No "one stop shop" for disputes where there are conflicting jurisdiction clauses
Resource type: Legal update: archive
Status:
Published on 29-Jul-2008
Jurisdictions:
England, Wales
The claims in
ACP Capital Ltd & ors v IFR Capital plc & ors [2008] EWHC 1627 (Comm) arose out of various contracts for the refinancing by ACP of IFR's debts. The parties had entered into an advisory services agreement (ASA) that contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of Jersey. Each of the subsequent contracts that dealt with the refinancing provided that the English courts had exclusive jurisdiction.
ACP commenced proceedings against IFR in the Commercial Court. IFR made a counterclaim in those proceedings. It was found that the counterclaim arose out of the ASA and, as such, was subject to the Jersey jurisdiction clause. The court held that the jurisdiction clauses in the later contracts could not impliedly alter the jurisdiction clause in the ASA. The decision in
Fiona Trust was distinguished as it related to the construction of a single clause, not a number of clauses in a series of contracts as in this case. Accordingly, the counterclaim should be stayed on grounds of
forum non conveniens.
PLC Dispute Resolution
Not logged in
The full text of this resource is available through the following PLC services:
- PLC Dispute Resolution
- PLC Public Sector
- PLC IPIT & Communications
- PLC Finance
To request a free trial or for further information, please fill in the trial
request form, contact your account manager, or contact the PLC
Helpline.
Subscriber log in
Subscription help
If you are having difficulty accessing the content you require, please visit our help and information page, or contact the PLC
Helpline.