在浙江省高级人民法院审理的一起案件中，法院驳回了被告提起的管辖权异议，认定选择英国高等法院作为合同争议管辖法院的合同条款是无效的，因为法院认为约定的管辖法院与案件所涉争议缺乏实际联系。
本案中，A公司(船舶燃油供应商)与B公司(船东)签订了一份船用燃油买卖合同，其中的管辖权条款规定该合同下的所有由新加坡加油引起的争议应提交英国高等法院专属管辖。因B未支付油款，A遂在宁波海事法院将B起诉。B随即提出管辖权异议，主张合同约定了有效的管辖权条款。A辩称该管辖权条款是无效的，因为该伦敦高院缺乏与案件所涉争议的实际联系。
详细信息请参阅附件。
Chinese courts and Jurisdiction
In a recent case tried before Zhejiang High People’s Court, the Judge dismissed the defendants’ challenge of jurisdiction holding that the choice of English High Court clause was invalid as Court found that there was lack of connection with the dispute in question.
In this case, Company A (a ship bunker supply company in concluded a bunker oil sales agreement with Company B (a ship owner), and there was a clause in relation to the choice of court in this sales agreement. According to this choice of court clause, all the disputes should be referred to exclusive jurisdiction of English High Court for the stemmed bunker oil in Singapore. As Company B failed to pay sales price, therefore Company A sued the Company B before the Ningbo Maritime Court. Company B then argued as to the Court’s jurisdiction as there was a separate choice of court clause agreed upon by both the parties in the agreement. Company A argued that this choice of court clause was invalid in the sales agreement because English High Court has no connection with the dispute.
See attached file: ALCO20150037 Chinese courts and Jurisdiction.pdf
