Report comment

The choice of jurisdiction in commercial contracts is invariably the prerogative of the buyer - the paying party. The vendor goes along with it if they want to sell their goods or services - or the buyer will go elsewhere. English jurisdiction is used internationally because it is known as the gold standard. It is trusted worldwide. And London is its heart. If I was buyer of say, European manufactured goods and asked for English jurisdiction as the law of the contract, there would be no commercial incentive or imperative for me to go anywhere other than London. The European buyer would know that if they objected, I would take my business elsewhere. European buyers of British goods already choose their own jurisdictions, not London. Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt or anywhere else are kidding themselves if ersatz English jurisdiction is to be offered outside London. And for commercial arbitrations, there is even more reason to stay in London. A conference last year heard that international arbitration is "riddled" with corruption - the words of a leading London silk. The author's comparison of Swatch and Japanese cars in the 60s with "non-English English courts" is like a fish needing a bicycle. Enforcing future judgments from the UK in the EU in the next 5 years won't be any different from what it is today. Why should it ? It would be in neither the UK's nor the EU's interests. It all boils down to a commercial agreement being based on trust. London is highly valued and trusted - and rightly so.