In X v Banque Privée Edmond de Rothschild Europe, Cass. Civ. (1ère) the French Cour de cassation held that a one-sided jurisdictional clause violated the purpose of Article 23 of the Brussels Regulation and should not be applied.
The English courts however have not been swayed by the decision in Rothschild. In Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd v Hestia Holdings Ltd and Another  EWHC 1328 (Comm) the Commercial Court confirmed that one-way or unilateral jurisdiction clauses are valid as a matter of English law.
Whilst the decision in Mauritius v Hestia provides comfort in relation to the use of such clauses where proceedings are to be heard (and any necessary enforcement carried out) in England, the decision in X v Rothschild (and the decision in CJSC Russian Telephone Company v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Telecommunication Rus LLC which rendered one sided optional dispute resolution clauses invalid in the Russian courts) means that local law advice should be taken before using these clauses, particularly in respect of jurisdictions such as France and Russia where the court decisions have highlighted issues.