The European Court of Justice (ECJ) famously deprived the English courts of the power to exercise any discretion in regulating jurisdiction in international disputes, where the defendant is domiciled in a European Union (EU) member state. In Owusu v Jackson [2002], the ECJ held that, in such a situation, the English court was bound by Article 2 of the EC Regulation 44/200, namely that a party domiciled in a member state must be sued in the courts of that state, even if an overwhelming number of factors point to a non-member state as a more appropriate forum.
Achieving as much certainty as possible in relation to jurisdiction in the event of a subsequent dispute has always been important when negotiating an international transaction, and Owusu has reinforced this. The choice of forum will dictate, among other things, the litigation procedure to be followed, how the relevant law is applied, the duration and cost of the proceedings and whether costs are recoverable from the unsuccessful party.
