Governing Law and Jurisdiction - GMSLA Provision

GMSLA Anatomy™ →Go uptown In a Nutshell™ Clause 23: Template:Nutshell GMSLA 23 view template 2010 GMSLA full text of Clause 23: 23. Governing Law and Jurisdiction 23.1 This Agreement and any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be governed by, and shall be construed in accordance with, English law. 23.2 The courts of England have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide any suit, action or proceedings, and to settle any disputes or any non-contractual obligation which may arise out of or in connection with this Agreement (respectively, Proceedings and Disputes) and, for these purposes, each Party irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of England. 23.3 Each Party irrevocably waives any objection which it might at any time have to the courts of England being nominated as the forum to hear and decide any Proceedings and to settle any Disputes and agrees not to claim that the courts of England are not a convenient or appropriate forum. 23.4 Each Party hereby respectively appoints the person identified in paragraph 7 of the Schedule pertaining to the relevant Party as its agent to receive on its behalf service of process in the courts of England. If such an agent ceases to be an agent of a Party, the relevant Party shall promptly appoint, and notify the other Party of the identity of its new agent in England. view template 2010 GMSLA: Full wikitext · Nutshell wikitext | GMLSA legal code | GMSLA Netting Pledge GMSLA: Hard copy (ISLA) · Full wikitext · Nutshell wikitext | 1995 OSLA: OSLA wikitext | OSLA in a nutshell | GMSLA/PGMSLA/OSLA clause comparison table From Our Friends On The Internet: Guide to equity finance | ISLA’s guide to securities lending for regulators and policy makers Navigation 2010 GMSLA 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · Schedule · Agency Annex · Addendum for Pooled Principal Agency Loans 2018 Pledge GMSLA 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · Schedule · Agency Annex Stock lending agreement comparison: Includes navigation for the 2000 GMSLA and the 1995 OSLA Index: Click ᐅ to expand: GMSLA Pledge GMSLA OSLA Tell me more Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Note:

• English law (though is at least one version (namely the South African Schedule) that converts that to a different governing laws)
• Exclusive jurisdiction (cf the ISDA Master Agreement which by dint of Section 13 has a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause).

If you’ve ever despaired at the pernicketiness of governing law clauses such as this:—

This agreement and any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with it shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law.

Then you have the Rome II EU Regulation to blame. Enacted in 2007, it applies to all EU Member States, except Denmark but still including the UK, and is designed to harmonise the “conflict of laws” rules across Member States, except Denmark but still including the UK, dealing with non-contractual disputes.

“But still including the UK”? Didn’t the UK take back control?

Brexit does not necessarily mean Brexit. The UK still is a party to Rome I and II as they form part of the “EU retained law” which the UK continues to apply post Brexit.

“Non-contractual obligations”

Breach of “non-contractual obligations” includes actions based on tort (e.g. negligence), competition law and statutory duty. But, fabulously, not those arising out of the negotiable nature of bills of exchange, cheques and promissory notes and other negotiable instruments, or company law or defamation — though it’s hard to see how you could have a non-contractual obligation to defame someone.

But the main thing is to ensure any concurrent claims in contract and tort can be — must be — decided in the same forum. This is mostly interesting where the parties to a contract are in different jurisdictions, and each will prefer their own jurisdiction to hear a non-contractual dispute. But even there, frankly, a concurrent claim in tort would only be relevant in most cases to builders.

Of course, the sensible thing would be to expressly exclude tort claims under the contract. But for those not prescient enough to do that, there’s always this magic incantation.