Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Commercial Court held that an asymmetric jurisdiction clause allowed the borrowers to sue in England and the lender to sue in other competent jurisdictions.
Spec 1 Ltd & Ors v The Export-Import Bank of China [2026] EWHC 1162 (Comm) (15 May 2026)
The Commercial Court construed an asymmetric jurisdiction clause in a ship finance agreement and refused both a stay and anti-suit relief, allowing the English claim to proceed.
The court refused to stay proceedings or set aside the claim form because the parties' jurisdiction agreements (including a clause stating England is the most appropriate forum and a waiver of contrary argument) preclude forum non conveniens arguments except on very strong or exceptional unforeseen grounds, which were not established. The defendants are contractually estopped from challenging jurisdiction, and the second defendant did not submit to jurisdiction by procedural conduct.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that clause 14 kept English jurisdiction over the appellant’s purchase-price claims and lifted a stay of those claims.
Hipgnosis SFH 1 Ltd v Manilow & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 486 (17 April 2025)
The Court of Appeal held that an asymmetric jurisdiction clause did not remove English jurisdiction over the appellant’s purchase price claims, and set aside the stay.
The court held that all three threshold conditions under section 32(2)(b) Arbitration Act 1996 were satisfied: the application was made without delay; determination by the court would result in substantial cost savings due to the near certainty of a section 67 challenge if the tribunal decided jurisdiction; and there were good reasons for the court to decide, including efficiency, finality, urgency, and risk of enforcement complications. Therefore, the court should determine the jurisdictional issue.
Source excerpt
LLC EuroChem North-West 2 v Societe Generale SA & Ors [2024] EWHC 1084 (Comm) (08 May 2024)
The High Court held that Tecnimont submitted to the English court’s jurisdiction by joining and actively participating in proceedings, and dismissed its challenge to a Part 20 indemnity claim.
The Court of Appeal held that Article 31(2) of Brussels Recast applies to an asymmetric jurisdiction clause, so the English proceedings were not stayed under Article 29.
Ourspace Ventures Ltd v Halliwell [2019] EWHC 3475 (Ch) (19 December 2019)
The High Court held that the defendant had not submitted to jurisdiction and granted relief from sanctions, but dismissed the challenge because the claimant could sue in England under the clause.
Etihad Airways PJSC v Flother [2019] EWHC 3107 (Comm) (18 November 2019)
The High Court held that the Facility Agreement’s English jurisdiction clause covered disputes about the Comfort Letter and refused a stay in favour of Germany.
Explore more
