The validity of one-way jurisdiction clauses put at risk by the French Supreme Court | Practical Law

The validity of one-way jurisdiction clauses put at risk by the French Supreme Court | Practical Law

In a decision handed down on 26 September 2012, the French Supreme Court invalidated a one-way (or "hybrid") jurisdiction clause between a French national and a Luxembourg bank (French Supreme Court, First Civil Chamber, 26 September 2012, Ms X v Banque Privée Edmond de Rothschild, No 11-26.022). Given that banks and other institutions within the EU commonly use jurisdiction clauses that are almost identical to the one considered by the Supreme Court, this ruling may require banks and other institutions to rethink their dispute resolution clauses where there is a nexus with France. This article considers the implications of the decision for unilateral jurisdiction agreements.

The validity of one-way jurisdiction clauses put at risk by the French Supreme Court

by Denis Chemla and Erwan Poisson (Partners) and Camille Fléchet (Associate) Allen & Overy LLP (Paris office)
Published on 14 Nov 2012 • England, Wales
In a decision handed down on 26 September 2012, the French Supreme Court invalidated a one-way (or "hybrid") jurisdiction clause between a French national and a Luxembourg bank (French Supreme Court, First Civil Chamber, 26 September 2012, Ms X v Banque Privée Edmond de Rothschild, No 11-26.022). Given that banks and other institutions within the EU commonly use jurisdiction clauses that are almost identical to the one considered by the Supreme Court, this ruling may require banks and other institutions to rethink their dispute resolution clauses where there is a nexus with France. This article considers the implications of the decision for unilateral jurisdiction agreements.