Non-Exclusive Agreement Clause

It should be noted, however, that such a clause will have a different weight depending on dementia. The Board approved the following principles established in the case of Noble Power Investments Ltd/Nissei Stomach Tokyo Co Ltd [2008] 5 HLKRD 632 in Hong Kong: the respondent requested a stay of the Singapore proceedings and (a) invoked this special jurisdiction clause and (b) the unsuitable forum ground. The respondent`s application was rejected by the Assistant Clerk at Chambers, but was overturned by the Singapore Supreme Court, which held that the jurisdiction clause was the intention of the parties to declare Hong Kong as the jurisdiction of the election. On appeal, Singapore CA reinstated the Assistant Clerk`s decision not to grant a stay of proceedings. It`s important to know the difference between exclusive and non-exclusive partnerships so that you choose the right deal for your business. “This agreement is governed by the laws of the Hong Kong SAR and will be interpreted accordingly. Contracting parties submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Hong Kong courts, SAR. The parties hereshes knowingly, voluntarily and voluntarily waive, to the extent permitted by law, the rights they are required to sue because of litigation that is based on that trial or arises, within the framework or under this agreement. Given the inapplicability of the application of the contractual approach in an intermediate phase (i.e., a request for a stay of proceedings if only sworn evidence is available), CA has tended to adopt the general approach.

However, the Board submitted that, while it had to take into account the previous approach, there were factors that supported the complainant`s case to make it more flexible in the application of the terms of the settlement agreement. This included the fact that the initial agreements between the parties all contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause; As a result, the inclusion of a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause in the transaction agreement indicated that the parties had a different intention. Contract analysis is a design issue that focuses on the intent of the parties and on the obligations arising from the non-exclusive jurisdiction clause, which could have the effect of granting the clause the effect of an exclusive jurisdiction clause. The party challenging the jurisdiction of the fore should bring a strong case if the party attempts to bring an action in a jurisdiction other than that mentioned in the jurisdiction clause itself. In this regard, priority is given to the contractual agreement between the parties. While such an approach is advantageous, there is a risk of a blurred distinction between the two types of jurisdiction clauses. Ultimately, the courts must respect the intentions of the parties and the actual provisions of the applicable agreements must be carefully considered to determine the exact intent of the parties in this particular case. Therefore, in any form of contract negotiation, particularly in the case of cross-border transactions, it is important for the parties to think explicitly about how and instead of deciding disputes, which should be clearly reflected in the agreement. Otherwise, this could have undesirable consequences if the parties have to spend money on costly litigation to determine the importance of a poorly worded jurisdictional choice and risk having their contractual dispute decided in an unwanted and unintentional jurisdiction.

While the use of non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses may provide parties with the opportunity to choose a jurisdiction where necessary, they should check whether the uncertainties, costs and risks associated with several proceedings outweigh these benefits. In Orchard Capital I Ltd/Ravindra Kumar Jhunjhunwala [2012] SGCA 16, Orchard Capital I Ltd (the “complainant”), a limited liability exempt company based in the Cayman Islands, brought an action in Singapore against Ravindra Kumar Jhunjhunwala (the “respondent”), a permanent residence in Singapore, of Indian nationality, for the respondent`s alleged breach of a settlement agreement.