Mukarrum Ahmed

Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements: Some Issues on the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and its Relationship with the Brussels I Recast Especially Anti-Suit Injunctions, Concurrent Proceedings and the Implications of Brexit

This article contends that the system of “qualified” or “partial” mutual trust in the Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention (“Hague Convention”) may permit anti-suit injunctions, actions for damages for breach of exclusive jurisdiction agreements and anti-enforcement injunctions where such remedies further the objective of the Convention. However, intra-EU Hague Convention cases may arguably23 not permit remedies for breach of exclusive jurisdiction agreements as they may infringe the principles of mutual trust and effectiveness of EU law (effet utile) underlying the Brussels I Recast Regulation. The relationship between Article 31(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation and Articles 5 and 6 of the Hague Convention is mapped in this article. It will be argued that the Hartley–Dogauchi Report’s interpretative approach has much to commend it as it follows the path of least resistance by narrowly construing the right to sue in a non-chosen forum as an exception rather than the norm. This exceptional nature of the right to sue in the non-chosen forum under the Hague Convention can be effectively reconciled with the Brussels I Recast Regulation’s reverse lis pendens rule under Article 31(2). This will usually result in the stay of the proceedings in the non-chosen court as soon as the chosen court is seised. The impact of Brexit on this area of the law is uncertain but it has been argued that the likely outcome post-Brexit is that the regime applicable between the UK and the EU (apart from Denmark) in relation to exclusive jurisdiction agreements within the scope of the Hague Convention will be the Hague Convention.

The Enforcement of Settlement and Jurisdiction Agreements and Parallel Proceedings in the European Union: The Alexandros T Litigation in the English Courts

This article examines the private law enforcement of English settlement and jurisdiction agreements where pre-emptive parallel proceedings have been commenced in the courts of another EU Member State. It will be argued that in The Alexandros T, the UK Supreme Court adopted a narrow and instrumental “mirror images” interpretation of the “same cause of action” issue in Article 27 of the Brussels I Regulation which allowed the English and the Greek proceedings to continue in parallel. In cases where the strict tripartite test of Article 27 is not met, Article 28 with its discretionary power to stay in case of related actions is available as a more flexible alternative. It will be argued that the exercise of the discretion to stay proceedings under Article 28 of the Brussels I Regulation was legitimately denied effect in order to accord deference to jurisdictional party autonomy. The Court of Appeals decision clarifying that the claims for declarations and damages for breach of exclusive jurisdiction agreements are not in breach of EU law will not be the final word on this contentious and as yet unresolved issue. Any argument supporting the enforcement of the private law rights and obligations of the parties to the jurisdiction or settlement agreement may be deemed by the CJEU as necessarily infringing the principle of effectiveness of EU law (effet utile) and the principle of mutual trust which animates the multilateral jurisdiction and judgments order of the Brussels I Regulation.