Interpretation of Article 24(2) Brussels Recast – Jurisdiction and Conflict of Laws

‘In its recent decision in Koza Ltd v Akcil [2017] EWCA Civ 1609, the Court of Appeal interpreted the scope of Article 24 (2) Brussels I Recast, which governs exclusive jurisdiction “in proceedings which have as their object the validity of the constitution, the nullity or dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or the validity of the decisions of their organs, the courts of the Member State in which the company, legal person or association has its seat”.’

Full Story

Jurisdiction and Conflict of Laws, 10th November 2017

Source: jurisdictionandconflicts.net

Alison Young: Benkharbouche and the Future of Disapplication – UK Constitutional Law Association

Posted October 26th, 2017 in bills, conflict of laws, EC law, jurisdiction, news, Supreme Court, working time by sally

‘Last week, Lord Sumption delivered the majority decision of the Supreme Court on Benkharbouche v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs: Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Libya v Janah. The case would have been heard in December of last year, but for the small matter of Miller, which caused the hearing to be moved to June of this year. Brexit and Miller, however, do not only seem to have affected the timing of the hearing. They have also affected its importance. What might have been originally anticipated as a potentially defining moment – where the Supreme Court confirmed that the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms could be used as a stand-alone cause of action to disapply primary legislation and explained how this could be achieved – was translated into an almost blasé statement by the court that ‘a conflict between EU law and English domestic law must be resolved in favour of the former, with the latter being disapplied; whereas the remedy in the case of inconsistency with Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention is a declaration of incompatibility.’ What might once have seemed controversial has become run of the mill. What has led to the casual acceptance of ‘disapplication’ of a UK statute; and what will happen to disapplication – and the Charter – post-Brexit?’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 24th October 2017

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v UCB Pharma SA and another; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v UCB Biopharma SPRL – WLR Daily

Posted June 15th, 2017 in conflict of laws, jurisdiction, law reports, licensing, patents by sally

Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v UCB Pharma SA and another; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v UCB Biopharma SPRL [2017] EWHC 1216 (Pat)

‘The first defendant in the first of two claims entered into a licence with the claimant in respect of a portfolio of patents, including a US patent, concerning tocilizumab, an immunosuppressive drug. The claimant sought, inter alia, a declaration that it was not obliged to continue to pay royalties under the licence in respect of its tocilizumab products. The defendants alleged that, although framed as a claim for a declaration relating to a contract, a part of the proceedings, in substance, concerned not only the scope but also the validity of the US patent. Accordingly, consideration of the claim would infringe the territorial limits of the courts jurisdictional powers and constitute an affront to comity (“the Moçambique rule”) and/or the foreign act of state doctrine, which militated against the English court determining issues relating to sovereign acts of a foreign state.’

WLR Daily, 26th May 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

UK law found to be more generous than EU law for jobseekers acquiring permanent residence – Free Movement

‘The case of GE v. SSWP (ESA) [2017] UKUT 145 (ACC) sets out how the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (since replaced with the 2016 version), are in some areas, more generous than EU law itself by concluding that an initial right of residence or status as a job-seeker could count towards permanent residence for an EEA national.’

Full story

Free Movement, 22nd May 2017

Source: www.freemovement.org.uk

Insurance surgery: liability & multi-party accidents abroad – New Law Journal

Posted February 17th, 2017 in accidents, conflict of laws, EC law, insurance, news, personal injuries by sally

‘The Court of Appeal has provided welcome clarity on determining which laws should apply in cross-border cases, says Kelvin Farmaner.’

Full story

New Law Journal, 16th February 2017

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

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