{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015364916773367477, 'fraction_numerical': 0.024327784891165175, 'mean_word_length': 5.2063492063492065, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
THE TREATMENT OF ASYMMETRIC JURISDICTION CLAUSES IN FINANCIAL CONTRACTS IN FRANCE AND ENGLAND

Recent case law demonstrates a significant difference in approach to the construction and validity of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses under the Brussels 1 bis regulation (Regulation 1215/2012), and its predecessors, by the courts in England and France. In this paper, the compatibility of such clauses with Article 25 of Regulation 1215/2012 is considered. The relevant case law of the French courts and the English courts is then analysed. The paper concludes that there are good commercial and legal reasons to uphold such clauses in a commercial context between parties of presumptively equal bargaining power. The doubts expressed by the French courts should therefore be set aside.