William Day writes in the Law Quarterly Review on exclusive jurisdiction agreements

William Day has written a note in the Law Quarterly Review on the common law’s discretion to enforce exclusive jurisdiction agreements in light of the decision in Zephyrus Capital Aviation Partners 1D Ltd v Fidelis Underwriting Ltd [2024] EWHC 734 (Comm), in which several other members of chambers appeared.

The note discusses a number of interesting legal developments crystallised by the decision in Zephyrus as to the Court’s approach to assessing whether ‘strong cause’ has been shown not to enforce an exclusive jurisdiction agreement, namely:

  • The rejection of a distinction between the quality of consent that is required for contractual purposes and that required for the exercise of autonomy in private international law
  • The confirmation that ‘convenience’ factors (e.g. language and location of witnesses and documents) which are objectively foreseeable at the time of contracting are normally insufficient to constitute ‘strong cause’ but that does not extend to foreseeable factors concerning the risk of an unfair trial in the agreed jurisdiction
  • The confirmation that multiplicity of proceedings and risk of irreconcilable judgments are not as factors limited by considerations of foreseeability and self-inducement (which is consistent with this raising public policy issues rather than just being a ‘convenience’ factor)
  • The confirmation that a party’s subjective desire to litigate in the chosen forum is generally irrelevant (although there may still be some role for subjective knowledge at the time of contracting as to factors later relied upon as showing ‘strong cause’)
  • The suggestion that the question of an unfair trial in the agreed jurisdiction is to be assessed on a balance of probabilities basis rather than the forward-looking real risk basis articulated in Popoviciu v Romania [2023] UKSC 39

The note is entitled ‘Contractualisation of civil jurisdiction’. It is in the October issue of the LQR and is now available on Westlaw.

Related Barristers

Winner: UK Bar Awards 2025
3VB

3VB

3VB

Advertencia: personas que se hacen pasar por 3VB

3VB tiene conocimiento de que el sitio web 3vb.org ha sido utilizado por personas que se hacían pasar por 3 Verulam Buildings (3VB) y sus abogados (*barristers*), incluso para ofrecer supuestos servicios legales y de recuperación de activos.

El sitio 3vb.org no fue operado ni autorizado por 3VB ni por sus abogados. El sitio web fraudulento está en proceso de ser dado de baja.

Si ha recibido alguna comunicación de alguien que afirma representar a 3VB, le rogamos que la verifique utilizando únicamente los datos de contacto publicados en este sitio web: 3vb.com.

Si ha realizado pagos o ha facilitado información financiera o personal a alguien que utilizaba 3vb.org o que afirmaba representar a 3VB a través de dicho sitio web, no efectúe más pagos y considere denunciar el asunto ante las autoridades competentes de su jurisdicción.

La versión en inglés de este aviso constituye la única declaración oficial de 3VB. La traducción al español que figura a continuación se ha generado mediante inteligencia artificial y se facilita únicamente a título informativo. En caso de discrepancia, prevalecerá la versión en inglés.