Cayman Islands: All The World’s A Stage: Conflicting And Complimentary Jurisdiction Clauses In International Multi-Contractual Arrangements

Last Updated: 5 October 2009
Article by Nicholas Holland

It might surprise, and it should worry, the average businessman to see the impressive variety of different jurisdiction clauses in a typical multi-contractual relationship. There are no doubt good and bad reasons why these clauses have found their way into the final set of documents. These range from the reality that some of the documents are boilerplate which have already been interpreted by certain courts in favourable, or at least certain, ways (although even this should not always favour a choice of jurisdiction rather than merely a choice of law clause) through to the sad reality that, in some circumstances, the different clauses and the potential hazard arising from them may not have been considered at all.

Two recent and superficially conflicting but actually comprehensively complimentary judgments as to the appropriate analysis of these issues have just been released. They deserve our attention.

In the first of these, the recent Court of Appeal decision in UBS AG and UBS Securities LLC v HSH Nordbank AG, at least 6 different choice of law/jurisdiction clauses were contained in the various contracts making up a collateralized debt obligation ("CDO") which had become the subject of proceedings in both New York and London. This bewildering array of private international clauses included an exclusive jurisdiction clause requiring any dispute to be addressed in the English courts (in the Dealer's Confirmation) and, in at least two of the other agreements, a form of non-exclusive jurisdiction clause permitting disputes to be heard by the courts in New York. None of the parties were domiciled in England; thus only if the parties had expressly so agreed would the English courts have a jurisdiction over the matter under Council Regulation 44/201 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the "Brussels I Regulation"). All of which convolutions gave rise to the issue in the English proceedings, commenced by UBS, whether the dispute in issue fell within the jurisdiction clause in the Dealer's Confirmation and, therefore, precluded the New York proceedings which had been commenced by HSH Nordbank.

The applications judge (Walker J., who wrote the judgment of first instance in both this decision and the second decision discussed herein) held that, whilst it was the case that a jurisdiction clause in a stand alone contract should be construed broadly, so as not to unduly preclude proceedings in a jurisdiction selected by the parties, in construing a variety of agreements with inconsistent jurisdiction clauses the Court should instead attribute the dispute to a particular contract with which the cause of action (rather than the remedy) was most closely associated and then invoke the jurisdiction clause in that agreement. As the cause of action in this instance alleged there were misrepresentations made in the discussions leading up to the entire relationship, the cause of action was more closely tied to the other agreements which permitted or granted jurisdiction in New York. In the absence of contractual agreement, the English courts had no jurisdiction over the matter. UBS appealed.

Lord Collins of Mapesbury wrote the Judgment of the Court of Appeal. UBS made attractive, albeit unsuccessful, arguments that the application court's analysis was flawed in that it approached its task from the wrong end: the issue for the applications judge was whether any of the claims related to the Dealer's Confirmation because if they did then the English courts had jurisdiction simpliciter to deal with the matter; conversely, the issue was not to decide to which contract the causes of action, as a whole, were most closely related, particularly where the English jurisdiction clause was exclusive (and therefore had priority) and the other jurisdiction clauses were not exclusive (and so did not preclude English proceedings even though they contemplated proceedings in New York).

However, the Court of Appeal held that as its task was to construe the jurisdiction clause in issue by looking at the transaction as a whole and that, as it would be unreasonable to assume that business people would have ex ante contemplated that a dispute could fall within two inconsistent jurisdiction clauses, the parties must have intended that where a dispute fell within both jurisdiction clauses that the one contained in the agreement most closely connected with the cause of action must prevail.

The Court of Appeal was also at pains to point out the reality that the Dealers Confirmation (including its jurisdiction clause) was boilerplate. In the context of the relationship as a whole, it was reasonable to assume that the parties only intended that the boilerplate jurisdiction clause in a boilerplate agreement would only apply to technical disputes regarding same agreement and that it did not apply to disputes which went to the commercial core of the overall relationship.

The importance and meaning of the inconsistency in the jurisdiction clauses on which this decision depends was emphasized in Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc, which was released shortly after the Court of Appeal's decision in UBS v. HSH Nordbank and in contemplation of it. Deutsche Bank started proceedings in London and Sebastian Holdings, having already issued other claims in New York, challenged that jurisdiction based on the contracts between the parties. Again, the Court was faced with a stunning variety of choice of law and jurisdiction provisions in a number of agreements. Again, as neither of the parties was domiciled in England, the English courts would only have jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation if there was contractual agreement that any dispute could be dealt with in the English courts.

The two decisions might at first glance appear to conflict. For in Deutsche Bank v Sebastian Holdings, Walker J. held that there was no need for the court to select a particular agreement as being at the "commercial centre of the transaction" or at the core of the cause of action and to give primacy to its jurisdiction clause, as His Lordship and the Court of Appeal had done in UBS.

In fact Walker.J., the applications judge, accepted that there was nothing unreasonable with the assumption that the parties had contemplated parallel proceedings in different jurisdictions in this multi-contractual relationship. Indeed, given the decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. Co-operative Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA [2004] 2 All ER (Comm) 847, it was likely the parties understood that any non-exclusive jurisdiction clause modeled on the International Swap Dealers Association Master Agreement ( as were some of the contracts in question ) would be interpreted this way.

Importantly, the applications judge accepted the suggestion that the overall institutional relationship could be divided into two general spheres: i) the securities trading agreements and ii) the foreign currency exchange trading agreements. The securities agreements universally recognized the jurisdiction of the English courts (though some contemplated exclusive and others non-exclusive jurisdiction), whilst the foreign currency exchange contracts contained jurisdiction clauses granting non-exclusive jurisdiction to both New York and London. By accepting this distinction, the judge was able to distinguish the case from UBS, and avoid the difficulty faced in UBS of the inherent conflict between a permissive choice of jurisdiction clause in one agreement and an exclusive jurisdiction choice of jurisdiction in another, where each contemplated a different jurisdiction and covered the same relationship between the parties.

Indeed, in this distinction lies, at least in part, the jurisprudential importance of the two decisions and provides an interesting key to the interpretation of the jurisdictional clauses in multi-contractual international arrangements. Where the relationship (or the portion of the relationship) in issue involves a variety of agreements with conflicting jurisdictional clauses, the court must find the agreement most closely connected with the cause of action and the commercial centre of the overall arrangement. The court must then apply the jurisdictional clause in that central agreement to the exclusion of the others. However, where there is no conflict in the jurisdictional clauses, the court must determine whether any of the causes of action relate to a dispute in an agreement with a jurisdictional clause which gives that court jurisdiction.

The trick, of course, is in knowing ex ante whether there is a conflict in the agreements. That is not a simple matter. In the UBS case, UBS persuasively argued that there was no functional conflict between a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause permitting proceedings in New York and an exclusive jurisdiction clause requiring proceedings in London because proceedings in London were permitted by both contracts. UBS was proved wrong as the applications judge and the Court of Appeal found that this did amount to an inconsistency as the one agreement reflected an intention that proceedings could be prosecuted in New York and the other did not permit such proceedings. Conversely, in Deutsche Bank, there were potentially inconsistent exclusive jurisdiction clauses and permissive jurisdiction clauses and, on the basis of UBS, these could persuasively be argued to be inconsistent requiring the court to choose the most appropriate contract based on an analysis of the commercial heart of transaction or the core of the cause of action and enforce its jurisdiction clause. Again, that proved wrong as the inconsistency was removed through the bifurcation of the relationship into the securities trading and foreign currency exchange arrangements.

Following the UBS and Deutsch Bank decisions it seems the courts will now analyse a multiplicity of differing jurisdiction clauses in international multi-contractual relationships (where neither party is domiciled in England) in accordance with the following decision tree:

1. Is the relationship a unitary one (or should the relationship be divided into various subparts)?

a. If unitary, then are there competing exclusive jurisdiction clauses in any of the agreements?

  1. If yes, then the court must find the agreement with the closest relationship to the cause of action or at the commercial core of the relationship. The court must then apply that contract's jurisdiction clause.
  2. If no, then the court should determine if any of the causes of action relate to an agreement which grants the court jurisdiction. If they do, the court has jurisdiction; if they do not; it does not.

b. If the relationship is binary (or even more fragmented), then is there an exclusive jurisdiction clause in one of the parts of the relationship where another agreement in that part also contains a non-exclusive grant to another jurisdiction?

  1. If yes, then the court must find the agreement with the closest relationship to the cause of action or at the commercial core of the part of the relationship. The court must then apply that contract's jurisdiction clause.
  2. If no, then the court should determine if any of the causes of action relate to an agreement which grants the court jurisdiction. If they do, the court has jurisdiction; if they do not; it does not.

This is complicated and the Courts do not even begin to suggest that the parties actually considered and agreed with the results of this approach; they frankly acknowledge that the analysis is driven by principles of contractual interpretation, based on the approach of considering the understanding of the agreements that would be had by a reasonable businessman with knowledge of the background of the situation, to determine what the judges believe the parties would have done had they considered the matter. However, the alternative, that any exclusive grant of jurisdiction would always trump any non-exclusive grant, even where the agreement containing the exclusive grant of jurisdiction was otherwise inconsequential boilerplate, is likely worse. Furthermore, whilst it might appear difficult to determine if the relationship as whole should be further bifurcated or otherwise divided, this must conform to the reasonable expectations of many institutions participating in a number of independent transactions. In large financial institutions, it would work real mischief to collapse all of their various arrangements with one another into a unitary whole.

In many cases, this issue might be avoided during the drafting of the original contracts. Presumably, an overarching agreement regarding jurisdiction and choice of law could be prepared, and the jurisdiction clauses in the various agreements removed. Even if problematic and contentious, and even ambiguous, such an agreement surely must be better than the current floating concept of jurisdiction in which the parties' decision is made by the Court (which itself candidly admits that it is guessing what the parties might have done rather than actually determining what was agreed on this issue). Far better that the parties themselves should actually consider the matter, especially given the amount of money, time and effort spent on the rest of the relationship. The alternative, that the parties expressly agree almost everything except where to resolve any dispute, has proven absurd and very costly.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions