No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Damages for Breach of Choice of Court Agreements
Abstract
Choice of court agreements have long been regarded as critically important in international trade. Their usefulness, however, is conditional upon the availability of efficient remedies in case of breach. In the last 10 years English and Spanish courts have awarded damages. This paper presents briefly these cases, and then discusses whether damages are an admissible remedy. In the European Union, the paper argues that the European Court of Justice would not, in most likelihood, validate it, except in very special circumstances.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Until relatively recently the question of whether it is possible to get damages for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause was very rarely considered by the courts and had attracted little academic interest. But when considered alongside recent developments in cases covered by the Brussels regime, the subject becomes of potentially much greater practical significance. The main purpose of this article is to consider how the newly developing common law principles might apply in that context.
An injunction to restrain foreign proceedings is probably the most powerful remedy available in an English court for dealing with a jurisdictional dispute. It is certainly the most controversial because the court is interfering with proceedings in another jurisdiction and no comparable remedy exists in civil law systems. The influence of European Community law has intensified the controversy because it has become increasingly doubtful whether the remedy is compatible with the scheme for allocating jurisdiction under the Brussels Convention (or its successor, the Brussels I Regulation) The House of Lord's decision in Turner v Grovit is an important development because their Lordships have made a reference to the European Court of Justice asking, ‘Is it consistent with the Brussels Convention for the courts of the United Kingdom to grant restraining orders against defendants who are threatening to commence or continue legal proceedings in another Convention country when those defendants are acting in bad faith with the intent and purpose of frustrating or obstructing proceedings properly before the English courts?’ (The issue is probably identical to that which would arise under the Brussels I Regulation and references herein to the Convention are generally equally applicable to the Regulation).
Commercial parties often provide for their disputes to be litigated in certain courts by agreeing to forum selection clauses. This Article examines the issue of whether the courts may properly make an award of damages to vindicate the breach of such agreements - for if these clauses are contractual terms like any other, the remedy of damages ought to be available when a party breaches the clause by commencing proceedings in a non-contractual forum. An award of damages in this context, if properly developed, is potentially a very powerful tool to control international litigation. Unfortunately, the United States cases are equivocal as to whether damages should be allowed for breach of forum selection clauses. In fact, the courts purport to decide the issue without so much as considering the wider implications of recognizing the remedy, or the arguments supporting or denying such a cause of action. This Article attempts to explicate and discuss the various arguments in favor and against recognizing the damages remedy. It is only by understanding these arguments that we can properly rationalize the remedy. This Article will conclude that although the courts should recognize such a cause of action, principles of comity demand that rational limits be placed on any putative remedy, and suggests several limiting techniques to achieve this. The resolution of the policy clash between a fundamental domestic right and private international law considerations has larger implications, including, how the damages remedy relates to the evolving remedy of the anti-suit injunction. It also presents an invaluable opportunity to clarify wider private international law policies implicated by international litigation.
Prorogierter Gerichtsstand in Deutschland
- O Sandrock
Sandrock, O.: Prorogierter Gerichtsstand in Deutschland, Kosten in den USA: Erstattungsfähigkeit in
Deutschland. RIW, pp. 809-816 (2004)
Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law
- A Briggs
Briggs, A.: Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008)
Ist eine vertragliche Absicherung von Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen möglich? IPRax
- P Mankowski
Mankowski, P.: Ist eine vertragliche Absicherung von Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen möglich? IPRax,
pp. 23-35 (2009)
Derecho procesal civil internacional. Litigación internacional
- Virgós Soriano
- M Garcimartín Alférez
Virgós Soriano, M., Garcimartín Alférez, F.J.: Derecho procesal civil internacional. Litigación internacional, 2nd edn. Thomson Civitas, Madrid (2007)
Breaking Promises to Litigate in a Particular Forum: Are Damages an Appropriate Remedy? LMCLQ
- N Yeo
Yeo, N.: Breaking Promises to Litigate in a Particular Forum: Are Damages an Appropriate Remedy?
LMCLQ, pp. 435-444 (2003)
Schadensersatz wegen Verletzung von Mediation Vereinbarungen: Festschrift für P. Schlosser
- O Sandrock
Sandrock, O.: Schadensersatz wegen Verletzung von Mediation Vereinbarungen: Festschrift für
P. Schlosser. Mohr Siebeck, pp. 821–837 (2005)
Cheshire, North and Fawcett on Private International Law, 14th edn
- J Fawcett
- J M Carruthers
Fawcett, J., Carruthers, J.M.: Cheshire, North and Fawcett on Private International Law, 14th edn.
Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008)
- J Fawcett
- A Briggs