A prorogation clause which claimed to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of one country would, if it complied with Article 17 in point of form, be given effect so as to exclude any other jurisdictions which might otherwise be competent under the Convention; but a prorogation clause which bore merely to confer non-exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of one country would not be made exclusive by virtue of the Article.
Judges:
Hoffmann J
Citations:
[1992] Ch 196, [1991] 3 WLR 1046, Gazette 04-Dec-1991
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Insured Financial Structures Ltd v Elektrocleplownia Tychy SA CA 28-Jan-2003
The parties to a contract had agreed that Poland should have non-exclusive jurisdiction over disputes. Poland was not a party to the Lugano Convention, but both parties were domiciled in contracting states.
Held: The agreement had extended . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction
Updated: 15 April 2022; Ref: scu.180043
