Choice Of Court Agreements Act

(a) “exclusive forum agreement,” an agreement between two or more parties that meets the requirements of paragraph (c) and which, for the purposes of resolving disputes arising from or likely to arise from a particular legal relationship, refers to the courts of a contracting state or one or more specific courts of a contracting state, excluding the jurisdiction of other jurisdictions; (b) a for agreement that designates the courts of a contracting state or one or more specific courts of a contracting state is considered exclusive, unless the parties have expressly provided for it otherwise; (c) an exclusive court decision must be concluded or documented – first, the law applies only to foreign judgments obtained by the courts of the States Parties to the Hague Convention (the “contracting states”). In addition, Section 8 of the Act provides that the law applies in any “international case” where an “exclusive court agreement” is entered into a “civil or commercial case,” subject to certain exceptions in Sections 9, 10 and 22. Thus, section 10 (1) of the Act expressly excludes the applicability of the law to any interim protection measure. As a result, applications for registration of U.K. judgments under the RECJA should normally be submitted within 12 months of the date of the judgment. Even if the application is not lethal, the decision to authorize registration is left to the discretion of the Tribunal. A state may declare that its courts may refuse recognition or enforcement of a court decision in another contracting state if the parties were domiciled in the required state and if the relationship between the parties and all other relevant elements of the dispute, the location of the chosen jurisdiction, was related only to the required state. 1. The court or courts of a contracting state designated in an exclusive forum agreement have jurisdiction to rule on a dispute to which the agreement applies, unless the agreement is sharp under that state`s law. 2. A court competent under paragraph 1 does not reject jurisdiction on the grounds that the dispute should be decided in a court of another state.

(3) The preceding paragraphs do not affect the rules – (c) the agreement between the applicant and the defendant, on the basis of which the English proceedings were initiated and the English judgment obtained, included an “exclusive court decision”. The parties had therefore evaded the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts; A judgment of a court appointed in an exclusive court agreement must be recognized and applied in the other contracting states, in accordance with Article 8, paragraph 1, of the HCCCA. In accordance with the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards, recognition and enforcement may be denied only for the reasons set out in the Hague Convention on the Choice of Judicial Agreements. Art. 9 HCCCA gives only serious grounds for refusal to recognize or enforce a judgment, z.B. if the exclusive choice of the court agreement was not valid, the defendant was not given the opportunity to defend himself that the judgment was obtained by fraud in the course of a proceeding or where the recognition or execution is clearly related to the public order of the State party where the execution is to take place. , was incompatible. The list of grounds for refusal is conclusive.

In particular, no further review of the Court`s judgment is permitted on the merits (the conclusive nature of foreign judgments). It appears that the relevant sentence that led the High Court to find that the applicant should also have received a certified copy of the hearing questions, “including any possible reasons, if any, for the decision of the court that rendered the judgment.”