Conflicting jurisdiction clauses assessed by Roger Enock & Ian Redfearn
The English courts will look towards the parties’ intentions to determine whether a particular dispute falls within the scope of a jurisdiction agreement. That much is obvious. However, where the same parties have entered into a series of related agreements over a long period of time, with each agreement containing different and apparently conflicting jurisdiction clauses, the parties’ intentions may be difficult to discern.
This conundrum was last year considered by the Court of Appeal in UBS AG and UBS Securities LLC v HSH Nordbank AG [2009] EWCA Civ 585. In that case, Lord Collins held that, where two or more jurisdiction clauses conflict, the courts should apply the jurisdiction clause in the agreement that is at the “commercial centre” of the transaction giving rise to the dispute. Lord Collins’ approach was recently endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Sebastian Holdings Inc v Deutsche Bank AG [2010] EWCA Civ 998.
Sebastian Holdings
Sebastian entered into a series of contracts with Deutsche Bank
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=961ae4db_1)
95ca96e3d47f4eff8d147c4f0df17c77.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=3db5d86b_1)
