Jurisdiction Clause

Jurisdiction Clause, also known as a "Choice of Law" or "Forum Selection Clause", is a crucial provision often included in commercial contracts. It establishes the jurisdiction or court that will have the authority to resolve any disputes that may arise between the parties involved in the contract. This clause plays a significant role in defining the legal framework within which contractual issues will be resolved.

The jurisdiction clause serves multiple purposes. It provides clarity and certainty to the parties by determining the applicable law and the forum where disputes will be resolved. By specifying the jurisdiction in advance, potential conflicts and forum-shopping are minimized, leading to a more efficient and predictable dispute resolution process.

This clause specifies which court(s) will have authority to adjudicate disputes. Often paired with governing law. Key: state if it’s exclusive or non-exclusive jurisdiction. For example, “Parties submit to exclusive jurisdiction of the New York state and federal courts in Manhattan.” If non-exclusive, a party can sue there but isn’t barred from suing elsewhere if jurisdiction otherwise exists. Also consider forum selection vs. arbitration (don’t conflict). Some clauses also waive objections like forum non conveniens or waive jury trial if in U.S. federal court. Unique: in international contracts, also address service of process (naming an agent for service in that jurisdiction) and perhaps waiver of sovereign immunity if one party is a sovereign entity.

A well-drafted Jurisdiction clause contains:

1. Governing Law: Identifying the substantive law and legal system that will govern the contract's interpretation and enforcement.
2. Court/Forum Selection: Designating the specific court(s) or legal forum(s) that will have jurisdiction over disputes, which can be exclusive or non-exclusive.
3. Venue: Specifying the geographical location or city where legal proceedings must be brought.
4. Consent to Jurisdiction: Establishing the parties' explicit agreement to submit to the designated jurisdiction's authority.
5. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Outlining any mandatory ADR processes, such as mediation or arbitration, before resorting to litigation.

Jurisdiction Clauses are particularly essential in contracts involving international parties, high-value transactions, or complex legal matters. Two examples:

• ‍Cross-Border Supply Agreement: "This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of [Governing Law]. Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of [Venue]."‍
• Joint Venture Agreement: "The parties irrevocably submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of [Venue] for the purposes of any legal proceedings arising out of or in connection with this Agreement. Nothing in this clause shall limit the right of either party to seek interim or conservatory relief in any court of competent jurisdiction."

Key drafting notes for Jurisdiction Clause:

• Enforceability: Ensuring the chosen jurisdiction is legally valid, recognizes and enforces contractual jurisdiction clauses, and provides a fair and impartial legal system.
• Convenience and Cost: Considering the practical implications of litigating in the designated jurisdiction, including travel, legal representation, and potential cost disparities.
• Asymmetric Bargaining Power: Evaluating whether the clause unduly favors one party's preferred jurisdiction, potentially creating an unfair advantage or hardship for the other party.
• Interaction with Choice of Law: Analyzing the interplay between the Jurisdiction Clause and any Choice of Law provisions to ensure consistency and avoid conflicts.
• Alternative Dispute Resolution: Assessing the appropriateness and enforceability of any mandatory ADR processes specified in the clause.

By carefully drafting and reviewing Jurisdiction Clauses, corporate lawyers can mitigate legal risks, ensure predictability, and protect their clients' interests in the event of cross-border or multi-jurisdictional disputes.

‍

Jurisdiction specific notes:

• U.S.: A clause selecting a state’s courts also implicitly selects federal court in that state if jurisdictional requirements met, unless clause says state courts “only.” Courts parse language carefully – “in X State” vs “of X State” can matter (the latter might exclude federal courts). Also, such clauses can override default venue rules but cannot confer jurisdiction a court doesn’t have (e.g., can’t make a CA court hear a case with no connection absent consent – but the clause is consent).
• ‍U.K.: Under Hague Choice of Court Convention (and common law), exclusive jurisdiction clauses are upheld; after Brexit, still largely similar approach. If non-exclusive, a party might race to another forum but risk anti-suit injunction.
• ‍EU: Within EU, Brussels Ia Regulation binds members to respect exclusive jurisdiction clauses.
• ‍Practical: Always coordinate with governing law: common pairing is NY law & NY courts, English law & English High Court, etc., for predictability. If a party lacks presence in chosen forum, prudent to also include a clause appointing an agent to receive service of process there (so lawsuits can be initiated smoothly).