Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/30370
Appears in Collections:Law and Philosophy Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: Exclusive choice of court agreements: some issues on the Hague Convention on choice of court agreements and its relationship with the Brussels I recast especially anti-suit injunctions, concurrent proceedings and the implications of BREXIT
Author(s): Ahmed, Mukarrum
Beaumont, Paul
Keywords: private international law
conflict of laws
international commercial litigation
Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements
Brussels I Recast Regulation
exclusive jurisdiction agreements
choice of court clauses
anti-suit injunctions
parallel proceedings
lis pendens
Brexit
disconnection clauses
treaty interpretation
EU law interpretation
Issue Date: 2017
Citation: Ahmed M & Beaumont P (2017) Exclusive choice of court agreements: some issues on the Hague Convention on choice of court agreements and its relationship with the Brussels I recast especially anti-suit injunctions, concurrent proceedings and the implications of BREXIT. Journal of Private International Law, 13 (2), pp. 386-410. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2017.1348782
Abstract: This article contends that the system of “qualified” or “partial” mutual trust in the Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention (“Hague Convention”) may permit anti-suit injunctions, actions for damages for breach of exclusive jurisdiction agreements and anti-enforcement injunctions where such remedies further the objective of the Convention. However, intra-EU Hague Convention cases may arguably23 not permit remedies for breach of exclusive jurisdiction agreements as they may infringe the principles of mutual trust and effectiveness of EU law (effet utile) underlying the Brussels I Recast Regulation. The relationship between Article 31(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation and Articles 5 and 6 of the Hague Convention is mapped in this article. It will be argued that the Hartley–Dogauchi Report’s interpretative approach has much to commend it as it follows the path of least resistance by narrowly construing the right to sue in a non-chosen forum as an exception rather than the norm. This exceptional nature of the right to sue in the non-chosen forum under the Hague Convention can be effectively reconciled with the Brussels I Recast Regulation’s reverse lis pendens rule under Article 31(2). This will usually result in the stay of the proceedings in the non-chosen court as soon as the chosen court is seised. The impact of Brexit on this area of the law is uncertain but it has been argued that the likely outcome post-Brexit is that the regime applicable between the UK and the EU (apart from Denmark) in relation to exclusive jurisdiction agreements within the scope of the Hague Convention will be the Hague Convention.
DOI Link: 10.1080/17441048.2017.1348782
Rights: This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis Group in Journal of Private International Law on 23 Aug 2017, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/17441048.2017.1348782.
Licence URL(s): https://storre.stir.ac.uk/STORREEndUserLicence.pdf

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Exclusive_choice_of_court_agreements_som.pdfFulltext - Accepted Version356.6 kBAdobe PDFView/Open



This item is protected by original copyright



Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.