Breaching Choice of Court Agreement in Private International Disputes

One of the most important agreements often found in international commercial contracts is the choice of court agreement. Today, this agreement is enforceable in many legal systems based on the principle of party autonomy. According to such an agreement, disputes arising under the contract would be settled by the selected court. However, this ideal situation does not always exist, because, the choice of a forum affects the determination of the applicable law, and by replacing the court, the plaintiff can change the final result of the litigation. This is a strong incentive for a plaintiff to breach the choice of court agreement and bring the dispute in a non-chosen court instead of the chosen one. This article examines that, how can the courts in question support the party autonomy principle and prevent the parties from breaching the choice of court agreement. The article demonstrates that the courts in some legal systems can use several remedies to encourage the contractual performance of the agreement. These remedies include suspension of proceedings, anti-suit injunction, non-enforceability of the judgment issued by a non-chosen court, and awarding damages. Although the Iranian law is completely silent about the enforceability of jurisdiction agreements, the present study shows that the Iranian courts can use some of these remedies.