Abstract
This article examines the effect of choice of law agreements on the courts’ exercise of jurisdiction. In particular, it considers whether English courts ought to exercise jurisdiction to uphold choice of law agreements that would otherwise be defeated in a competing forum. Two reasons have been advanced in support of this approach: that courts should prioritise the choice of law rules of the forum; and that the parties should be held to their agreement on the applicable law. This article argues that neither of these reasons is justifiable in principle.