近日，本所谭岳奇律师、杨镇章律师等组成的律师团队在深圳A公司与英国B公司之间货运代理服务合同纠纷涉外诉讼案件中为深圳A公司提供诉讼代理服务，本所律师提出的管辖权异议意见先后被深圳前海合作区人民法院、深圳市中级人民法院完全采纳，最终裁定驳回英国B公司的起诉。上述裁定标志着深圳A公司在本案中的合法权益得到有效维护。

# 办案过程

本所律师接受委托后，立即展开全面而深入的调查工作，仔细研究案件细节，英国B公司主张的管辖权基础存在重大瑕疵，英国B公司在开户申请表、账单、电子邮件中均要求其客户认可双方之间的交易受到其网站公布的“条款和条件”所载内容的约束，该网站标准条款应有效并入案涉合同之中。“条款和条件”中已明确约定该合同项下所产生的争议应由英国B公司注册地管辖，故中国法院对本案没有管辖权，最终形成了管辖权异议的代理意见。在本案中，深圳前海合作区人民法院、深圳市中级人民法院均完全采纳本所律师的上述代理意见。

# 本案的司法价值

根据本所律师的研究，网站标准条款“有效并入”原则在英美法系国家普遍适用，但对于合同一方当事人网站上的标准条款是否能够有效并入主合同之中，中国法并无明确规定。经本所律师穷尽所有检索方式，截至目前仅发现一个适用网站标准条款“有效并入”原则的司法案例。本案的裁决结果无疑会对后续处理同类案件提供有效参考价值，推动了中国司法与国际社会的接轨。

# 相关法律法规规定

《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第三十五条规定，“合同或者其他财产权益纠纷的当事人可以书面协议选择被告住所地、合同履行地、合同签订地、原告住所地、标的物所在地等与争议有实际联系的地点的人民法院管辖，但不得违反本法对级别管辖和专属管辖的规定”。

第二百八十条规定，“当事人订立排他性管辖协议选择外国法院管辖且不违反本法对专属管辖的规定，不涉及中华人民共和国主权、安全或者社会公共利益的，人民法院可以裁定不予受理；已经受理的，裁定驳回起诉”。

ZhongYin Attorneys Successfully Represent a Foreign Client to Obtain the Final Ruling Regarding International Trade Dispute

Recently, Mr. Tan Yueqi(Vincent) and Mr. Yang Zhenzhang represented for a Shenzhen Company(“Company A”) in a foreign-related litigation case regarding the freight forwarding service contract dispute between Company A and a British Company (“Company B”). The jurisdictional objections raised by Tan Yueqi(Vincent) and Yang Zhenzhang were fully adopted by the Shenzhen Qianhai Cooperation Zone People's Court and the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court. At the end, Company B’s claim was dismissed. The above-mentioned ruling indicates that the legitimate rights and interests of Company A in this case have been effectively safeguarded.

Upon accepting the case, Zhongyin attorneys immediately launched a comprehensive and in-depth study, carefully examining the details of the case. It was found that the jurisdictional basis asserted by Company B contained significant flaws. In account application form, invoices, and emails, Company B required its clients to acknowledge that transactions between the parties were subject to the terms and conditions published on its website. These standard terms and conditions should be deemed to have been effectively incorporated into the relevant contract. The “Terms and Conditions” explicitly stipulate that any disputes arising under this contract shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the place where Company B is registered in the UK. Therefore, the Chinese courts have no jurisdiction over this case, leading to the formation of the jurisdictional objection argument by Zhongyin attorneys. In this case, both the Shenzhen Qianhai Cooperation Zone People's Court and the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court fully adopted the aforementioned argument presented by Zhongyin attorneys.

Applicable legal provisions

Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 35 The litigants of a contract dispute or other property rights dispute may agree in writing on selection of the People's Court at the location of the Defendant's domicile, place of performance of contract, place of execution of contract, address of the Plaintiff, location of the subject matter, etc. or a venue which has actual connection with the dispute to be the People's Court which has jurisdiction, but shall not violate the provisions hereof on grade jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction.

Article 280 Where a party to the same dispute between the parties concerned files a lawsuit with a foreign court and the other party files a lawsuit with a people's court, or a party files a lawsuit with both a foreign court and a people's court, the people's court which has jurisdiction pursuant to this Law may accept the dispute. Where the parties enter into an exclusive jurisdiction agreement and select a foreign court for jurisdiction, which does not violate the provisions of this Law on exclusive jurisdiction and does not involve the sovereignty, security or public interest of the People's Republic of China, the people's court may rule on non-acceptance of the dispute; where the case has been accepted, the people's court shall rule to dismiss the lawsuit.

律师介绍