- with readers working within the Media & Information and Construction & Engineering industries
- within Wealth Management, Employment and HR and Transport topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
The Commercial Court has considered the implications of an asymmetric English jurisdiction clause where the borrower brought proceedings in England and the lender brought parallel proceedings in Singapore: Spec 1 Ltd v The Export-Import Bank of China [2026] EWHC 1162 (Comm).
The clause in question, in a ship finance agreement, required the borrowers to litigate any claims against the lender in England but gave the lender the option to sue the borrowers either in England or in any other court of competent jurisdiction.
The court noted that the commercial purpose of such arrangements, which are common in certain types of finance transactions, is to make it easier for the party with the benefit of the clause (typically a lender) to bring an action wherever the counterparty's assets are located. It therefore rejected the borrowers' argument that, once they had commenced proceedings in England under the clause, the lender was prevented from commencing proceedings in any other jurisdiction. There was nothing in the clause to support such an interpretation and it would frustrate the key commercial purpose of the clause. The court therefore declined to grant an anti-suit injunction restraining the lender's proceedings in Singapore.
The court also rejected the lender's argument that, once it had started proceedings in another jurisdiction, the English court should stay the borrowers' proceedings on grounds of forum non conveniens. It is well established that the English court will give effect to parties' contractual choice of jurisdiction unless there are strong reasons to the contrary. Here, the borrowers were contractually entitled to commence proceedings in England, and it was the lender's decision to sue in Singapore that resulted in parallel proceedings. Since the parties had chosen to contract on a basis that permitted parallel proceedings, the fact that there would be proceedings in both jurisdictions did not give strong reason for the English court to decline jurisdiction.
The decision is similar to Hipgnosis SFH 1 Ltd v Manilow [2025] EWCA Civ 486 (considered here) in showing that an asymmetric jurisdiction clause does not typically allow the party with the benefit of the clause to put a halt to any English proceedings issued by a counterparty if it exercises its option to commence proceedings elsewhere. If this is intended, it will need to be clearly stated in the clause.
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.
[View Source]
