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

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

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”

Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.