Banque Edmond de Rothschild v X

Suppose a contract—not a consumer contract,1 or anything like that—contains a provision which states that “disputes between Bank and Client shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Luxembourg, though Bank reserves the right to bring proceedings before the courts of the Client’s domicile, or before any other court which would have jurisdiction apart from this agreement”. This, more or less, was the unremarkable wording considered by the French courts in Soc Banque privée Edmond de Rothschild Europe v X.2 Such lopsided3 jurisdiction agreements are frequently found in financial contracts. They reflect not only the dominant bargaining position of the bank or other finance-provider, but also the practical truth that, when problems arise, maybe several years after the financing agreement was made, it may not be sensible to force litigation to take place in a court designated with jurisdiction a long time ago. English courts have never doubted that such agreements on jurisdiction are valid and work according to their terms, and that, where they designate the courts of a Member State, they are given effect, according to their terms, by the Brussels I Regulation, Art.23.