Asymmetric jurisdiction clauses are clauses which contain different provisions regarding jurisdiction for each party. They are widely used in international financial markets. However, the validity of this form of agreement has been called into doubt in several European jurisdictions. Furthermore, following Brexit, there may well be an increasing focus on alternative methods of enforcement under the Hague Convention and at common law, claims for damages and anti-suit injunctions. As well as considering recent developments in the case law and the implications of Brexit, this article will emphasize that all of these questions can only be answered after the individual promises contained in any particular agreement are properly identified and construed. Once that is done, there is no reason why the asymmetric nature of a clause should be a bar to its enforcement.

The CJEU judgment in West Tankers created much controversy on the question of whether issuing an anti-suit injunction in order to protect the integrity of arbitration agreements should fall within the scope of the arbitration exclusion in Article 1 of the Brussels I Regulation (2001). The negative answer of the Court has been since challenged many times by academics and practitioners and new approaches were proposed during the drafting of the Brussels I Recast. Although the Court had not since considered whether the Recast modified the legal regime, in Gazprom the Advocate General gave his opinion on the basis that it had. The Court in Gazprom, however, saw the enforcement of an arbitral award ordering cessation of court proceedings to be a distinct issue which is not covered by the Brussels I Regulation. This article discusses first the applicability of the Brussels I Regulation to the enforcement of arbitral awards ordering anti-suit injunction as a final relief. Secondly, it examines anti-suit injunctions issued by Member State courts in the post-Recast era. It aims to reveal the extent to which an order for cessation of court proceedings (or an anti-suit injunction) to protect the integrity of arbitration agreements is permissible under existing law.

English private international law generally gives a potential role, where appropriate, to foreign law, by allowing for the application of choice of law rules to determine its relevance. Yet in the context of anti-suit injunctions granted otherwise than in aid of a contractual right not to be sued, choice of law is conspicuously absent. In those cases, courts simply apply the lex fori without paying any regard to foreign law, although the notion of comity is taken into account in the final decision on whether to grant anti-suit relief. Clearer identification of the grounds for granting such relief should limit application of the lex fori to instances where the anti-suit injunction serves as a form of ancillary relief to protect the judicial processes of the forum, and in which comity plays no role. In all other cases, which ultimately concern private justice between the parties, comity is best understood as an expression of justice in cases involving foreign elements, and better reflected through choice of law rules, which might lead to the application of foreign law. This approach is preferable to invoking comity as a consideration relating to the manner in which the court regulates the grant of anti-suit relief, because courts tend to bestow rights, which parties may not otherwise have, under the cloak of comity. Understanding comity as the catalyst for taking account of foreign law assuages concerns about interfering with foreign courts, acts as a deterrent to remedy shopping, and provides greater certainty as regards the vindication of rights. The case for widening the application of choice of law in this context does not depend on Rome II, but if the principle is accepted, courts must follow the process which it specifies.

Party autonomy provides certainty and predictability to the parties, reduces litigation costs, promotes the prompt assertion of jurisdiction by a court, and simplifies case management between different countries. However, the existence of an exclusive jurisdiction clause cannot completely extinguish conflicts of jurisdiction. Common law countries traditionally adopt discretionary instruments, such as forum non conveniens and anti-suit injunctions to tackle conflicts of jurisdiction. Both instruments work together in common law countries to create a balance between international comity and effective case management. The application of these two instruments, however, has been questioned in the European Union (EU). This article examines conflicts of jurisdiction in the Brussels I Regulation and particularly focuses on the effect of the European approach in cases involving a jurisdiction clause. It is submitted that the current Brussels regime in dealing with conflicts of jurisdiction and choice of court agreements demonstrates three weaknesses: procedural certainty takes priority over party autonomy; mutual trust and comity override justice in individual cases; and an artificial fragmentation of the internal and international market. It is expected that situations will be improved after the proposed amendment in the Recast Proposal and the Presidency Amendment is adopted, which provides harmonised choice of law rules to decide on the material validity of a jurisdiction clause and the negative kompetenz-kompetenz rule to decide on the preliminary issue of an exclusive choice of court agreement. Although the proposals do not accept the common law instruments to tackle conflicts of jurisdiction in cases with exclusive jurisdiction clauses, it may not be necessary to insist that forum non conveniens and anti-suit injunctions be adopted where a proper approach has been established to ensure the effectiveness of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and to provide for the priority of the courts in deciding on its validity. However, the European lawmaker should pay specific attention to the improvement of the functioning of the Regulation in the international context to tackle conflicts of jurisdiction in choice of court agreements involving a third country.