FCA to review ‘close relationships’ in mortgage market – The Guardian

Posted December 13th, 2016 in conflict of laws, consumer protection, financial regulation, mortgages, news by sally

‘Britain’s financial watchdog has launched a review of the mortgage market that will probe the “inducements” routinely paid to brokers and other industry players, to see whether consumers are losing out as a result.’

Full story

The Guardian, 12th December 2016

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

The Armed Services and the Conflict of Laws: What Law Applies to Services Personnel Injured Abroad? – Old Square Chambers

‘In Rai v Ministry of Defence (HH Judge Mark Gargan sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, judgment handed down on 9 May 2016), the Court had to determine whether the Rome II Regulation 864/2007 applied and to identify what was the proper law of the tort (Alberta law being the law of the place of the accident, or English law). The Claimant was a serving Ghurkha who, as part of Adventurous Training, was sent to Canada. In Canada he received training provided by a Canadian company (“Lazy H Trail Limited”) contracted to provide services, under a contract governed by Alberta law, for the benefit of the British Army. The circumstances of the accident were that the Claimant was kicked by a horse on the first day of training, as he attempted to clean the horse’s hoof, thereby suffering a head injury. The Claimant brought a claim for breach of a non-delegable duty of care in negligence against the Ministry of Defence.’

Full story

Old Square Chambers, 16th June 2016

Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk

R+V Versicherung AG v Robertson & Co SA – WLR Daily

R+V Versicherung AG v Robertson & Co SA [2016] EWHC 1243 (QB)

‘The claimant reinsurer, a German company, engaged the defendant, a Swiss company, to provide loss-adjusting services in joint instruction with another reinsurer, AIG, a New Zealand-based company, which was already instructing the defendant. When a dispute arose between the claimant and the defendant concerning the performance of its loss-adjusting services, the claimant brought proceedings in England on the basis that it had contracted with the defendant on terms contained in a master agreement made between the defendant and another AIG company which provided for application of English law and the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. The claimant served the proceedings on the defendant, relying on article 23 of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 2007. The defendant, denying that the terms of the master agreement had been incorporated into its contract with the claimant, applied to set aside service of the proceedings for want of jurisdiction.’

WLR Daily, 27th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

One man’s loss is another man’s gain: choice of law rules for unjust enrichment claims – Commercial Disputes Blog

Posted February 22nd, 2016 in arbitration, conflict of laws, damages, EC law, fraud, news, restitution by sally

‘In a recent case, the English Commercial Court has determined that a claim in restitution based on unjust enrichment was governed by English law pursuant to EU Regulation 864/2007 (Rome II) and not the law of Geneva.’

Full story

Commercial Disputes Blog, 19th February 2016

Source: www.rpc.co.uk

The Race to Court under EU Brussels II: A New Approach? – Family Law Week

Posted January 8th, 2016 in conflict of laws, divorce, EC law, news, service, time limits by tracey

‘Stuart Clark, a solicitor at The International Family Law Group LLP, reports on a recent Irish case which could have important implications for the priority of divorce proceedings in international cases.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 8th January 2016

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Cook v Virgin Media Ltd; McNeil v Tesco plc – WLR Daily

Cook v Virgin Media Ltd; McNeil v Tesco plc [2015] EWCA Civ 1287; [2015] WLR (D) 538

‘The English court had power to apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens in a purely domestic context, exercising the court’s wide general case management powers in CPR rr 3.1(2)(m) and 3.3, and therefore could strike out or stay proceedings brought in England where Scotland was the natural and more appropriate forum.’

WLR Daily, 14th December 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Iraqi Civilians v Ministry of Defence (No 2) – WLR Daily

Iraqi Civilians v Ministry of Defence (No 2) [2015] EWCA Civ 1241; [2015] WLR (D) 515

‘The primary limitation period of three years under Iraqi limitation law applied to claims in tort brought in the English High Court by Iraqi civilians in respect of alleged unlawful detention and ill-treatment by British armed forces while those forces were in Iraq between March 2003 and the end of 2008.’

WLR Daily, 9th December 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Divisional Court strikes down DRIPA communications data law – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted July 21st, 2015 in conflict of laws, EC law, electronic mail, human rights, legislation, news by tracey

‘R (ota Davis et al) v. Secretary of State for Home Department [2015] EWHC 2092 – 17 July 2015. When a domestic Act of Parliament is in conflict with EU law, EU law wins. And when a bit of the EU Charter (given effect by the Lisbon Treaty) conflicts with an EU Directive, the EU Charter wins. Which is why the Divisional Court found itself quashing an Act of Parliament on Friday – at the behest of four claimants, including two MPs, the Tories’ David Davis and Labour’s Tom Watson.’

Full story

UK Human Rights blog, 19th july 2015

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Banque Cantonale de Geneve v Polevent Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Banque Cantonale de Geneve v Polevent Ltd and others: [2015] EWHC 1968 (Comm); [2015] WLR (D) 304

‘The law governing a claim in restitution was the law of the country in which the unjust enrichment took place pursuant to article 10(3) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2007.’

WLR Daily, 10th July 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Christofi v National Bank of Greece (Cyprus) Ltd – WLR Daily

Christofi v National Bank of Greece (Cyprus) Ltd [2015] EWHC 986 (QB); [2015] WLR (D) 170

‘There was no general power to extend the mandatory two-month time limit for an appeal against the registration of a settlement order by a party not domiciled within the jurisdiction under article 43(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.’

WLR Daily, 14th April 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Petromena ASA (in bankruptcy) – WLR Daily

Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Petromena ASA (in bankruptcy) [2015] EWCA Civ 226; [2015] WLR (D) 133

‘Where a party, which entered an acknowledgment of service to proceedings and made an unsuccessful challenge against the jurisdiction of the English court to hear the proceedings, had entered a further acknowledgment of service in its application for permission to appeal against the court’s decision to refuse its challenge, that party would have submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court, within article 24 of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (2007), because of the provisions of CPR r 11(8), unless it had first applied to the court for an extension of time to file the further acknowledgment of service sufficient to enable the application for permission to appeal, or the appeal if permission was granted, to be determined.’

WLR Daily, 18th March 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Integral Petroleum SA v SCU-Finanz AG – WLR Daily

Posted March 6th, 2015 in company law, conflict of laws, contracts, documents, EC law, law reports by sally

Integral Petroleum SA v SCU-Finanz AG [2015] EWCA Civ 144; [2015] WLR (D) 97

‘Where a contract had been signed by only one of a company’s two joint signatories, the question of whether the company was bound by the contract was properly characterised as a question of the company’s capacity, to be governed by the law of the company’s constitution, rather than a question of the formal validity of the contract, to be governed by the law which governed the contract, pursuant to article 11 of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 593/2008.’

WLR Daily, 26th February 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Benkharbouche v Embassy of the Republic of Sudan (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and others intervening); Janah v Libya (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and others intervening) – WLR Daily

Benkharbouche v Embassy of the Republic of Sudan (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and others intervening); Janah v Libya (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and others intervening) [2015] EWCA Civ 33; [2015] WLR (D) 83

‘Domestic workers employed as members of the service staff of foreign diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom were entitled to bring proceedings asserting their employment rights against the employer state, in claims including unfair dismissal and breach of working time provisions, and such claims were not barred by the doctrine of state immunity pursuant to provisions in the State Immunity Act 1978.’

WLR Daily, 5th February 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Al-Malki and another v Reyes and another (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and others intervening) – WLR Daily

Al-Malki and another v Reyes and another (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and others intervening) [2015] EWCA Civ 32; [2015] WLR (D) 75

‘A contract of employment between a serving diplomatic agent and a domestic worker in his official diplomatic residence was not to be characterised as “commercial activity” which the diplomatic agent exercised in the jurisdiction outside of his “official functions”, so that in a claim under the contract the agent was not deprived of his immunity from civil suit by the employee since such a dispute did not come within the exception to diplomatic immunity under article 31.1(c) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), scheduled to the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964.’

WLR Daily, 5th February 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Haeger & Schmidt GmbH v Mutuelles du Mans assurances IARD (MMA IARD) and others – WLR Daily

Posted October 28th, 2014 in carriage of goods, conflict of laws, EC law, law reports, treaties by sally

Haeger & Schmidt GmbH v Mutuelles du Mans assurances IARD (MMA IARD) and others (Case C-305/13) ECLI:EU:C:2014:2320; [2014] WLR (D) 441

‘The last sentence of article 4(4) of the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome Convention) applied to a commission contract for the carriage of goods solely when the main purpose of the contract consisted in the actual transport of the goods concerned, which was for the referring court to verify. Where the law applicable to a contract for the carriage of goods could not be fixed under the second sentence of article 4(4), it had to be determined in accordance with the general rule laid down in article 4(1) that the law governing the contract was that of the country with which it was most closely connected. Where it was argued that a contract had a closer connection with a country other than that the law of which was designated by the presumption laid down in article 4(2), the national court had to compare the connections existing between that contract and the country whose law was designated by the presumption and the other country concerned. In so doing, the national court had to take account of the circumstances as a whole, including the existence of other contracts connected with the contract in question.’

WLR Daily, 23rd October 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

E v B – WLR Daily

E v B (Case C-436/13) ECLI:EU:C:2014:2246; [2014] WLR (D) 405

‘Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility which had been prorogued, under article 12(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (OJ 2003 L338, p 1), in favour of a court of a member state before which proceedings had been brought by mutual agreement by the holders of parental responsibility ceased following a final judgment in those proceedings

WLR Daily, 1st October 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Young v Anglo American South Africa Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Young v Anglo American South Africa Ltd and others (No 2) [2014] EWCA Civ 1130; [2014] WLR (D) 370

‘Where a company had its statutory seat and principal place of business outside England, to determine whether a claim against it could be brought in England for the purposes of article 60(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, the claimant had to show a good arguable case that England was the jurisdiction where the company had its “central administration”, which was the place where, through its relevant organs according to its own constitutional provisions, it took the decisions essential for that its operations.’

WLR Daily, 31st July 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Coty Germany GmbH (formerly Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH) v First Note Perfumes NV – WLR Daily

Posted June 11th, 2014 in conflict of laws, EC law, jurisdiction, law reports, trade marks by sally

Coty Germany GmbH (formerly Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH) v First Note Perfumes NV (Case C‑360/12); ECLI:EU:C:2014:911; [2014] WLR (D) 243

‘The concept of “the member state in which the act of infringement has been committed” in article 93(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark meant that, in the event of a sale and delivery of a counterfeit product in one member state, followed by a resale by the purchaser in another member state, that provision did not allow jurisdiction to be established to hear an infringement action against the original seller who did not himself act in the member state where the court seised was situated.’

WLR Daily, 5th June 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Weber v Weber – WLR Daily

Posted April 15th, 2014 in conflict of laws, EC law, jurisdiction, law reports, stay of proceedings by tracey

Weber v Weber: (Case C-438/12);   [2014] WLR (D)  165

‘There fell within the category of proceedings which had as their object “rights in rem in immovable property”, within the meaning of article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, an action brought before the courts of another member state, seeking a declaration of invalidity of the exercise of a right of pre-emption attaching to that property and which produced effects with respect to all the parties. Before staying its proceedings in accordance with article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, the court second seised was required to examine whether, by reason of a failure to take into consideration the exclusive jurisdiction laid down in article 22(1) thereof, the decision of the court first seised would be recognised in the other member states in accordance with article 35(1) of that Regulation.’

WLR Daily, 3rd April 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL and another – WLR Daily

Posted March 17th, 2014 in conflict of laws, contracts, EC law, law reports, regulations by tracey

Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL and another: Case C-548/12;   [2014] WLR (D)  130

‘Civil liability claims, such as those at issue in the instant case, which were made in tort under national law, had to none the less be considered as concerning “matters relating to a contract” within the meaning of article 5(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, where the conduct complained of could be considered a breach of the terms of the contract, which could be established by taking into account the purpose of the contract.’

WLR Daily, 13th March 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk