Lornamead Acquisitions Ltd v Kaupthing Bank HF. (Lornamead Acquisitions) The jurisdiction clause in this case, which was governed by the 0000 Xxxxxx Convention, was similar to that in Continental Bank. It stipulated that “The courts of England have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement”, but also provided that this clause “was for the benefit of the Finance Parties and Secured Parties only” and therefore that “no Finance Party or Secured Party shall be prevented from taking proceedings relating to a Dispute in any other courts with jurisdiction.” 150 The non-option holder (Lornamead) commenced proceedings in England and the option holder (Kaupthing) challenged the English court’s jurisdiction. Gloster J held that Article 17 of the Lugano Convention, which at the relevant time was the same as Article 17 of the Brussels Convention,151 did not entitle the option holder “unilaterally to challenge proceedings previously brought by Lornamead against Kaupthing in England in 148 Continental Bank, supra n 31, 591-592. 149 Ibid, 594. 150 Lornamead Acquisitions, supra n 19. 151 See supra text to nn 106-114. accordance with the terms of the English jurisdiction clause”.152 The option holder did not dispute that the effect of the lis pendens rule in the Lugano Convention was that once proceedings had been commenced in England in accordance with the jurisdiction agreement, the option holder lost its option to bring proceedings in another court. 153
