The El Amria: 1981

The court set out the principles to be applied where a party seeks to enforce or act in breach of a choice of jurisdiction contract. If a party seek to sue here in breach of such a clause, the court has a discretion to stay, but a stay should be granted unless there is good cause shown by the plaintiff. The court must allow for all the circumstances including the country in which the factual evidence is situated, or more readily available, and consequent convenience and expense of trial in English; whether the law of the foreign Court applies and, if so, any differences, any close connection with the countries; whether only a procedural advantage is sought; and any prejudice by way of deprivation of security, the ability to enforce a judgment or be faced with a time-bar or for political, racial, religious or other reasons the plaintiff may be unlikely to get a fair trial.


Brandon J


[1981] 2 Lloyds Rep 119


England and Wales


CitedThe Eleftheria 1970
In general, and all other things being equal, it is more satisfactory (from the point of view of ensuring that justice is done) for the law of a foreign country to be decided by the courts of that country.
Brandon J said: ‘I further regard, . .

Cited by:

ApprovedDonohue v Armco Inc and others HL 13-Dec-2001
The appellant had sought injunctions against the respondent US companies to restrain their commencing proceedings in the US against him. The parties had negotiated for the purchase of the run-off liabilities of a defunct insurance company. . .
CitedOT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corporation and others CA 13-Jun-2005
The parties to a contract had agreed that the proper law for the contract was England. One party commenced proceedings in Canada, and the courts of Canada had accepted jurisdiction as the most appropriate and convenient forum to resolve the dispute. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.228194