Navigating jurisdiction—the Court of Session’s determination (Samuray v Asanov)

Table of contents

• What are the practical implications of the case?
• What was the background?
• What did the court decide?
• Case details

Article summary

Dispute resolution analysis: On a preliminary issue of jurisdiction before the Court of Session, the court in Scotland held that it had jurisdiction notwithstanding conflicting clauses in two related agreements—a Share Purchase Agreement (‘SPA’) and a Share Pledge and Loan Agreement (SPLA). Each had distinct choice of law and jurisdiction clauses. The question for the court was whether it was seised of jurisdiction or whether the courts of Cyprus had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute. In reaching its decision, the court had to construe the relevant choice of law and jurisdiction clauses and decide which of them applied to the dispute between the parties. Neither party was resident in Scotland or Cyprus and, but for the jurisdiction clauses, neither country would have jurisdiction. Written by Lucy Keane, counsel at Signature Litigation, Gibraltar.