Commercial Court protects express choice of jurisdiction, finding no trespass on administrative acts of another member state

A recent decision of the Commercial Court is one of the first to consider the English court's jurisdiction under the recast Brussels Regulation (Council Regulation (EU) 1215/2012) which applies to proceedings commenced on or after 10 January 2015: Goldman Sachs International and Others v Novo Banco SA [2015] EWHC 2371 (Comm). The court found that it had jurisdiction to determine the claim because:

1. it was a "civil and commercial matter" within the meaning of Article 1(1);
2. the defendant was bound by an exclusive jurisdiction clause in accordance with Article 25 – even though it was not a party to the original facility agreement containing the jurisdiction clause, the rights and liabilities (including the jurisdiction agreement itself) were transferred to the defendant pursuant to an EU directive recognised under English law; and
3. it was not a "rare and compelling" case or one which had "exceptionally strong grounds" for the court to order a stay pending the resolution of separate proceedings before the administrative courts of another member state.

To read more about the case, see our Banking Litigation e-bulletin on the decision. Or you can click here for a summary of the changes brought in by the recast Regulation, or here for a copy of our “handy client guide" to jurisdiction, which features a decision tree to help determine whether the English court will have jurisdiction over a dispute under the new rules.