› Service without leave — breach of contract in Australia — international electronic funds transfer
Private International Law
› Exclusive jurisdiction clauses
› Validity under Lebanese Consumer Protection Law — abusive clause — Article 26
Private International Law
› Forum non conveniens
› Clearly inappropriate forum test — Lebanese financial crisis — systemic banking crisis
Private International Law
› Foreign law
› Lebanese banking law — deposit contracts — Code of Commerce Article 307 — tender and deposit procedure
Quick Take
1An exclusive jurisdiction clause in a standard-form banking contract that confers exclusive jurisdiction on courts of the bank's domicile while reserving to the bank alone the right to litigate abroad is an arbitrary/abusive clause void under Article 26 of the Lebanese Consumer Protection Law, as it creates a significant imbalance between the rights of the consumer and the professional to the detriment of the consumer.
2Where a banking contract entitles a depositor to require repayment by international electronic funds transfer and the depositor nominates an Australian bank account, the bank's failure to transfer constitutes a breach in Australia sufficient to found service without leave under the equivalent of UCPR rules for service out of the jurisdiction, even absent an express contractual term mandating payment in Australia.
3A systemic financial crisis occurring after entry into a banking contract containing an exclusive jurisdiction clause may constitute a radical change in circumstances justifying refusal of a stay, particularly where the crisis has compromised the nominated forum's capacity to deliver effective remedies and the bank has itself acted to frustrate the contractual relationship through informal capital controls.
