Short Reads

Singapore ratifies the Hague Convention on choice of court agreements

Singapore ratifies the Hague Convention on choice of court agreements

Singapore ratifies the Hague Convention on choice of court agreements

01.07.2016 NL law

On 2 June 2016, the Singapore Ministry of Law announced that Singapore has ratified the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements.

The Convention was concluded in June 2005 by the Hague Conference on Private International Law, but did not enter into force until 1 October 2015. The ratification requirements for the Convention were met by the EU’s ratification in June 2015. The Convention became binding on Mexico and all EU member states (except Denmark) from 1 October 2015 onwards and will come into effect for Singapore on 1 October 2016.

 

The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements

The formal scope of the Convention is similar to the scope of the Brussels I recast regulation, but the Convention is only applicable to exclusive choice of court agreements, between professional parties. Like the Brussels I recast regulation, the Convention contains a regime for the recognition and enforcement of judgments. This regime is limited to judgments that are given by competent courts that have jurisdiction under the Convention.

For the Convention to be applicable, the chosen court has to be one from a contracting state. As most of the contracting states of the Convention are also member states of the EU, the exclusive appointment of a court of an EU member state would result in overlap between the two instruments. How is this dealt with? The Convention does not affect the application of the Brussels I recast regulation in  ‘internal’ EU cases. If a party domiciled in the Netherlands enters into an exclusive choice of court agreement with a French company, appointing the Amsterdam District Court as the competent court, the Brussels I recast regulation applies. However, should (at least) one of the parties appointing the Amsterdam District Court be domiciled outside the EU, but within a contracting state, the choice of court agreement is governed by the Convention. Consequently, for exclusive choice of court agreements regarding the Netherlands (and any other EU member state), the Brussels I recast regulation will remain applicable to all cases involving only parties domiciled in EU member states. In similar cases in which one or more parties are domiciled in Mexico or Singapore, the Convention will apply.

Looking forward

Much of the future impact of the Convention will depend on whether the US  ratifies the Convention or not. Ratification by the EU (and, to a lesser extent, Singapore) certainly increases the likelihood of the US doing so, but  its position remains uncertain. Should the US indeed ratify, it is likely that the appetite of other countries to join the Convention will increase and – as the Convention also provides for a regime of recognition and enforcement – it could become a serious contender for cases currently dealt with by the New York Convention on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Until then, however, the applicability of the Convention is limited to the EU (except for Denmark), Mexico and – from 1 October 2016 onwards – Singapore.

Given that the EU, and not the member states themselves, negotiated, entered into and ratified the Convention, it is unclear what the impact of the recent vote for a ‘Brexit’ will be on the applicability of the Convention to the United Kingdom. Will the United Kingdom remain a party or no longer consider itself bound by the Convention in light of the referendum to leave the EU?  Time will tell.

The post “Singapore ratifies the Hague Convention on choice of court agreements” is a post of www.stibbeblog.nl

Team

Related news

11.04.2019 NL law
Double roles in attributing knowledge

Short Reads - The knowledge of a person who in fact runs a company can be attributed to the company if the sole director and shareholder is a 'straw man', the Supreme Court confirmed in a judgment of 29 March 2019. The rules by the Supreme Court are not revolutionary or even new. But circumstances essential for the attribution of knowledge are ignored. The double role played by the 'man in charge' raises questions about how to apply the rules as identified by the Supreme Court to the facts

Read more

28.03.2019 NL law
European Parliament votes in favour of representative actions for consumers

Short Reads - On 26 March 2019 the European Parliament approved an amended version of the European Commission's proposal for a Directive on representative actions for the protection of collective interests of consumers, following a debate on 25 March 2019. The Directive will become law once the Council and the European Parliament reach an agreement on the European Commission's proposal. The Council has not yet been able to adopt a position on the Directive, meaning that the Directive will most likely be considered again after the ­­­European elections in May 2019 by a different European Parliament

Read more

10.04.2019 NL law
Damage due to a defective driveway and the Dutch twenty year limitation period: When does limitation start in case of a continuous event that causes damage?

Short Reads - On 22 March 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:412) that the strict liability for buildings (opstalaansprakelijkheid) is not linked to a specific damaging act but to a damaging condition, as referred to in section 6:174 DCC. Therefore, there is no reason to regard a damaging act as an 'event that caused damage' as referred to in section 3:310 DCC concerning the limitation period for claims for damages.

Read more

04.04.2019 NL law
European Court of Justice: actio pauliana is covered by jurisdiction rule of forum of contract. A judgment with foreseeable consequences?

Short Reads - Imagine that a debtor voluntarily concludes a transaction with a third party where he knows (or should know) that it hinders the creditor's possibilities of collecting the debt. In civil law countries, a creditor can invoke the nullification of that legal act by means of a so-called actio pauliana. This raises the question of which court has jurisdiction in the case of an international dispute, regarding an actio pauliana, that is instituted by a creditor against a third party?

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring