header-logo header-logo

04 April 2025 / Richard Marshall , Harriet Campbell
Issue: 8111 / Categories: Features , Jurisdiction , Contract , EU
printer mail-detail

Asymmetric clauses: a balancing act?

Much favoured in finance contracts, asymmetric clauses have been confirmed as valid under EU law: Richard Marshall & Harriet Campbell consider the impact for contracting parties
  • The Court of Justice of the European Union has confirmed that asymmetric jurisdiction clauses favouring EU or Lugano courts are valid and enforceable under EU law.
  • Clauses providing for the possible jurisdiction of the English courts may be interpreted as unenforceable.

In a pivotal judgment on jurisdiction, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that asymmetric clauses are valid and enforceable under EU law. While this resolves doubts about their validity within the EU, the risk of unenforceability remains if the clause designates courts outside of the EU or Lugano Convention countries (namely, the EU, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland).

Asymmetric clauses are much favoured in finance contracts. Typically, they allow the lender to sue in any jurisdiction but restrict the borrower to one jurisdiction. However, the downside of such clauses, until now, has been the risk

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll