Competing Jurisdiction Clauses - Appeal
In (1) UBS AG (2) UBS Securities LLC v HSH Nordbank
AG [2009] EWCA Civ 585 the Court of Appeal, in agreeing with
the decision of the High Court that the proper jurisdiction for
proceedings to be brought was New York, found that it was necessary
to construe a jurisdiction clause in the light of the transaction
as a whole.
UBS appealed against a decision that the English Courts did not
have jurisdiction to try proceedings UBS had brought against the
respondent bank, HSH Nordbank AG ("HSH"). The dispute
related to a complex transaction involving various contracts that
contained different jurisdiction clauses pursuant to which the
predecessor of HSH, Landesbank Schleswig-Holstein, purchased
derivatives from UBS. Among the central contracts governing the
transaction was an agreement between the parties about the
management of assets forming a particular reference pool, which was
subject to New York law and contained a nonexclusive New York
jurisdiction clause.
HSH brought proceedings in New York alleging that UBS had made
fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations in relation to the
reference pool, which had induced HSH to enter into the
transaction. However, in anticipation of the New York proceedings,
earlier on the same day UBS had started proceedings against HSH in
the High Court, seeking a declaration that it was not liable to
HSH, on the basis of English jurisdiction clauses contained in
various documents governing a credit swap entered into by the
parties in relation to the purchase of assets in the reference
pool. HSH applied for an order in the English proceedings that the
English Courts did not have jurisdiction to try UBS' claim, or
(in the alternative) asked the Court to decline to exercise
jurisdiction on the grounds that the New York Courts were the
natural and proper forum for the resolution of the dispute. In
short, HSH argued that none of the contracts out of which the New
York dispute arose conferred jurisdiction on the English Courts.
UBS, on the other hand, argued that certain exclusive jurisdiction
clauses, and in particular a jurisdiction clause in a dealer's
confirmation, conferred jurisdiction on the English Courts.
The High Court had found for HSH, the Judge deciding that the
English jurisdiction clauses contained in the relevant credit swap
documentation were insufficiently wide to cover the dispute set out
in the New York claim. The Court held that those matters which were
the subject of the U.S. proceedings (i.e...
To continue reading
Request your trial