英语论文网

1. Preamble:
1.1 The subject of this paper is “Forum Shopping, Anti-Suit Injunctions and EU law: A Brief 留学生论文代写Overview (and update)”. This is substantially but not wholly an English perspective.
1.2 This paper is based upon a talk I gave in January 2006. It has now been slightly amended and updated for two reasons. First, the “FRONT COMOR” was heard by the House of Lords in early December 2006. Judgment was issued on 21 February 2007. The case will now progress to the European Court of Justice. Secondly, from 1 January 2007 there are two new members of the European Union, Romania and Bulgaria. How will these developments affect planning of the defence (or prosecution) of claims, in particular choice of forum? The legal landscape in this field (at least with regard to arbitration clauses) may be about to undergo another shift.
1.3 For these reasons, perhaps it is time to review strategy in cases where the dispute is subject to either an English Jurisdiction Clause or an English Arbitration Clause.
1.4 The main body of this paper has been broadly designed so that you can dip into any section or point of interest, or alternatively read the whole narrative. This paper is an overview and deliberately states the simplified picture. It is, in particular, not a substitute for advice in any particular case.
1.5 The paper is divided into the following sections:
• Introduction (page 2)
• Forum Shopping (page 3)
• The Wider Picture: Outside “Europe” (page 7)
• The Narrower Picture: “Europe” (page 8)
• Conclusions (page 13)
1.6 In Annex 1 (page 15) you will find a snapshot comparison of the key points addressed in this paper where in respect of an English Arbitration Clause or jurisdiction clause the “competing forum” is a court in either (a) a non EU/EFTA Country or (b) a EU/EFTA Country. In Annex 2 you will find abstracts from the Brussels Convention and Regulation 44/2001.
1.7 I hope you find this paper of interest and of use.

2. Introduction
2.1 This topic is potentially very large. I have therefore decided to focus only on disputes which may arise under written agreements or contracts. Although this paper is generic, and not purely marine focused, such contracts might include say bills of lading, charterparties, or policies of insurance for marine risks. I will not, other than in passing, be looking at actions which might arise under the general law, for example actions in tort such as negligence.

2.2 They say that a verbal agreement is not worth the paper that it is written on. So how are parties to agreements or contracts to proceed to ensure that the terms they agree are best secured or enforced? They need to do three things:
• First, be most careful in drafting and finalising contract terms;
• Secondly, ensure that those terms include a jurisdiction agreement or an arbitration clause to pre-empt or at least minimise the prospect of jurisdictional disputes (this is one point addressed by the Contract Certainty https://www.51lunwen.org/liuxuelunwendx/initiative in the London insurance market). But as we will see, this is unlikely to be enough in isolation.
• Thirdly, take vigorous action when a dispute arises. But what action can they take, when and is their liberty in any way limited?