Arbitration
Google LLC and another company v Nao Tsargrad Media and other companies [2025] EWHC 94 (Comm)
The Commercial Court determined that the YouTube jurisdiction clause in the terms of service constituted an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts, despite arguments by the defendants that it was a non-exclusive clause. The court rejected the defendants’ contention that they were entitled to sue in Russia pursuant to the ‘mandatory law’ proviso in the clause. The court held that the claimants did not submit to the jurisdiction of the Russian courts, as they had consistently challenged jurisdiction and were compelled to argue the merits simultaneously under Russian procedure. The court concluded that it was just and convenient to grant final anti-enforcement injunctions against the defendants, preventing them from enforcing Russian judgments obtained in breach of the exclusive jurisdiction clause outside of Russia.
Expert evidence
Kington SARL v Thames Water Utilities Holdings Ltd [2025] EWHC 84 (Ch)
This was an application by Kington for permission to adduce expert evidence from a competition economist regarding the nature and effect of a
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=7806223b_1)
