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

10.05.2021 NL law
Brexit and Private International Law (Part 1 of 2)

Short Reads - Since 1 January 2021, EU regulations simplifying cross-border litigation no longer apply in relation to the UK and – in most cases – to parties based in the UK. While some may have expected the way ahead to have cleared by now, the opposite is in fact true: at the time of writing this blog, the EU and UK (or the Netherlands and the UK) have not agreed on any framework that replaces the EU legislation no longer applicable to the UK.

Read more

20.04.2021 NL law
Exoneration clauses in commercial contracts: excluding indirect damage

Short Reads - In Dutch legal practice, contracting parties often agree on exoneration clauses in commercial contracts in which liability for indirect damage is excluded. However, the term indirect damage does not exist in the Dutch Civil Code, and in the Dutch language there is no generally accepted meaning for indirect damage. Conflicts therefore quite frequently arise between contracting parties in relation to the interpretation of indirect damage.

Read more

20.04.2021 NL law
Podcast: 'de NOW en faillissementen'

Short Reads - Wat gebeurt er als werkgevers die gebruikmaken van de NOW failliet gaan? Wat kunnen de curator en het UWV doen? En wat gaat er gebeuren als de overheid de NOW afbouwt of stopt? In de vierde en tevens laatste aflevering van een podcastserie over de NOW geven advocaat bestuursrecht Sandra Putting en Job van Hooff gespecialiseerd in het insolventierecht antwoord op deze en andere vragen over de NOW en de faillissementen.

Read more