Hague 2005 Convention on Choice of Court Agreements

Category: Jurisdiction and cross-border · Reviewed by the Apex broking team · Last reviewed 2026-08-22 · ~5 min read

Definition

The Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements is a Hague Conference instrument that applies, in international cases, to exclusive choice of court agreements concluded in civil or commercial matters. An exclusive choice of court agreement is defined in Article 3 as one that designates the courts of one contracting state, or one or more specific courts of one contracting state, to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts, and that is concluded or documented in writing or by any other means of communication that renders information accessible for subsequent reference.

The three obligations

The Convention rests on three rules. Under Article 5 the chosen court must hear the case and may not decline jurisdiction on the ground that another court should decide it. Under Article 6 a court of another contracting state that is seised must suspend or dismiss the proceedings, subject to limited exceptions. Under Articles 8 and 9 a judgment given by the chosen court must be recognised and enforced in other contracting states, again subject to defined grounds for refusal. Taken together, that is what turns a jurisdiction clause from a contractual promise into something a foreign court will act on.

What falls outside

Article 2 excludes consumer and employment contracts, and a list of subject matters including family law, wills and succession, insolvency, antitrust, liability for nuclear damage, personal injury claims brought by natural persons, tort claims for damage to tangible property not arising from a contractual relationship, rights in rem in immovable property, validity of intellectual property rights other than copyright, and certain others. Article 21 also allows a contracting state to declare that it will not apply the Convention to a specific matter in which it has a strong interest, provided the declaration is no broader than necessary and the matter is clearly defined.

Why it matters for insurance contracts

Article 17 puts contracts of insurance and reinsurance squarely inside the Convention. It provides that proceedings under a contract of insurance or reinsurance are not excluded from scope merely because the contract relates to a matter to which the Convention does not apply, and that recognition and enforcement of a judgment in respect of liability under such a contract may not be limited or refused on that basis. In other words, an insurance contract covering, say, personal injury liability — itself an excluded matter — still benefits from the Convention when the dispute is between insurer and insured about the policy. For a market that writes worldwide risks under English law and English jurisdiction clauses, that is the operative provision.

The United Kingdom’s position

Before Brexit the United Kingdom was bound by the Convention through the European Union’s approval of it, which took effect on 1 October 2015. To secure continuity the United Kingdom deposited its own instrument of accession on 28 September 2020, and the Convention entered into force for the United Kingdom in its own right on 1 January 2021, immediately after the end of the transition period. The practical effect is that English exclusive jurisdiction clauses continue to be supported by a multilateral treaty framework, although not by the wider Brussels regime that applied before.

The 2019 Judgments Convention alongside it

The Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters entered into force for the United Kingdom on 1 July 2025. It is a separate instrument with a wider reach: it deals with recognition and enforcement of judgments generally rather than only with judgments from a chosen court, and it does not contain the Article 5 and Article 6 jurisdiction rules. The two operate together, and which one is engaged depends on how the dispute reached the court that gave judgment.

Drafting consequences

Three points follow for anyone drafting or reviewing jurisdiction provisions in insurance, reinsurance or commercial contracts. First, the Convention supports exclusive agreements as defined in Article 3; a clause that is non-exclusive, or that is exclusive for one party only, needs separate analysis. Second, the form requirements are light but real, so the clause needs to be in writing or in a form accessible for subsequent reference. Third, the Convention says nothing about arbitration, which is governed by a different framework entirely; a contract cannot rely on Hague 2005 to support an arbitration clause.

Why it matters

Cross-border insurance disputes are decided somewhere, and where they are decided usually determines a great deal about the outcome. Hague 2005 is the instrument that, in most commercial cases, makes an English exclusive jurisdiction clause hold up in another contracting state and makes the resulting judgment travel. It is worth knowing that it applies to insurance and reinsurance expressly, because that is not the intuitive reading of a convention that excludes personal injury and property damage claims.

Frequently asked questions

Does the Hague 2005 Convention still apply to the United Kingdom after Brexit?

Yes. The United Kingdom deposited its own instrument of accession on 28 September 2020 and the Convention entered into force for the United Kingdom in its own right on 1 January 2021. Before that it applied through the European Union’s approval, in force from 1 October 2015.

Does the Convention cover insurance disputes?

Yes. Article 17 provides that proceedings under a contract of insurance or reinsurance are not excluded merely because the contract relates to an excluded matter, and that recognition and enforcement may not be refused on that basis. Insurance and reinsurance contracts are therefore within scope.

Does it apply to non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses?

The Convention’s core rules apply to exclusive choice of court agreements as defined in Article 3. Clauses that do not meet that definition require separate analysis under the relevant national rules, and it should not be assumed that the Convention machinery is available for them.

Related entries

• Contract certainty
• Security for costs and insurance
• Declaratory judgment
• Reinsurance treaty wording
• Commercial insurance UK

This entry is part of the Apex Insurance Wiki. Last reviewed 2026-08-22. Next review: 2027-02-22. It is insurance information, not legal advice, and it states the position as at August 2026.

Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FRN 724952). This page is general information, not advice on a specific policy.