to note 43.

110

[1970] P 94.

111

E.g. Australia (Marshall 2019, Section 3); Singapore (Chong 2019, Section 3). This case has also been influential in South Africa (Schoeman 2019, Section 3.4).

112

Article 5(2).

113

This is so for example in China (Tu and Huang 2019, Section 3, text to note 60); and Japan, except where the foreign court is deemed to have exclusive subject matter jurisdiction (Takahashi 2019, Section 1.1, text following note 2). Australia and New Zealand have enacted reciprocal legislation regulating jurisdiction and judgments in trans-Tasman proceedings (the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Acts 2010). Inter alia, this legislation was designed to be consistent with the Hague Choice of Court Convention, and as a result, the courts nominated in an exclusive choice of court agreement cannot stay those proceedings: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) s 20(1)(b). See Marshall (2019), text to note 31.

114

Art 3148.

115

Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64, para 24.

116

Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64.

117

Guillemard and Sabourin, Section 1 text to note 29 and following note 30.

118

Marshall and Keyes (2017), p. 275.

119

Joseph (2015), p. 314, para 10.56.

120

Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Section 2.3.4.

121

Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Section 2.3.4.

122

Tu and Huang (2019), Section 3, text to note 60.

123

Takahashi (2019), Section 2.1, text to note 11, citing the Kyoto District Court, judgment on 29 January 2015 (2015WLJPCA01296002).

124

Chen (2019), Section 2.8.1, citing the Taiwanese Code of Civil Procedure, Article 182-2 Section 1.

125

Hartley and Dogauchi (2010), p. 801, para 48.

126

E.g. Greece (Panapoulos 2019, Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2).

127

E.g. Germany (Weller 2019, Section 3.5).

128

China (Tu and Huang 2019, Section 3, text to note 61); UK (Merrett and Carruthers 2019, Section 2.3.3); US (Buxbaum 2019, Section 5.2.1.2.1).

129

Highland Crusader Offshore Partners LP v Deutsche Bank AG [2009] EWCA Civ 725, para 51.

130

[1990] 2 QB 631, 646.

131

[2009] EWCA Civ 725, para 50. See likewise British Aerospace Plc v Dee Howard Co [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 368, 376; Ace Insurance SA-NV v Zurich Insurance Co Ltd [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 618, 630.

132

Orchard Capital I Ltd v Ravindra Kumar Jhunjhunwala [2012] 2 SLR 519.

133

Marshall (2019), Section 2.3.1.

134

Chong (2019), Section 2.4. Optional choice of courts in favour of Singapore courts are dealt with quite differently: see ibid, Section 2.3.1.

135

Buxbaum (2019), Section 5.2.1.2.1.

136

Silveira v FY International Auditing & Consulting Corp 2015 ONSC 388, cited by Saumier (2019), Section 3.4.

137

Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Section 2.3.3, text to notes 72–74; Chong (2019), Section 2.3.1. The same approach is taken in Hong Kong (Noble Power Investments Ltd v Nissei Stomach Tokyo Co Ltd [2008] 5 Hong Kong LRD 631).

138

[1999] 2 All England Reports (Comm) 33 (emphasis added). In another case, Justice Gloster stated that “the general rule is that the parties will be held to their contractual choice of English jurisdiction unless there are overwhelming, or at least very strong, reasons for departing from this rule”: Antec International Ltd v Biosafety USA Inc [2006] EWHC 47 (Comm), para 7.

139

Chong (2019), Section 2.3.1, text to note 36, citing UBS AG v Telesto Investments Ltd [2011] 4 SLR 503, para 120; Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Section 2.3.3, text to notes 75 and 76, citing BP Plc v AON [2005] EWHC 2554 (Comm), para 23; Highland Crusaders Offshore Partners LP v Deutsche Bank AG [2009] EWCA 725.

140

Common law Canada (Saumier 2019, Section 3.3).

141

Saumier (2019), Section 3.4.

142

Saumier (2019), Section 3.4.

143

Schoeman (2019), Section 5.2.

144

[2014] 4 SLR 1042, discussed in Chong (2019), Section 2.4, text to notes 58–60.

145

[2014] 4 SLR 1042, para 54, discussed in Chong (2019), Section 2.4, text to note 59.

146

Chong (2019), Section 2.3.1, following note 38, discussing Shanghai Turbo Enterprises Ltd v Liu Ming [2019] SGCA 11.

147

Chong (2019), Section 2.4.

148

Tu and Huang (2019), Section 3, text to note 62.

149

Briggs (2008), p. 115, para 4.16.

150

Buxbaum (2019), Section 5.2.1.2.1.

151

Van Calster and Poesen (2019), Section 3.3.3 (although they disagree with this view).

152

Chong (2019), Section 2.3.3, text to note 103, citing Morgan Stanley Asia (Singapore) Pte v Hong Leong Finance Ltd [2013] 3 SLR 409, para 71.

153

[2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 571, para 28.

154

E.g. Bambang Sutrisno v Bali International Finance Ltd [1999] 2 SLR(R) 632.

155

[2017] 1 WLR 3497, para 9.

156

Chong (2019), Section 2.3, text to note 32 (citing Transocean Offshore International Ventures Ltd v Burgundy Global Exploration Corp [2010] 2 SLR 821) and Section 2.4, text to note 51 (citing Bambang Sutrisno v Bali International Finance Ltd [1999] 2 SLR(R) 632).

157

Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Section 2.5.3, citing Royal Bank of Canada v Cooperative Centrale [2004] EWCA Civ 7.

158

[2009] EWCA Civ 725.

159

Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Section 2.5.3.

160

Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Section 2.5.3, citing in particular Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) v Pakistan [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 571.

161

Including Australia (Marshall 2019, Section 2.3.1.3) and Singapore (Chong 2019, Section 2.5).

162

Tu and Huang (2019), Section 3 (text in the sentence before note 68).

163

Tu and Huang (2019), Section 3 (text to note 64).

164

Tu and Huang (2019), Section 3 (text to note 67).

165

Tu and Huang (2019), Section 3 (text to note 62).

166

Marshall (2019), Section 2.3.1.2.

167

Marshall (2019), Section 2.3.3.1.

168

In South African law, the place where land is situated is regarded as having exclusive jurisdiction to deal with questions of title to that land: Schoeman (2019), Section 3.5, text to note 53.

169

E.g. Belgium Van Calster and Poesen (2019), Section 2.2.

170

E.g. Germany (Weller 2019, Section 2.1.1); Japan (Takahashi 2019, Section 1.2, citing the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure, Article 3-10 and 3-5); Turkey (Tarman and Oba 2019, Section 3.1.2).

171

Chinese Civil Procedure Law, Article 33.

172

Chinese Civil Procedure Law, Article 266.

173

In Turkey, the dispute must arise from an “obligatory relationship”: Tarman and Oba (2019), Section 3.1.3.

174

E.g. Greece (Panapoulos 2019, text to note 2); Netherlands (Rammeloo 2019, Section 1.1); Turkey (Tarman and Oba 2019, Section 3.1.3).

175

Tang et al. (2016), p. 69.

176

For example, Japan (Takahashi 2019, Section 1.1).

177

Civil Procedure Law of the PRC (as amended in June 2017), Article 34, cited by Tu and Huang (2019), Section 2, text to note 6.

178

Tu and Huang (2019), Section 2 (note 11), citing Tang et al. (2016), p. 70; Tang (2012), p. 466; Liu and Zhou (2014), p. 50.

179

Haas and MacCabe (2019), Section 6.1 (text to note 66), citing the Swiss Private International Law Act, Article 5(3). See likewise Van Calster and Poesen (2019), Section 3.4.2.1, citing the Belgian Private International Law Act, Article 6, paragraph 2.

180

Haas and MacCabe (2019), Section 6.1, text to note 67, citing the Swiss Private International Law Act, Article 5(3).

181

Rozehnalová et al. (2019), Section 1.1, text to note 10. This requirement is not defined in Czech legislation, and is therefore determined ad hoc in each case. There is similarly a requirement in Turkish law that the dispute must involve a foreign element: Tarman and Oba (2019), Section 3.1.1. As in the case of the Czech Republic, this is not defined, and the courts apply a broad interpretation.

182

Panapoulos (2019), Section 1.1.2.

183

Buxbaum notes that in a few US states, “courts have held that the designated forum ‘must bear a reasonable relationship to the transaction’”: (2019), Section 5.1, citing KC Ravens LLC v Nima Scrap, LLC 369 P 3d 341 (Ct App Kansas 2016). She suggests that these decisions are anomalous.

184

Piscator, HR February 1, 1985, NJ 1985, 698, cited by Rammeloo (2019), Section 1.1 (text to note 2).

185

Rammeloo (2019), note 4.

186

Weller (2019), Section 1.4.

187

Weller (2019), Section 2.1.7.

188

Similar limitations apply in Turkey, but only in the case of the choice of Turkish courts: Tarman and Oba (2019), Section 4.1.

189

German Code on Civil Procedure, section 38(1).

190

E.g. Australia (Marshall 2019, text to notes 13–14); Belgium (Van Calster and Poesen 2019, Section 2.2).

191

Mailhé (2019), text to note 5, citing Cass civ 1ére 22 October 2008, Monster Cable, no 07-15823, JCP G 2008, 10187, note L d’Avout. The same applies in Greece: Panapoulos (2019), text to note 18.

192

E.g. Czech Republic (Rozehnalová et al. 2019, Section 1.3, text to note 36, and Section 2.8, text to note 72); Germany (Weller 2019, Section 3.11).

193

Chisadane, Supreme Court, Judgment, November 28, 1975, 29 Minshu (1) 1554 [1975], cited in Takahashi (2019), Section 1.3. Takahashi notes that although this aspect of the judgment was not explicitly codified in the Code of Civil Procedure, it “arguably has survived the amendment of the [Code of Civil Procedure] since no statutory basis would need to be found to safeguard the fundamental legal value of Japan”: (2019), Section 1.3.

194

Chong (2019), Section 1, text to note 3, giving as an example where the parties deliberately chose a foreign court “to evade the operation of the Unfair Contract Terms Act” Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed.

195

Oprea (2019), Section 4.4, sentence before note 81, citing the Romanian Civil Procedure Code, Article 1068.

196

This is possible in Québec, under the Civil Code, art 3135: see Guillemard and Sabourin (2019), Section 2.2.1, text to note 90.

197

Oprea (2019), Section 4.6.

198

Including the Czech Republic (Rozehnalová et al. 2019, Section 2.6.2); Greece (Panapoulos 2019, Section 2.6).

199

Oprea (2019), Section 4.6.2.

200

Van Calster and Poesen (2019), Section 3.4.2.2.

201

Including China (Tu and Huang 2019, Section 3 (text following note 81)), Greece (Panapoulos 2019, Section 2.6), Germany (Weller 2019, Section 3.8), Romania (Oprea 2019, Section 4.6.1), Switzerland (Haas and MacCabe 2019, Section 6.3) and Taiwan (Chen 2019, Section 2.8.3 and 2.8.4).

202

Turner v Grovit [2005] 1 AC 101.

203

This is available, in principle, in Australia (Marshall 2019, Section 2.3.3.3), common law Canada, England and Scotland (Merrett and Carruthers 2019, Section 2.5.3), and Singapore (Chong 2019, Section 2.7, text to notes 95–103). In Scotland, this is referred to as “restraint of foreign proceedings” (Merrett and Carruthers 2019, Section 2.5.3). In common law Canada, there is no case law relating to anti-suit injunctions to protect choice of court agreements in particular: Saumier (2019), Section 4.

204

In England, an anti-suit injunction might be granted to prevent commencement or continuation of proceedings in breach of the exclusive component of an asymmetric choice of court agreement: Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Section 3.5, citing Bank of New York Mellon v GV Films [2009] EWHC 2338 (Comm).

205

UBS AG v Telesto Investments Ltd [2011] 4 SLR 503, para 75.

206

Australia (Marshall (2019), Section 2.3.3.3); UK (Merrett and Carruthers 2019, Section 2.5.3).

207

Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Section 2.5.3.

208

[2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 571.

209

An injunction was also granted in BNP Paribas SA v Anchorage Capital Europe LLP [2015] EWHC 3077.

210

Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Section 2.5.3, text to notes 109–116, citing Royal Bank of Canada v Cooperative Centrale [2004] EWCA Civ 7; Highland Crusader Offshore Partners v Deutsche Bank AG [2009] EWCA Civ 725; and SwissMarine Corp Ltd v OW Supply & Trading A/S (in bankruptcy) [2015] EWHC 1571 (Comm).

211

Including Singapore (Chong 2019, Section 2.7).

212

Marshall (2019), Section 2.3.3.4.

213

See Marshall (2019), Section 2.3.3.2 (noting that while there is probably a right to damages for breach of an exclusive choice of court agreement in Australian law, there is no case in which an Australian court has awarded damages); Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Section 2.5.1 (citing Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64; The Alexandros T [2013] UKSC 70). In common law Canada, there is no case law on this issue in particular.

214

Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Sections 2.5.1 and 3.4 (text to notes 98 and 195), citing Barclays Bank plc v Ente Nazionale de Previdenza dei Medici degli Odontoiatra [2015] EWHC 2857 (Comm) paras 127-8. Cf Marshall (2019), Section 2.3.3.2.

215

See above, Sect. 5.2.3.

216

Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Section 2.5.1.

217

Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Section 2.5.1.

218

Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Section 2.5.1.

219

[2013] UKSC 70, paras 39 and 131-2.

220

[2015] EWHC 2857 (Comm); approved by the Court of Appeal in [2016] EWCA Civ 1261.

221

Compare Rozehnalová et al. (2019), Section 2.6.2.

222

Article 2(1).

223

Sections 3 (dealing with insurance contracts), 4 (dealing with consumer contracts) and 5 (dealing with employment contracts).

224

Tu and Huang (2019), Section 3 (text to note 75), citing Article 31 of the Supreme People’s Court of China Interpretation on Chinese Civil Procedure Law.

225

Rozehnalová et al. (2019), Section 2.5, citing the Czech Private International Law Act, sections 86 and 88.

226

Weller (2019), Section 3.7.

227

Panapoulos (2019), Sections 1.1.2 and 2.5.

228

Takahashi (2019), Section 2.2, citing the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure, article 3-7.

229

Haas and MacCabe (2019), Section 10, citing the Swiss Code on Civil Procedure, article 35(1), Lugano Convention, articles 13, 17, 21, and the Swiss Private International Law Act, article 114(2).

230

Tarman and Oba (2019), Section 3.2.

231

Buxbaum (2019), Section 3.2.

232

For example, in Chinese law, a choice of court agreement in a consumer contract is invalid unless the consumer receives “proper notice” of the terms: Tu and Huang (2019), Section 3 (text to note 75).

233

This is so for most choice of court agreements involving weaker parties in German law: Weller (2019), Section 3.7. See also Panapoulos (2019), describing the unenforceability of contracts involving weaker parties under Greek law of national origin: Section 1.1.2 (referring to agreements in some employment matters, in favour of foreign courts), Section 2.5.3 (referring to consumer agreements which are “concluded or to be executed in Greece”).

234

Article 3149.

235

Articles 15(2), 19(2), and 23(2).

236

Chen (2019), Section 2.7, citing Taiwanese Code of Civil Procedure, Article 28 section 2.

237

Takahashi notes that prior to the amendment of the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure which came into effect in 2012, “no special treatment was given to individual employment relations” in the context of choice of court agreements: (2019), Section 1.3.

238

Article 35, cited in Haas and MacCabe (2019), Section 10.

239

Buxbaum (2019), Section 3.2.

240

This is particularly true in common law countries.

241

This is so in Australia (Marshall 2019, Section 2.3.2); Singapore (Chong 2019, Section 2.6), the UK (Merrett and Carruthers 2019, Section 2.4); and in the US (Buxbaum 2019, Section 3.3).

242

For example, in the 2017 decision of the Canadian Supreme Court in Douez v Facebook Inc, involving an exclusive choice of court agreement between Facebook and Canadian users of Facebook services, the court used the same principles as those that are applied in commercial cases: 2017 SCC 33. See Saumier (2019), Section 3.2.

243

Most importantly, in Douez v Facebook, Inc, 2017 SCC 33 the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada took the view that the consumer context required a “differentiated application of the “strong cause” test for refusing to enforce a choice of court agreement”: Saumier (2019), Section 3.2.

244

Marshall (2019), Section 2.3.2.

245

Cass civ, 1ère, 26 September 2012.

246

Chong notes that in Singapore “[t]here appear to be few reported cases dealing expressly with asymmetrical choice of court agreements and of those few, the optional portion of such agreements has not been at issue”: (2019), Section 4. See similarly, in relation to Belgium, Van Calster and Poesen (2019), Section 4.2.

247

This is so, for example, in Switzerland (Haas and MacCabe 2019, Section 11).

248

Mailhé (2019), text to note 13.

249

Panapoulos (2019), Section 1.3.1.3, citing the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, Art 44.

250

The other cases are Danne Holdings vs Crédit Suisse Cass civ 1^ère, 25 March 2015, Crédit Suisse II Cass. civ. 1e., 7 February 2018 and Saint-Joseph Cass. civ. 1e., 3 October 2018, discussed by Mailhé (2019), Section 3.

251

Société eBizcuss.com vs Apple Cass. civ. 1^ère, 7 October 2015, discussed by Mailhé (2019), at text to note 41.

252

Cass. civ. 1^ère, 11 May 2017, discussed by Mailhé (2019), at text to notes 42–44.

253

Commerzbank AG v Liquimar Tankers Management Inc [2017] 1 WLR 3497.

254

[2017] 1 WLR 3497, para 64.

255

Joseph (2015), p. 98, para 3.79.

256

Joseph (2015), p. 73, para 3.18.

257

Hartley and Dogauchi (2010), p. 845, para 249. See also p. 811, paras 105–106.

258

Joseph (2015), p. 73, para 3.18; Chong (2019), Section 4, text to note 108–110.

259

[2017] 1 WLR 3497, para 74, cited by Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Section 3.3.

260

Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Section 3.3.

261

E.g. common law Canada (Saumier 2019, Section 5), Romania (Oprea 2019, Section 5.1.3, text to note 125).

262

This is so in Germany (Weller 2019, Section 4); the Netherlands (Rammeloo 2019, Section 3.2); and the US (Buxbaum 2019, Section 3.4).

263

Rozehnalová et al. (2019), Section 3.1.

264

Tarman and Oba (2019), Section 5.

265

This is so in Taiwan: Chen (2019), Section 3.1, citing the Taiwanese Code of Civil Procedure, Article 28 Section 2.

266

Mailhé (2019), Section 2.2, text to notes 33–35.

267

Van Calster and Poesen (2019), Section 4.3.3.

268

Japan (Takahashi 2019, Section 3.1), Singapore (Chong 2019, Section 4), and the UK (Merrett and Carruthers 2019, Section 3).

269

Australia (Marshall 2019, Section 4); Japan (Takahashi 2019, Section 3.2).

270

Lai v ABN AMRO Bank NV, the Shanghai High People’s Court (2010) Hu Gao Min Wu (Shang) Zhong Zi No 49, cited by Tu and Huang (2019), Section 4, text to notes 102-3.

271

Germany (Weller 2019, Section 2.1.1, text to note 55).

272

Weller (2019), Section 4, text to note 163.

273

Weller (2019), Section 4, text to note 162.

274

Weller (2019), Section 4, text to notes 167-8.

275

Weller (2019), Section 4, text to note 171.

276

E.g. Briggs (2008), pp. 120–121, para 4.24.

277

These include Commerzbank AG v Liquimar Tankers Management Inc [2017] 1 WLR 3497; Barclays Bank plc v Ente Nazionale di Previdenza ed Assistenza dei Medici e Degli Odontoiatri [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 527; Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd v Hestia Holdings Ltd [2013] 2 All ER (Comm) 899; Lornamead Acquisitions Ltd v Kaupthing Bank HF [2013] 1 BCLC 73; and Continental Bank NA v Aeakos Cia Naviera SA [1994] 1 WLR 588.

278

Merrett and Carruthers (2019), Section 3.1.1, text to notes 144–145 (citing NB Three Shipping Ltd v Harebell Shipping Ltd [2014] EWHC 2001 and Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Elektrim Finance BV [2005] EWHC 1412 (Ch), para 46.

279

Briggs (2012), p. 376.

280

This includes Japan: Takahashi (2019), Section 3.2, text to notes 20–21.

281

Takahashi (2019), Section 3.2, citing the Japanese Civil Code, new Article 548-2.

282

Guillemard and Sabourin (2019), Section 2.3; Tu and Huang (2019), Section 3 (text to notes 89 and 90); Panapoulos (2019), Section 2.4.3.

283

Weller (2019), Section 3.10.

284

Takahashi (2019), Section 2.4, text to note 18.

285

Takahashi (2019), Section 2.4, final para.

286

Marshall (2019), Section 2.4.

287

Marshall (2019), Section 2.4.

288

Marshall (2019), Section 2.3.3.1.

289

Japan (Takahashi 2019, Section 1.1); Taiwan (Chen 2019, Section 2.8.4).

290

Although there is no such indirect protection of exclusive choice of court agreements in the Brussels I Recast. See Panapoulos (2019), Section 1.3.3.3, citing Greek Code of Civil Procedure, Article 323(2).

291

Including Australia (Marshall 2019, Section 2.3.3.5); the Czech Republic (Rozehnalová et al. 2019, Section 2.6.3); Germany (Weller 2019, Section 3.9); Romania (Oprea 2019, Section 4.6.3); Singapore (Chong 2019, Section 2.7, text following note 88); Taiwan (Chen 2019, Section 2.8.5).

292

To date, none of the contracting states has entered this reservation.

293

This is referred to by the European Court of Justice in cases such as Benincasa v Dentalkit Srl [1997] ECJ Case C-269/95, para 29; and Trasporti Castelletti [1999] ECJ Case C-159/97, para 48. See also Van Calster and Poesen (2019), Section 2.1.

294

[2008] FCA 592, para 88.

295

Germany (Weller 2019, Section 2.1.5, text to note 77, referring to the assumption that “reasonable business parties typically …want to avoid several proceedings about the same facts in different courts”).

296

Hartley (2013), p. 4, para 1.01.

297

Schoeman (2019), Section 3.3, text to notes 34 and 35, citing MV Spartan-Runner v Jotun-Henry Clark Ltd 1991 (3) SA 803 (N), 806G-H and Blanchard, Krasner & French v Evans 2002 (4) SA 144 (T), para 11; and Foize Africa (Pty) Ltd v Foize Beheer BV and Others 2013 (3) SA 91 (SCA), para 28(a).

298

[1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 588, 591-2.

299

Guillemard and Sabourin (2019), Introduction, text following note 17.

300

Briggs (2008), pp. 114–115, para 4.15.

301

Oprea (2019), Section 1.2, text in para above note 16.

302

Guillemard and Sabourin (2019), Introduction.

303

E.g. Japan (Takahashi 2019, Section 4); South Africa (Schoeman 2019, Section 6). Weller notes this issue but also suggests that “this is a minor problem because it is easy for the parties to express themselves clearly in this respect.”: (2019), Section 5.

304

Van Calster and Poesen note that the parties “can minimize the risk of litigation on this issue by explicitly subjecting the optional choice of court agreement to one particular law”: (2019), Section 3.3.2 (text to note 43).

305

Common law Canada: Saumier (2019).

306

Australia (Marshall 2019, Sections 2.3.1.3 and 5); Singapore (Chong 2019, Section 5, para 3).

307

Marshall (2019), Section 2.4.

308

Oprea (2019), Section 6.

309

See, for example, Rozehnalová et al. (2019), Section 1.3.

310

Takahashi acknowledges the influence of the Brussels I Regulation in terms of the introduction in the 2012 amendments to the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure of the protective provisions relating to consumer and individual employment contracts: (2019), Section 1.

311

Briggs (2008), p. 116, para 4.19.

312

Briggs (2008), p. 120, para 4.23.

313

Joseph (2015), p. 102, para 4.03.

314

Oprea (2019), Section 2, text to note 19.

315

In particular, see Brussels I Recast Regulation, Article 31(2).

Briggs A (2008) Agreements on jurisdiction and choice of law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Briggs A (2012) The subtle variety of jurisdiction agreements. Lloyd’s Maritime Commer Law Q:364

Collins L (ed) (2012) Dicey, Morris & Collins on the conflict of laws, 15th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

Hartley T (2013) Choice-of-court agreements under the European and international instruments. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Hartley T, Dogauchi D (2010) Explanatory report on the Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements. In: Permanent Bureau of the Conference (ed) Proceedings of the twentieth session, Tome III. Intersentia, Antwerp

Joseph D (2015) Jurisdiction and arbitration agreements and their enforcement, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

Keyes M (2015) Party autonomy in dispute resolution: implied choices in the context of jurisdiction. Jpn Yearb Int Law 58:223–246

Keyes M, Marshall BA (2015) Jurisdiction agreements – exclusive, optional and asymmetrical. J Priv Int Law 11:345–378CrossRef

Liu X, Zhou Q (2014) The actual connection principle and forum non conveniens in Chinese contractual jurisdiction system. Legal Sci 12:50

Maher G, Rodger B (2010) Civil jurisdiction in the Scottish Courts. W Green, Edinburgh

Marshall BA, Keyes M (2017) Australia’s accession to the Hague Convention on choice of court agreements. Melb Univ Law Rev 41:246

Nygh P (1999) Autonomy in international contracts. Clarendon Press, Oxford

Tang ZS (2012) Effectiveness of exclusive jurisdiction clauses in the Chinese Courts – a pragmatic study. Int Comp Law Q 61:459CrossRef

Tang ZS, Xiao Y, Huo Z (2016) Conflict of laws in the People’s Republic of China. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRef

Yeo TM (2005) The contractual basis of the enforcement of exclusive and non-exclusive choice of court agreements. Singapore Acad Law J 17:306

Buxbaum H (2019) United States: the interpretation and effect of permissive forum selection clauses, in this collection

Chen R-C (2019) Taiwan: legislation and practice on choice of court agreements in Taiwan, in this collection

Chong A (2019) Singapore: a mix of traditional and new rules, in this collection

Guillemard S, Sabourin F (2019) Canada – Civil Law (Québec): Les clauses d’élection de for facultatives en droit international privé québécois, in this collection

Haas E, MacCabe K (2019) Switzerland: choice of court agreements according to the code on civil procedure, the Private International Law Act and the Lugano Convention, in this collection

Mailhé F (2019) France: a game of asymmetries, optional and asymmetrical choice of court agreements under French Case Law, in this collection

Marshall B (2019) Australia: inconsistencies in the treatment of optional choice of court agreements, in this collection

Merrett L, Carruthers J (2019) United Kingdom: giving effect to optional choice of court agreements – interpretation, operation and enforcement, in this collection

Oprea EA (2019) Romania: interpretation and effects of optional jurisdiction agreements in international disputes, in this collection

Panapoulos G (2019) Greece: a forum favorable to optional choice of court agreements, in this collection

Rammeloo S (2019) Netherlands: optional choice of court agreements in a globalizing world, in this collection

Rozehnalová N, Mahdalová S, Zavadilová L (2019) Czech Republic: the treatment of optional and exclusive choice of court agreements, in this collection

Saumier G (2019) Canada – common law: choice of court agreements in common law Canada, in this collection

Schoeman E (2019) South Africa: Time for Reform, in this collection

Takahashi K (2019) Japan: quests for equilibrium and certainty, in this collection

Tarman ZD, Oba ME (2019) Turkey: optional choice of court agreements in Turkish Law, in this collection

Tu G, Huang Z (2019) China: optional choice of court agreements in the Vibrant Age, in this collection

Van Calster G, Poesen M (2019) Belgium: optional choice of court agreements, legal uncertainty despite a modern legal framework, in this collection

Weller M (2019) Germany: optional choice of court agreements – German National Report, in this collection

Title: Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private International Law: General Report
Author: Mary Keyes
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private International Law
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23913-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-23914-5

Copyright Year: 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23914-5_1

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"