We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 April 2022
The English Court of Appeal and German Bundesgerichtshof recently decided that Article 31(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation applies to asymmetric jurisdiction clauses. This article contends that while this conclusion is sound, separating the ‘clause’ into two ‘agreements’ to reach it is not. This disaggregation prevents a solution to the anomaly that Article 31(2) creates for asymmetric clauses, where a lender sues under its option and the borrower subsequently sues in the anchor court. This article proposes a solution, based on a uniform characterisation of the clause as a whole, which protects the lender's option and mitigates the risk of parallel proceedings.
The law is stated as at 30 September 2021. The author thanks Professor Andrew Dickinson and the Journal's anonymous reviewers for their very thoughtful comments and suggestions, and Emma Fu for research assistance. Any errors belong to the author. She wishes to dedicate this article to the late Professor Peter Mankowski († 10 February 2022), whose prodigious scholarship, intellectual generosity and unique sense of humour will be profoundly missed.
1 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters [2012] OJ L351/1.
2 Bergson, I, ‘The Death of the Torpedo Action? The Practical Operation of the Recast's Reforms to Enhance the Protection for Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements within the European Union’ (2015) 11 JPIL 1, 22–3Google Scholar; Cuniberti, G, ‘La clause attributive de juridiction’ in Le banquier luxembourgeois et le droit international privé (LGDJ 2017) 82–4Google Scholar; Merrett, L, ‘The Future Enforcement of Asymmetric Jurisdiction Agreements’ (2018) 67 ICLQ 37, 54–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fentiman, R, International Commercial Litigation (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2015) paras 2.145Google Scholar, 2.204–2.205; Wais, H, ‘Einseitige Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen und die Schranken der Parteiautonomie’ (2017) 81 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 815, 850–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Wood, PR, Conflict of Laws and International Finance (3rd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2019) para 17-005Google Scholar (describing this doubt as ‘[p]erhaps’ the rule's ‘most significant defect’).
3 Etihad Airways PJSC v Flöther [2020] EWCA Civ 1707 (Etihad [2020]) paras 92–94; BGH, 15 June 2021, II ZB 35/20, paras 48, 71. For simplicity, references in this article to the ‘CJEU’ also relate to the European Court of Justice.
4 Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (adopted 30 June 2005, entered into force 1 October 2015) 44 ILM 1294 (Hague Choice of Courts Convention); Etihad [2020] (n 3) paras 85–87 (obiter); BGH, 15 June 2021 (n 3) para 69. The Convention entered into force for the UK, in its own right, on 1 January 2021: Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020, section 1; Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, section 3D.
5 Hague Choice of Courts Convention (n 4) art 3(a). This article uses ‘choice of court agreement’ or ‘clause’ and ‘jurisdiction agreement’ or ‘clause’ interchangeably.
6 See BGH, 15 June 2021 (n 3) para 69; Etihad [2020] (n 3) para 85 (obiter).
7 Convention of 30 October 2007 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters [2007] OJ L339/3, arts 70(1)(c), 72(3); Commission, ‘Communication from the European Commission Representing the European Union to the Swiss Federal Council as the Depositary of the 2007 Lugano Convention (Concerning the Application of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Accede to the 2007 Lugano Convention)’ (Note verbale) Ref Ares(2021)4053632 (22 June 2021). The 2007 Lugano Convention ceased to have effect so far as it concerned the UK at the end of the implementation period on 31 December 2020: see A Dickinson, ‘Realignment of the Planets – Brexit and European Private International Law’ (2021) 41 Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 213, 220.
8 Briggs, A, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (7th edn, Informa Law 2021) paras 2.03, 2.05CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2012] OJ C326/13, art 50(3); Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 of 30 January 2020 on the conclusion of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community [2020] OJ L29/1, arts 7, 67(1)(a), 126–127; European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, section 1, as amended by European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, Pt 1; Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) EU Exit Regulations 2019 SI 2019/479, Pt 5, as amended by The Civil, Criminal and Family Justice (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 SI 2020/1493, reg 5. A clear course through these provisions is very helpfully charted by Dickinson: ‘Realignment of the Planets’ (n 7) 214–17, 219–21.
10 Madame X v Banque Privée Edmond de Rothschild, Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 26 September 2012, No 11-26.022. See eg M Keyes and BA Marshall, ‘Jurisdiction Agreements: Exclusive, Optional and Asymmetrical’ (2015) 11 JPIL 345, 366–70.
11 The LMA Multicurrency Term and Revolving Facilities Agreement (LMA.MTR.GER.08, 14 June 2016) cl 39.1 (footnotes omitted) (reprinted with permission).
12 Fentiman (n 2) para 2.127. ‘Designate’ is synonymous with ‘confer jurisdiction’ or ‘prorogate’: see Etihad [2020] (n 3) para 34 (Henderson LJ with whom Hickinbottom and Newey LJJ agreed) (explaining ‘prorogation’ by reference to Scots law).
13 The terms ‘borrower’ and ‘lender’ are used here for simplicity. Rothschild clauses are used in a range of cross-border contracts, beyond loan agreements.
14 eg UBS v HSH Nordbank [2009] EWCA Civ 585, [2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep 272, para 22.
15 ‘(1): If the parties … have agreed that … the courts of a Member State are to have jurisdiction … those courts shall have jurisdiction … Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive unless the parties have agreed otherwise.’
16 eg In re NN2 Newco Ltd [2019] EWHC 1917 (Ch) para 41 (Norris J); LG Mainz, 13 September 2005, 10 HK O 112/04: cf In the Matter of Global Garden Products Italy SpA [2016] EWHC 1884 (Ch) paras 29–31 (obiter); In re Van Gansewinkel Groep BV [2015] EWHC 2151 (Ch), [2015] Bus LR 1046, para 49; KfW v Singal [2020] EWHC 2214 (Comm) paras 29–33, fn 1.
17 Part II.
18 Arts 4 or 7.
19 LG Berlin, 13 May 2020, 95 O 60/18; KG, 3 December 2020, 2 W 1009/20, BeckRS 2020, 33470; Etihad Airways PJSC v Flöther [2019] EWHC 3107 (Comm), [2020] 2 WLR 333 (Etihad [2019]); Etihad [2020] (n 3); BGH, 15 June 2021 (n 3). See also Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft v Liquimar Tankers Management Inc [2017] EWHC 161 (Comm), [2017] 1 WLR 3497.
20 Garvey, S, ‘Hybrid Jurisdiction Clauses: Time for a Rethink’ (2016) 31 BJIBFL 6, 6Google Scholar.
21 Wood (n 2) paras 15-038, 17-005.
22 ibid.
23 Pre-emptive proceedings commenced by the lender/dealer is not, however, a scenario borne out in the cases involving Rothschild clauses governed by the Recast's predecessor instruments, which contained no equivalent to Article 31(2): see eg Barclays Bank v Ente Nazionale di Previdenza [2015] EWHC 2857 (Comm), [2015] Lloyd's Rep 527; JP Morgan Europe Ltd v Primacom AG [2005] EWHC 508 (Comm). (Primacom has been widely misreported as a case involving a (symmetric) exclusive jurisdiction agreement, presumably because the English High Court did not quote the whole of the clause in its judgment: cf Primacom para 3 with LG Mainz, 13 September 2005 (n 16) paras 10–16, a judgment in the same case, which sets the clause out in its entirety.)
24 ‘Effects’ denotes the impact a jurisdiction clause will have on a court's decision to assume and/or exercise jurisdiction. ‘Enforceability’ refers to the question whether a clause is invalid, void, vitiated or otherwise liable to be constrained or set aside.
25 See eg Merrett (n 2) 47–54; Fentiman (n 2) paras 2.123–2.150; Marshall, B, Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses (Oxford University Press 2022 forthcoming) Ch 6Google Scholar (on file with the author).
26 See eg Case C-543/10 Refcomp SpA v Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance SA EU:C:2013:62, para 21.
27 See eg Case C-64/17 Saey Home & Garden NV/SA v Lusavouga-Máquinas e Acessórios Industriais SA EU:C:2018:173, para 25.
28 eg Case C-595/17 Apple Sales International EU:C:2018:854, paras 21–22; BNP Paribas SA v Trattamento Rifiuti Metropolitani SpA [2019] EWCA Civ 768, [2020] 1 All ER 762, paras 69–83; KG, 3 December 2020 (n 19) paras 67–77.
29 cf M Winkler, ‘Understanding Claim Proximity in the EU Regime of Jurisdiction Agreements’ (2020) 69 ICLQ 431, 434, 437, 448.
30 See Case C-214/89 Powell Duffryn plc v Wolfgang Petereit [1992] ECR I-1769, para 37, ruling para 4; Case C-352/13 Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide SA v Akzo Nobel NV EU:C:2015:335, para 67; Apple Sales (n 28) para 21. Though in none of these cases did the CJEU specify whether a national court should apply its own national law to the question of scope (that is, the law of the forum), the national law designated by the forum's private international law rules, or neither.
31 Recast, art 25(1).
32 Commerzbank (n 19) para 53 (Cranston J).
33 Saey Home (n 27) para 24.
34 Generali Italia SpA v Pelagic Fisheries Corp [2020] EWHC 1228 (Comm), [2020] 1 WLR 4211, para 117. See also T Kruger, ‘Brussels Calling: The Extra-EU Effect of European Private International Law’ in G Van Calster and J Falconis (eds), European Private International Law at 50 (Intersentia 2018) para 24.
35 Recast, art 28.
36 See Mills, A and Grušić, U, ‘Jurisdiction under the Brussels/Lugano System’ in Torremans, P and Fawcett, JJ (eds), Cheshire, North & Fawcett: Private International Law (15th edn, Oxford University Press 2017) 230Google Scholar; F Pocar, ‘Explanatory Report to the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters’ [2009] OJ C319/1, para 106(1).
37 Recast, art 29(3). See Nordea Bank Norge ASA v Unicredit Corporate Banking SpA [2011] EWHC 30 (Comm) paras 7, 72.
38 Rogerson, P, Lehmann, M and Garcimartin, F, ‘Lis Pendens and Related Actions’ in Dickinson, A and Lein, E (eds), The Brussels I Regulation Recast (Oxford University Press 2015) para 11.16Google Scholar. See Case C-406/92 The Tatry [1994] ECR I-5439, para 41.
39 See Recast, art 29(1); Secret Hotels 2 Ltd v EA Traveller Ltd [2010] EWHC 1023 (Ch) paras 15–16, 48–49, 68; Joseph, D, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements and their Enforcement (3rd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2015) para 4.06Google Scholar. But see Perform Content Services Ltd v Ness Global Services Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 981, para 61 (obiter).
40 Seisin carries its own meaning under EU law: Recast, art 32.
41 Technically, it is the apparently designated court, with apparently exclusive jurisdiction: A Briggs, ‘What Should Be Done about Jurisdiction Agreements?’ (2010) 12 Yearbook of Private International Law 311, 316–22. See further text to (nn 54–68).
42 Commerzbank (n 19) paras 77–78.
43 Recast, art 31(3).
44 ibid, Recital 22(1). But see Etihad [2019] (n 19) paras 49–52, 87 (Henderson LJ with whom Hickinbottom and Newey LJJ agreed) (describing it as a ‘modification’); Commerzbank (n 19) paras 62–63.
45 Recast, Recital 22(1), art 29(1). But see Forner-Delaygua, Q, ‘Changes to Jurisdiction Based on Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements under the Brussels I Regulation Recast’ (2015) 11 JPIL 379, 386–7Google Scholar.
46 See Recast, art 30(3); A Dickinson, ‘Exclusively Yours’ (2020) LQR 215, 218; P Gottwald, ‘Artikel 30’ in W Kruger and T Rauscher (eds), Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung mit Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen (5th edn, CH Beck 2017) vol 3, art 30 EuGVVO, para 10; LG Düsseldorf, 11 July 2018, 4c O 81/17, openJur, para 64: cf Forner-Delaygua (n 45) 386–7; D Kenny and R Hennigan, ‘Choice-of-Court Agreements, the Italian Torpedo, and the Recast of the Brussels I Regulation’ (2015) 64 ICLQ 197, 206–9.
47 Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, 27 September 1968, consolidated version at [1998] OJ C27/1.
48 Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters [2001] OJ L12/1.
49 Case C-116/02 Erich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl [2003] ECR I-4207, paras 46–49: cf Continental Bank NA v Aeakos Compania Naviera SA [1994] 1 WLR 588, 596. See also Case C-438/12 Irmengard Weber v Mechthilde Weber EU:C:2014:212, para 52.
50 Regulation 44/2001, arts 25–26.
51 See Mills, A, Party Autonomy in Private International Law (Cambridge University Press 2018) 134CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
52 See generally J Mance, ‘Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements and European Ideals’ (2004) 120 LQR 357; S Fulli-Lemaire, ‘La protection de la compétence du juge élu et ses limites’ in M Laazouzi (ed), Les clauses attributives de compétence internationale : de la prévisibilité au désordre (Éditions Panthéon-Assas 2021) 148–9.
53 See Ablynx NV v VHsquared Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 2192, para 72 (Lewison LJ with whom Newey and Asplin LJJ agreed); Bergson (n 2) 8–9. But see Dickinson, ‘Exclusively Yours’ (n 46) 217 (arguing that only those aspects which the Recast refers to national law should be determined by the chosen court).
54 KG, 3 December 2020 (n 19) paras 63–64 (not needing to decide the point). This uncertainty is longstanding: see eg Bergson (n 2) 6–14; A Nuyts, ‘La refonte du règlement Bruxelles I’ (2013) 102 Revue critique de droit international privé 1, 52; Briggs, A, Private International Law in English Courts (Oxford University Press 2014) para 4.350Google Scholar; A Dickinson, ‘Surveying the Proposed Brussels I Bis Regulation – Solid Foundations but Renovation Needed’ (2010) 12 Yearbook of Private International Law 247, 297.
55 Generali Italia (n 34) paras 68–69.
56 See eg KG, 3 December 2020 (n 19) para 62 (summarising the ample German commentary in support of this view); Cuniberti (n 2) 80–1.
57 See Dickinson, ‘Exclusively Yours’ (n 46) 217.
58 ibid.
59 See Ablynx (n 53) paras 53–55, 73, where the ‘prima facie’ approach was common ground between counsel: Dickinson, ‘Exclusively Yours’ n (46) 217.
60 Ablynx (n 53) para 73 (Lewison LJ with whom Newey and Asplin LJJ agreed).
61 Weller, M, ‘Die “verbesserte Wirksamkeit” der europäischen Gerichtsstandsvereinbarung nach der Reform der Brüssel I-VO’ (2014) 19 Zeitschrift für Zivilprozeß International 251, 275Google Scholar.
62 P Schlosser, ‘Report on the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters’ [1979] OJEC C59/71, para 184 (Schlosser Report).
63 Weller interprets the Schlosser Report to mean that interlocutory decisions that only provisionally regulate the parties’ relationship are not recognisable judgments: Weller, ‘Die “verbesserte Wirksamkeit”’ (n 61) 275. The Schlosser Report is vague on this point: see Schlosser (n 62) para 184. But see Case C-39/02 Mærsk Olie & Gas A/S v Firma M de Haan en W de Boer [2004] ECR I-9686, para 46.
64 Recast, art 31(2): cf art 31(3); Case C-456/11 Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG v Samskip GmbH EU:C:2012:719, paras 15, 27, 32, 36 (Gothaer Judgment) (which concerned the recognition of a decision by one Member State court of a decision by another a Member State court to decline jurisdiction on account of an exclusive jurisdiction clause). cf Bergson (n 2) 19, fn 70 (arguing by reference to Case C-456/11 Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG v Samskip GmbH EU:C:2012:554, Opinion of AG Bot, para 59 that it is a judgment, whenever a Member State court ‘rules on its international jurisdiction, whether it accepts or declines jurisdiction’. That may be so, but a court first seised in staying its proceedings is doing none of those three things).
65 See eg Generali Italia (n 34) paras 68–70: cf Gothaer Judgment (n 64) paras 37–43.
66 [2016] EWHC 1182 (Comm).
67 That course would be in error, because the Recast does not permit the court first seised to decline jurisdiction until the designated court establishes jurisdiction under the agreement: art 31(2)–(3).
68 Gothaer Judgment (n 64) paras 15, 27, 32, 36.
69 Perella (n 66) para 23. (Private international law, for whatever reason, has been less concerned with the distinction between interpretation and construction than the law of contract.)
70 Commerzbank (n 19) para 52.
71 Consensus is missing: GDE LLC (formerly Anglia Autoflow North America LLC) v Anglia Autoflow Ltd [2020] EWHC 105 (Comm) paras 124–131; U Magnus, ‘Introduction’ in U Magnus and P Mankowski (eds), European Commentaries on Private International Law (Otto Schmidt 2016) vol 1, Brussels Ibis Regulation, art 25, paras 81a, 143; Fentiman (n 2) para 2.71; M Lehmann and A Grimm, ‘Zulässigkeit asymmetrischer Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen nach Artikel 23 Brüssel I-VO’ [2013] Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 890, 892, 893; Case C-222/15 Hőszig Kft v Alstom Power Thermal Services EU:C:2016:525, para 28; Mills (n 51) 110; P Mankowski, ‘Artikel 25 – Zulässigkeit und Form von Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen’ in T Rauscher (ed), EuZPR/EuIPR, Band I : Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht (5th edn, Otto Schmidt 2021) art 25 Brüssel Ia-VO, para 341. See also Etihad [2020] (n 3) para 4 (Henderson LJ with whom Hickinbottom and Newey LJJ agreed) (not referring to any governing law in pronouncing on the effects of the clause).
72 See generally J Allsop, ‘Characterisation: Its Place in Contractual Analysis and Related Enquiries’ in S Degeling and The Hon Justice J Edelman (eds), Contract in Commercial Law (Thomson Reuters 2016) 105.
73 Text to (nn 32–36).
74 Recast, art 25(1).
75 See also Mankowski (n 71) para 349.
76 Non-EU courts, competent under their own private international law rules, will also have jurisdiction when the lender sues.
77 Commerzbank (n 19) para 64 (emphasis added).
78 See further Part IV(A).
79 Recast, art 29(1).
80 Commerzbank (n 19) para 69. See also Etihad [2019] (n 19) para 190.
81 cf Keyes and Marshall (n 10) 352.
82 See Fentiman (n 2) para 2.145.
83 Merrett (n 2) 56 (emphasis added).
84 ibid 56 (emphasis added), approved in Etihad [2019] (n 19) paras 183–184. See also Etihad [2020] (n 3) para 67 (Henderson LJ with whom Hickinbottom and Newey LJJ agreed).
85 The positive obligation to sue in the designated court rather than the negative obligation not to sue elsewhere may be relevant: cf BGH, 17 October 2019, III ZR 42/19, paras 24, 33 with Starlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine Aviation Versicherungs AG [2014] EWCA Civ 1010, para 20 (holding, respectively, that breach of the former and breach of the latter sounded in damages under German and English law).
86 Hartley, TC, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments in Europe: The Brussels I Regulation, the Lugano Convention, and the Hague Choice of Court Convention (Oxford University Press 2017) para 13.07Google Scholar.
87 Case C-519/19 Ryanair DAC v DelayFix EU:C:2020:933, para 38. Text to (n 26).
88 Refcomp (n 26) para 21.
89 See generally M Weller, ‘Optional Choice of Court Agreements’ in M Schmidt-Kessel (ed), German National Reports on the 20th International Congress of Comparative Law (Mohr Siebeck 2018) 209, 212.
90 Etihad [2019] (n 19) para 184; Etihad [2020] (n 3) para 67.
91 See A Briggs, ‘The Subtle Variety of Jurisdiction Agreements’ [2012] LMCLQ 364, 378–9; Briggs, A, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law (Oxford University Press 2008) para 7.35Google Scholar; Harris, J, ‘The Brussels I Regulation, the ECJ and the Rulebook’ (2008) 124 LQR 523Google Scholar.
92 Etihad [2020] (n 3) para 68 (Henderson LJ with whom Hickinbottom and Newey LJJ agreed) (emphasis added).
93 (Briggs was not addressing Article 31(2) of the Recast, but rather the possibility that a French court applying the 2007 Lugano Convention might invalidate an asymmetric clause, considered as a whole, on the basis that it is potestative.)
94 Briggs, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (n 8) para 12.16.
95 A Briggs, ‘The Brussels Ibis Regulation Appears on the Horizon’ [2011] LMCLQ 157, 161.
96 See Briggs, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law (n 91) paras 7.34–7.36; Briggs, ‘The Subtle Variety of Jurisdiction Agreements’ (n 91) 378.
97 Briggs, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law (n 91) para 7.66; Briggs, ‘The Brussels Ibis Regulation’ (n 95) 161.
98 [2013] EWCA Civ 784, para 64 (Aikens LJ with whom Mann J and Laws LJ agreed).
99 See IMS SA v Capital Oil and Gas Industries Ltd [2016] EWHC 1956 (Comm) paras 46–52.
100 Case 24/76 Estasis Salotti di Colzani Aimo e Gianmario Colzani snc v Rüwa Polstereimaschinen GmbH [1976] ECR 1832, para 9; Case 25/76 Galeries Segoura SPRL v Société Rahim Bonakdarian [1976] ECR 1851, para 8.
101 See Cartel Damage Claims (n 30) para 70 (in this case, whether that party had agreed to derogate from the normal rules in respect of a non-contractual relationship); Case 71/83 The Tilly Russ [1984] ECR 2417, para 14.
102 See also Lehmann, M et al. , ‘Special Jurisdiction’ in A Dickinson and E Lein (eds), The Brussels I Regulation Recast (Oxford University Press 2015) para 4.17Google Scholar.
103 See Part V.
104 See generally U Magnus in U Magnus and P Mankowski (eds), European Commentaries on Private International Law (ECPIL) (Otto Schmidt 2016) vol 1, Brussels Ibis Regulation, Introduction, para 103.
105 (Emphasis added).
106 Perella (n 66) para 18 (obiter) (a case, as already noted, concerning a different type of asymmetric jurisdiction clause from the one examined in this article).
107 Commerzbank (n 19) para 80.
108 As to which, see text to (nn 54–68).
109 Recast, art 31(2).
110 Provided Article 32 is satisfied.
111 See Etihad [2019] (n 19) paras 206–207; BGH, 15 June 2021 (n 3) para 64.
112 Text to (nn 44–46).
113 cf Etihad [2019] (n 19) para 219.
114 Keyes and Marshall (n 10) 365–6, fns 111–12.
115 Etihad [2019] (n 19) para 180.
116 Recast, art 31(2).
117 Art 31(3).
118 cf Recast, art 31(2).
119 Text to (n 34).
120 A mirror image claim for negative declaratory relief is, as a matter of EU law, procedurally indistinguishable from a claim for positive relief: eg Case C–406/92 Tatry v Maciej Rataj [1994] ECR I–5439, para 39.
121 Text to (n 60).
122 Text to (n 16).
123 See Gothaer Judgment (n 64) para 27; Schlosser (n 62) para 184: cf text to (nn 61–66).
124 Gothaer Judgment (n 64) paras 40–1.
125 See generally H Muir Watt in U Magnus and P Mankowski (eds), European Commentaries on Private International Law (Otto Schmidt 2016) vol 1, Brussels Ibis Regulation, art 8, para 60; Case 23/78 Meeth v Glacetal Sarl [1978] ECR 2133, para 8.
126 Recast, art 31(2).
127 ibid art 26.
128 See Saey Home (n 27) para 24, quoted at text to (n 33).
129 See Recast, Recitals 1, 21; Case C-533/08 TNT Express Nederland BV v AXA Versicherung AG EU:C:2010:243, para 49.
130 cf Recast, art 45(3).
131 See Case C-386/17 Liberato v Grigorescu EU:C:2019:24, para 54.
132 Recast, art 45(1)(c).
133 Commerzbank (n 19) para 76; Etihad [2019] (n 19) para 219.
134 Recast, art 31(2).
135 See eg cases cited in (n 16).
136 In another important respect, it is different: under French national private international law rules and when applying art 17(4) of the Brussels Convention (see text to (nn 140–141)), French courts have interpreted what looks like a fully symmetrical exclusive jurisdiction clause, as though it is drafted for one party's benefit and thus as impliedly asymmetric. That approach was sagely rejected by the CJEU in the context of art 17(4) and should not be revived: Case 22/85 Anterist v Credit Lyonnais [1986] ECR 1957, para 16. See generally Mailhé, F, ‘France’ in M Keyes (ed), Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private International Law (Springer 2020) 199–200Google Scholar, 209, 211 (criticising the stark difference between the approach taken by French courts under their national private international law rules as compared with the approach they have taken under EU law to asymmetric clauses).
137 The author is grateful to Professor Andrew Dickinson and Associate Professor Jessica Hudson for suggesting this to her.
138 Recast, art 8(3).
139 Recast, art 29.
140 See Lornamead Acquisitions Ltd v Kaupthing Bank HF [2011] EWHC 2611 (Comm), [2013] BCLC 73, paras 111–112.
141 Keyes and Marshall (n 10) 365–6, fn 112.
142 Gaudemet-Tallon, H and Ancel, M-É, Compétence et exécution des jugements en Europe (6th edn, Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence 2018) 220, para 166Google Scholar. cf Lornamead (n 140) paras 111–112.
143 cf the approach of Fentiman (n 2) paras 2.141, 2.144, 2.151.
144 The principle of continuity, therefore, does not apply: cf Recast, Recital 34; Case C-417/15 Schmidt EU:C:2016:881, para 26.
145 See eg the clause cited in text to (n 11).
146 For suggested drafting of such a clause, see Marshall, Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses (n 25) Ch 9.
147 Part III(C).
148 For an analysis of this question by reference to the drafting history of the Convention, see B Marshall, ‘The 2005 Hague Convention: A Panacea for Non-exclusive and Asymmetric Jurisdiction Agreements Too?’ in M Douglas et al. (eds), Commercial Issues in Private International Law: A Common Law Perspective (Hart Publishing 2019) 100–13; Marshall, Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses (n 25) Ch 4.
149 See Mastermelt Ltd v Siegfried Evionnaz SA [2020] EWHC 927 (Comm) paras 19–30, 32 (a case about a (symmetric) exclusive jurisdiction agreement).
150 Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich, Verfahren HG 190119-O, 4 February 2020, referred to in Bundesgericht, 4A_82/2020, 16 June 2020.
151 Lugano Convention, Protocol 2, Art 1(1); T Hartley, ‘Choice-of-Court Agreements and the New Brussels I Regulation’ (2013) 129 LQR 309, 314; N Meier, ‘Droit international privé et Convention de Lugano : Rupture, après la rupture, un nouvel élan’ in Ordre des avocats de Genève (ed), Regards de marathoniens sur le droit suisse : Mélanges publiés à l'occasion du 20e « Marathon du droit » (Slatkine 2015) 297–8.
