• Advertise
  • Membership
  • Sign inSUBSCRIBE
Legal Era
X
Sign in
  • Home
  • News
    +
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
  • Articles
    +
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
  • Law Firms
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events
  • News
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
  • Articles
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
  • Law Firms
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events

Top Stories

  • Debashree-Dutta
    Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas advised
  • Trilegal
    Trilegal advised Muthoot Finance
  • SAM
    Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas advised
  • Sippy
    Delhi High Court rules on Trademark Law
  • Stovekraft
    Arya Mathew joins Stovekraft as a
  • Punjab-and-Haryana-High-Court
    Punjab and Haryana High Court repeals
  • Sahara
    Supreme Court sets aside Delhi High
  • NCLAT
    NCLAT urges IBBI to consider modifying
  • Insurance
    Supreme Court directs insurance
  • Supreme Court terms copyright infringement a non-bailable offence
    Supreme Court terms copyright
BREXIT impact on jurisdictional clauses
HomeArticlesInternational Law
International Law

BREXIT impact on jurisdictional clauses

By: Huay Yee Kwan & Justin Gan & Cherilyn Koh | Law Firm Stephenson Harwood (Singapore) Alliance
22 April 2021 7:30 AM GMT

BREXIT impact on jurisdictional clauses

BREXIT impact on jurisdictional clauses

BREXIT impact on jurisdictional clauses If financiers require a judgment that is enforceable in the EU, then the analysis as to which jurisdiction clause would be most appropriate will now require especially careful consideration and most certainly local law advice. Introduction In 2016, the United Kingdom (the "UK") voted to leave the European Union (the "EU") as a Member State....

ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to Legal Era

Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion

Subscribe Now
AlreadyaSubscriber?SigninNow
View Plans

BREXIT impact on jurisdictional clauses

If financiers require a judgment that is enforceable in the EU, then the analysis as to which jurisdiction clause would be most appropriate will now require especially careful consideration and most certainly local law advice.

Introduction

In 2016, the United Kingdom (the "UK") voted to leave the European Union (the "EU") as a Member State. Since then, the UK has maintained its participation in the EU for a transition period during which the EU legislative framework continued to apply to the UK. The transition period has since ended on 31 December 2020 ("IP Completion Day") and today, the UK is officially no longer a member of the EU. One major ramification relates to the recognition and enforcement of English court judgements in EU Member States which is key in respect of transactions involving borrowers or security parties located or based in the EU. If the enforceability of a judgment in the EU is a significant factor in the choice of jurisdiction, where does this leave parties to financing transactions that often provide for submission to the jurisdiction of the English courts?


Jurisdiction clauses

1. Pre and Post IP Completion Day

Prior to IP Completion Day, the jurisdiction of the English courts was largely dictated by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (the "Recast Brussels Regulation"). If an agreement included a submission to the courts of a particular EU Member State (which includes the UK), the courts of other EU Member States were generally required to decline jurisdiction, and to defer to and enforce the judgement of the courts of that particular EU Member State pertaining to such an agreement.

Following IP Completion Day, the Recast Brussels Regulation has ceased to apply to the UK as the UK is no longer considered an EU Member State. The courts of EU Member States may therefore choose to accept jurisdiction even if an agreement provides for submission to English courts. The question of whether an English court judgement may still be enforceable in EU Member States will be determined by the local laws of each EU Member State and as such the analysis may be less straightforward than the regime previously applicable pre-IP Completion Day.

This has been partially mitigated by UK's accession to the Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005 (the "Hague Convention") which came into force in the UK on 1 January 2021.


In relation to an agreement entered into after the Hague Convention was ratified by a participating state (which includes the EU) and where the jurisdiction clause in such an agreement is a two-way exclusive jurisdiction clause submitting to the court of such participating state, the Hague Convention generally requires (although there are some exceptions) all other participating states to:

A. respect parties' choice of court in such participating state; and

B. enforce judgements made by such court.

2. Types of dispute resolution clauses

Parties may now wish to consider the two-way exclusive jurisdiction clause anew when deciding which dispute resolution clause to use for their contracts. Simply put, a two-way exclusive jurisdiction clause is a jurisdiction clause which provides that all parties to an agreement submit to the courts of a certain jurisdiction.

Two other types of dispute resolution clauses currently more commonly used in financing transactions are the following:

A. Asymmetrical jurisdiction clause – such a clause restricts one party to commencing proceedings only in the courts which they submitted to in the agreement, whilst allowing the other party to litigate in any jurisdiction.

B. Arbitration clause – such a clause provides that parties will resolve any disputes by way of arbitration rather than through a court-driven procedure.

Developments in the market have also pointed to a suggestion of using an asymmetrical hybrid clause which allows one party to choose between the jurisdiction of the English courts and arbitration, while restricting the other party to only either the English courts or arbitration as provided for in the agreement. In this regard, careful drafting is required. Under English law, while such asymmetrical hybrid clauses are valid and enforceable, it is uncertain whether such clauses will be covered by the Hague Convention (and perhaps unlikely based on obiter comments at the Court of Appeal level in December 2020). Further, the issue of whether such a clause is within the Hague Convention may not necessarily be decided in each case under English law – it could be the law of (for example) the country where enforcement of a judgment is sought.

In the context of resolving disputes within the UK legal system, with the UK's official exit from the EU, parties now have to decide if they should adopt the two-way exclusive jurisdiction clause for use in agreements instead of the other options available.

Key considerations include weighing up the benefits of ease of enforcement of an English court judgement in the EU via the two-way exclusive jurisdiction clause, against the benefits of having flexibility as to where proceedings may be commenced under an asymmetrical jurisdiction clause, which has traditionally been the preferred option of financiers. With the current uncertainty on enforcement of English judgements in the EU, parties may also consider whether arbitration may be more effective as a dispute resolution mechanism in the appropriate transaction documents since it is unlikely that Brexit will affect recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award, which are governed by the New York Convention 1958 and the resulting national laws in each contracting state.

Conclusion

If financiers require a judgment that is enforceable in the EU, then the analysis as to which jurisdiction clause would be most appropriate will now require especially careful consideration and most certainly local law advice.

Disclaimer – The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the authors and are purely informative in nature.

Huay Yee Kwan

Huay Yee Kwan

Partner, Stephenson Harwood (Singapore) Alliance

Huay Yee Kwan is a partner in our Singapore office. She has a long track record of advising on high value and complex transactions for clients. Her experience encompasses a wide range of asset classes including offshore assets and maritime containers.

Justin Gan

Justin Gan

Senior associate, Stephenson Harwood (Singapore) Alliance

Justin helps clients resolve commercial disputes whether in litigation, arbitration, mediation, or preproceedings. He has a strong focus on marine and international trade matters, and also handles noncontentious work in that sector. He is fluent in Mandarin and his matters often bear a PRC element.

Cherilyn Koh

Cherilyn Koh

Associate, Stephenson Harwood (Singapore) Alliance

Cherilyn is in the finance team and has specialised in non-contentious shipping matters since the start of her legal career. She has experience in local and international ship financing transactions, leasing transactions, local and cross border sale and purchase of vessels and flagging related matters.

Stephenson Harwood (Singapore) Alliance

Stephenson Harwood (Singapore) Alliance

TAGS:
  • Stephenson Harwood (Singapore) Alliance 
  • Brexit 
  • Huay Yee Kwan 
  • Justin Gan 
  • Cherilyn Koh 
  • European Union 
  • United Kingdom 
  • UK 
  • EU 
  • IP Completion day 
  • Hague Convention 
  • dispute resolution 
  • exclusive jurisdiction clause 
Next Story
Similar Posts
See More
Trending Now
XXXXXXX

XXXXXXX

Power of Magistrate to direct FIR registration & proper investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC

Power of Magistrate to direct FIR registration & proper

Manufacturing Risks Associated with The Nascent Indian EV Industry

Manufacturing Risks Associated with The Nascent Indian EV

Tax on Alimony

Tax on Alimony

Recommended Articles
Arbitration and Commercial Courts: A Jurisdictional Conflict

Arbitration and Commercial Courts: A Jurisdictional Conflict

Multiplicity of Arbitral Proceedings in India

Multiplicity of Arbitral Proceedings in India

Copyright and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs)

Copyright and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs)

Renewed Interest in Quincecare Duty of Care in Claims Against Banks

Renewed Interest in Quincecare Duty of Care in Claims

  • News
  • From the Courts
  • Supreme Court (India)
  • High Court (India)
  • Global Insights
  • Deal Street
  • Hires & Moves
  • Refund & Cancellation Policy
  • Articles
  • Zoom In
  • Take On Board
  • In Focus
  • Law & Policy
  • IP & Tech Era
  • Viewpoint
  • Arbitration & Mediation
  • Tax
  • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Membership
  • Reader's Feedback
  • Cartoons
  • Subscribe
Follow Us
Subscribe Newsletter
  • 2022© All rights reserved Legal Era Media Group
  • Who We Are
  • Careers
  • Advertise with Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Powered by  Hocalwire
X
X