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

26.07.2019 NL law
Voortgang UBO-register en Centraal aandeelhoudersregister

Short Reads - De Vierde Anti-witwasrichtlijn (nr. 2015/849) zoals gewijzigd door de Vijfde Anti-witwasrichtlijn (EU/2018/843) dient uiterlijk op 10 januari 2020 in de Nederlandse wet- en regelgeving geïmplementeerd te zijn. Hiertoe is op 3 april 2019 een wetsvoorstel bij de Tweede Kamer ingediend. Het initiatiefwetsvoorstel ter invoering van het Centraal aandeelhoudersregister wordt op dit moment behandeld door de Tweede Kamer. In deze Update geven wij een overzicht van de laatste ontwikkelingen.

Read more

09.08.2019 NL law
Verifieerbare vorderingen, de stand van zaken na Credit Suisse/Jongepier q.q.

Articles - De afgelopen jaren heeft de Hoge Raad verschillende arresten gewezen over de invloed van het faillissement op wederkerige overeenkomsten, het fixatiebeginsel en de kwalificatie van vorderingen als boedelvordering, verifieerbare vordering of nietverifieerbare vordering. In het arrest van 23 maart 2018 (hierna: Credit Suisse/Jongepier q.q.) verduidelijkt de Hoge Raad ter beantwoording van enkele prejudiciële vragen wanneer vorderingen die voortvloeien uit een ten tijde van het faillissement reeds bestaande rechtsverhouding voor verificatie in aanmerking komen.

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