As a general rule, such a jurisdictional agreement is drafted in such a way that the courts are “exclusively” or “not exclusively” competent. The interpretation of these concepts in legal systems may vary, but in principle consent to exclusive jurisdiction means that only agreed jurisdictions must rule on the dispute. However, in the absence of exclusive jurisdiction of the courts, the parties may take their disputes to the approved courts, but are not required to do so. You can, if you wish, design your jurisdiction clause in order to limit yourself to a particular court in a jurisdiction. Under English law, it is perfectly legitimate to provide that a competent court in London has sole jurisdiction to prevent proceedings in another part of England and Wales12.However, such an agreement risks a foreign court finding that London is not considered a country and, therefore, the recommendation, when dealing with contracts with parties outside the United Kingdom, is deemed competent. A choice clause of the floating law and a floating law clause associated with it are more likely to be unenforceable in the English and Singaporean courts. In order to ensure security and avoid unnecessary and costly litigation, parties should avoid including “floating” legal and judicial clauses in their contracts. Each party to this Agreement unequivocally agrees that the courts of England are not exclusively competent to decide, resolve and/or decide disputes, controversies or claims (including non-contractual disputes, controversies or claims) arising from or related to this Agreement, including matters relating to their existence, validity, formation or termination. To this end, each party submits irrevocably to the jurisdiction of the English courts. Parties are therefore well advised to include in their contract a clause relating to the international jurisdiction of the courts.
This provides that the courts of a given country are competent for all disputes. Please note that the above clauses are only very general clauses and typical errors. We have only cited these clauses as examples. Each type of contract is different in its details, so it is generally necessary to find individual formulations and rules that respect the treaty. For example, some countries may have passed laws prohibiting the free choice of jurisdiction. There is nothing to prevent you from inserting a clause that simultaneously confers exclusive jurisdiction on two states, which may be preferred if the contracting parties reside in different jurisdictions and it is not possible to reach an agreement on the preferred national jurisdiction. One way to do so would be to explain that if Part A attacks Part B, Court A is competent and If Part B has sued Part A, Court B should have jurisdiction. If this is the case, it is important to ensure clarity during development, so that the intent is clear.
However, these agreements are not considered to be exclusively governed by the Hague Convention on the Choice of Judicial Agreements. Given that this may be the mechanism by which we will maintain mutual applicability within the EU as soon as the UK leaves the EU, it may be not advisable to qualify two courts as exclusive jurisdiction in EU-related transactions. Also keep in mind that there is a risk of parallel proceedings outside the EU, especially in the case of a counterclaim against a claim, the application before a court and the counter-action before another court. There are also a number of factors to be taken into account when drafting a subpoena agreement: b) there is nothing in this clause that limits the right of appeal of Part A, including a third-party proceeding, against Part B in another competent court, and the investigation or continuation of proceedings in one or more jurisdictions does not precludes the application of proceedings in another jurisdiction, whether they are simultaneously or not admissible.