Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 JULY 2007

Enforcing Dispute Resolution Clauses

The traditional English approach is to hold the parties to their bargain, and grant an injunction in favour of the agreed jurisdiction or arbitration provision. This has contrasted sharply with the position adopted by the European Court of Justice (ECJ)

United KingdomLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Janet Lambert
Janet Lambert
Kiran Soar
Kiran Soar

Originally published in BLG's Reinsurance and International Risk team Notes, Summer 2007

The traditional English approach is to hold the parties to their bargain, and grant an injunction in favour of the agreed jurisdiction or arbitration provision.

This has contrasted sharply with the position adopted by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Article 27 of EC Regulation 44/2001 (the "Regulation") provides that the courts of one Member State should allow the court first seised of the dispute to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction. Inherent in the Regulation is a principle of trust: the trust by the courts of one Member State to allow the courts of another Member State to determine the correct jurisdiction. Following this principle, it has been held by the ECJ that anti-suit injunctions cannot be granted to restrain proceedings commenced in the courts of another Member State in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause (for example in Gasser v Misat (2003), the Austrian

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from