Flux des sites DIP

In a judgment of 3 June 2020, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled that sanctions issued by the Security Council of the United Nations (UN) or by the European Union (EU) are international mandatory rules which define French public policy. As a result, the court ruled that, in principle, an arbitral award violating such sanctions could be set aside by a French court.

In contrast, the court ruled that unilateral sanctions issued by the United States of America do not constitute French public policy. As French authorities have expressed their hostility against them, US sanctions obviously cannot be regarded as defining the most important values of the French state. An arbitral award failing to take them into consideration might not, therefore, be challenged before French courts.

Background

The case was concerned with a gas storage contract to be performed in Yort-E-Shah, Iran. The initial contract was concluded in 2002 between an Iranian and a French company.  A number of letters of credit had been issued by various banks to guarantee the  performance of the contract. In 2008, a dispute arose between the parties. The Iranian party alleged various contractual breaches, terminated the contract and called the guarantees. The French party initiated proceedings before French courts to enjoin the banks from paying under the letters of credit, which were eventually dismissed (see the judgment of the French Supreme Court here).

The French party then initiated arbitration proceedings before an ICC tribunal in Paris arguing that the termination of the contract was illegal. The Iranian party made counterclaims. The tribunal allowed claims from both parties and, after setting them off, ultimately found in favour of the Iranian company.

The French company then initiated proceedings before French courts, arguing inter alia that the award was contrary to French public policy for failing to take into account applicable sanctions and should thus be set aside.

UN Sanctions

The first argument was that the arbitral tribunal had failed to apply UN Resolutions no 1737 of 23 December 2006, no 1747 of 24 March 2007 and no 1803 du 3 mars 2008. The Iranian party challenged the relevance of the UN resolutions for defining French public policy, arguing that UN resolutions are not directly applicable in France, were not implemented in the French legal order, and thus could not be considered as defining French public policy.

The court recognised that the UN resolutions were not directly applicable in France, and that they could not be characterised as French international mandatory rules. However, the court held that they were either foreign international mandatory rules, or  “genuinely international mandatory rules”. The court concluded by adding that, in any case, the objectives pursued by the UN, peace and international security, were essential values to the French state. In principle, therefore, arbitral awards violating UN sanctions would not comport with French public policy and could be set aside on this ground.

This wealth of reasons might reveal that none of them was particularly convincing.

The most unconvincing argument was certainly to distinguish between foreign international mandatory rules and mandatory rules of the forum. The purpose of the distinction is to grant discretion to courts to apply mandatory rules protecting the interests of foreign states. It seems hard, and pretty artifical, to establish a link between UN sanctions and certain states, but not others. A formalistic way of doing this would be to argue that UN sanctions would be non foreign mandatory rules only in the states which have not implemented them. Is that what the court means? If so, it should tell which foreign implementing legislation it is actually considering. And what if UN sanctions are not directly applicable in the vast majority of states? Are they foreign to everybody?

The concept of “genuinely international” mandatory rules (lois de police réellement internationales) is a reference to the idea that while arbitrators have no forum, and cannot be considered as more specifically bound by the mandatory rules of any given state, they should consider that they are the guardians of a genuinely international public policy composed of norms recognised as being of the utmost importance at a global level. The doctrine of “genuinely international public policy” (ordre public réellement international), or “genuinely international mandatory rules”, is a correction of the consequences of the delocalisation of arbitration promoted by the French law of arbitration. The reference to this doctrine in the context of court proceedings, however, raises a number of issues. First, the court implies that arbitral tribunals should be compelled to apply a rule which is not a French international mandatory rule, and that French courts would thus have no obligation to apply if the case was litigated in France. Second, while one can conceive that arbitrators do not have a forum and are thus not bound by the international mandatory rules of the seat of the arbitration, a French court does have a forum, and should thus care about French public policy.

Finally, the court explained that UN resolutions should be considered as defining French public policy because of the importance of the purpose that they served. The court ruled:

the aforementioned resolutions, in so far as they are intended to contribute to the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security, embody rules and values whose disregard must be considered to be incompatible with the French legal system and which therefore fall within the French concept of international public policy

International mandatory rules are defined by the importance of the purpose that they serve, so establishing the purpose of UN Resolutions in this context was no doubt important. Yet, one wonders whether the sole purpose of norms could make them international mandatory provisions irrespective of their enforceability in the relevant legal order.

EU Sanctions

The characterisation of EU sanctions contained in Regulations (EC) no 423/2007, (EU) no 961/2010 (EU) no 267/2012 was much simpler. EU regulations are directly applicable in all Member states. The court thus found that these regulations are French international mandatory rules and, because they contribute to the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security, also define French international public policy. In this context, the reference to the purpose of EU Regulations was aimed at distinguishing those EU regulations which would qualify as international mandatory provisions and those which would not.

US Sanctions

Finally, the court turned to US sanctions and ruled that they did not define French public policy. The court insisted that its role was to assess French public policy. For this purpose, it was highly relevant that the French state had repeatedly expressed through members of its government its opposition to the policy of the US to use unilateral sanctions, calling them unjustifiable and violations of international law. French authorities were working with other Member States to reinforce the economic sovereignty of the EU, in particular by reflecting on extending the scope of the EU blocking regulation (and possibly the French blocking statute). Thus, US sanctions clearly did not define French public policy

Conclusion

After elaborating quite extensively on the characterization of international sanctions as international mandatory rules, the court found that neither the UN Resolutions, nor the EU Regulations applied in the particular case, and that there had not been any actual violation of French public policy. It seems clear, therefore, that the court wanted to signal its doctrine and clarify that, while it would expect arbitrators to take into account UN and EU sanctions, it would participate in the effort of the French state to resist US unilateralism in this respect.

As I seem to be in a comparative mood today, thank you Jan Jakob Bornheim for flagging [2020] NZHC 2560 Lange v Lange. The case is further discussed by Jack Wass here – at the time of writing I only have Jack’s review to go on for the actual decision appears to be as yet unpublished.

TTPA 2010 follows the model of the more recent Hague Judgments Convention: recognition and enforcement of a judgment may be refused if it infringes jurisdictional rules detailed in the Act. For the case at issue, s 61(2)(c) of the TTPA is engaged. It requires the court to set aside registration of a judgment if it was “given in a proceeding the subject matter of which was immovable property” located outside Australia.

The determining concern is whether the New Zealand property was “in issue” (the words which Jack uses and which presumably Gault J employed; the Act itself uses ‘proceeding subject matter of which is’; compare with Brussels Ia’s ‘proceedings which have as their object’) in the proceedings. Gault J, citing authority, finds that a judgment setting aside a fraudulent disposition is not rendered unenforceable simply because the debt concerned the sale of New Zealand land. (A further appeal to ordre public was refused; for that to be successful, the result of recognition must, Jack notes, “shock the conscience” of the ordinary New Zealander” (Reeves v OneWorld Challenge LLC [2006] 2 NZLR 184 (CA) at [67].

Obvious comparative pointers with EU conflicts law are Webb v Webb, Weber v Weber, Schmidt v Schmidt, Komu v Komu etc.: readers will know that Article 24(1) Brussels Ia typically involves feuding family members.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.6 . Third edition forthcoming February 2021.

A short note for the benefit of comparative contract lawyers who may find some interesting material when looking into the failed LVMH /Tiffany acquisition. That acquisition agreement (see SEC filing here)  is subject to the laws of Delaware other than claims against the financiers which are subject to the laws of New York (s.10.5). As readers might be aware, LVMH would seem to argue not that the Pandemic is a Material Adverse Effect which invalidates the merger. Rather, that Tiffany’s handling of its business in the pandemic is a MAE.

Of interesting comparative note therefore is Travelport Ltd & Ors v WEX Inc [2020] EWHC 2670 (Comm) where Cockerill J preliminarily discusses  the proper construction of, and burden of proof in relation to, the MAE definition contained in a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) dated 24 January 2020. The substantive issues will be dealt with before her at a later stage.

Geert.

(Preliminary) findings of comparative relevance to #LVMH #Tiffany merger (which is subject to the laws of Delaware: see https://t.co/uxmBf2XeSY)
Proper construction of, and burden of proof re definition of Material Adverse Effect contained viz #Covid19 in SPA under English law. https://t.co/8l6N42YyTZ

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 12, 2020

Serena Forlati (University of Ferrara) and Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan) are the editors of a collection of essays titled Universal Civil Jurisdiction – Which Way Forward? which has been just published by Brill.

Enabling the victims of international crimes to obtain reparation is crucial to fighting impunity. In Universal Civil Jurisdiction – Which Way Forward? experts of public and private international law discuss one of the key challenges that victims face, namely access to justice. Civil courts in the country where the crime was committed may be biased, or otherwise unwilling or unable to hear the case. Are the courts of other countries permitted, or required, to rule on the victim’s claim? Trends at the international and the domestic level after the Naït-Liman judgment of the European Court of Human Rights offer a nuanced answer, suggesting that civil jurisdiction is not only concerned with sovereignty, but is also a tool for the governance of global problems.

Opened by a foreword by Giorgio Gaja (University of Florence, Judge at the International Court of Justice), the book features contributions by the editors themselves as well as by Beatrice I. Bonafè (University of Rome La Sapienza), Malgosia Fitzmaurice (Queen Mary University), Patrick Kinsch (University of Luxembourg), Mariangela La Manna (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan), Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti (University of Macerata), Lucas Roorda and Cedric Ryngaert (both University of Utrecht), and Andrea Saccucci (University of Campania).

See here for more information, including the full table of contents.

The Council has made available today its 8 October 2020 Conclusions “Access to Justice – Seizing the Opportunities of Digitalisation”. There are attached to this post.

council-conclusions-access-to-justice-e28093-digitalisationDownload

HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention Repository

In preparation of the Video Roundtable by the University of Bonn and the HCCH on 29 October 2020, we are offering here a Repository of contributions to the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. Please email us if you miss something in it, we will update immediately…

Update of 13 October 2020: New entries are printed bold.

Please also check the “official” Bibliograghy of the HCCH for the instrument.

1. Explanatory Reports

Garcimartín Alférez, Francisco;
Saumier, Geneviève „Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters: Explanatory Report“, as approved by the HCCH on 22 September 2020, Pre-Publication available here Garcimartín Alférez, Francisco;
Saumier, Geneviève “Judgments Convention: Revised Draft Explanatory Report”, HCCH Prel.-Doc. No. 1 of December 2018 (available here) Nygh, Peter;
Pocar, Fausto “Report of the Special Commission”, HCCH Prel.-Doc. No. 11 of August 2000 (available here), pp 19-128

 

1. Bibliography

Beaumont, Paul “Forum non Conveniens and the EU rules on Conflicts of Jurisdiction: A Possible Global Solution”, Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 2018, pp 433-447 Beaumont, Paul R. “Judgments Convention: Application to Governments”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 121-137 Blom, Joost “The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act and the Hague Judgments and Jurisdictions Projects”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal 55 (2018), pp 257-304 Bonomi, Andrea “European Private International Law and Third States”, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2017, pp 184-193 Bonomi, Andrea “Courage or Caution? – A Critical Overview of the Hague Preliminary Draft on Judgments”, Yearbook of Private International Law 17 (2015/2016), pp 1-31 Bonomi, Andrea;
Mariottini, Cristina M. “(Breaking) News From The Hague: A Game Changer in International Litigation? – Roadmap to the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention”, Yearbook of Private International Law 20 (2018/2019), pp 537-567 Borges Moschen, Valesca Raizer;
Marcelino, Helder “Estado Constitutional Cooperativo e a conficaçao do direito internacional privado apontamentos sobre o ’Judgement Project’ da Conferência de Haia de Direito Internacional Privado”, Revista Argumentum 18 (2017), pp 291-319

(Cooperative Constitutional State and the Codification of Private International Law: Notes on the “Judgment Project” of the Hague Conference on Private International Law) Brand, Ronald A. “The Circulation of Judgments Under the Draft Hague Judgments Convention”, University of Pittsburgh School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2019-02, pp 1-35 Brand, Ronald A. “Jurisdictional Developments and the New Hague Judgments Project”, “in HCCH (ed.), A Commitment to Private International Law – Essays in honour of Hans van Loon”, Cambridge 2013, pp 89-99 Brand, Ronald A. “New Challenges in Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments”, in Franco Ferrari, Diego P. Fernández Arroyo (eds.), Private International Law – Contemporary Challenges and Continuing Relevance, Cheltenham/Northampton 2019, pp 360-389 Brand, Ronald A. “Jurisdiction and Judgments Recognition at the Hague Conference: Choices Made, Treaties Completed, and the Path Ahead”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 3-17 Çali?kan, Yusuf;
Çali?kan, Zeynep “2 Temmuz 2019 Tarihli Yabanci Mahkeme Kararlarinin Taninmasi ve Tenfizine Iliskin Lahey Anlasmasinin Degerlendirilmesi”, Public and Private International Law Bulletin 40 (2020), pp 231-245

(An Evaluation of 2 July 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters) Clavel, Sandrine; Jault-Seseke, Fabienne “La convention de La Haye du 2 juillet 2019 sur la reconnaissance et l’exécution des jugements étrangers en matière civile ou commerciale: Que peut-on en attendre?”, Travaux du comité français de Droit international privé, Vol. 2018-2020, forthcoming (Version provisoire de la communication présentée le 4 octobre 2019 available here) Coco, Sarah E. “The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. Litigants”, New York University Law Review 94 (2019), pp 1210-1243 Cuniberti, Gilles “Signalling the Enforceability of the Forum’s Judgments Abroad”, Rivista di diritto internazionale private e processuale (RDIPP) 56 (2020), pp 33-54 de Araujo, Nadia; de Nardi, Marcelo;
Spitz, Lidia “A nova era dos litígios internacionais”, Valor Economico 2019 de Araujo, Nadia;
de Nardi, Marcelo;
Lopes Inez;
Polido, Fabricio „Private International Law Chronicles“, Brazilian Journal of International Law 16 (2019), pp 19-34

  de Araujo, Nadia;
de Nardi, Marcelo „Consumer Protection Under the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 67-79 de Araujo, Nadia;
de Nardi, Marcelo „22ª Sessão Diplomática da Conferência da Haia e a Convenção sobre sentenças estrangeiras: Primeiras reflexões sobre as vantagens para o Brasil da sua adoção“, Revista de la Secretaría del Tribunal Permanente de Revisión 7 No. 14 (2019), páginas 198-221

(22nd Diplomatic Session of The Hague Conference and the Convention on Foreign Judgments: First Reflections on the Advantages for Brazil of their Adoption) Dotta Salgueiro, Marcos “Article 14 of the Judgments Convention: The Essential Reaffirmation of the Non-discrimination Principle in a Globalized Twenty-First Century”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 113-120 Douglas, Michael;
Keyes, Mary;
McKibbin, Sarah;
Mortensen, Reid “The HCCH Judgments Convention in Australian Law”, Federal Law Review 47 (2019), pp 420-443 Efeçinar Süral, Ceyda
Possible Ratification of the Hague Convention by Turkey and Its Effects to the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Public and Private International Law Bulletin 40/2 (2020)
Franzina, Pietro; Leandro, Antonio

  “La Convenzione dell’Aja del 2 luglio 2019 sul riconoscimento delle sentenze straniere: una prima lettura”, Quaderni di SIDIblog 6 (2019), pp 215-231, available at http://www.sidi-isil.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Quaderni-di-SIDIBlog-6-2019.pdf

(The Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments: A First Appraisal) Fuchs, Felix “Das Haager Übereinkommen vom 2. Juli 2019 über die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Urteile in Zivil- oder Handelssachen“, Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsrecht (GWR) 2019, pp 395-399 Garcimartín, Francisco “The Judgments Convention: Some Open Questions”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 19-31 Goddard, David „The Judgments Convention – The Current State of Play”, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 29 (2019), pp 473-490 He, Qisheng “The HCCH Judgments Convention and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments pertaining to a State”, Global Law Review 3 (2020), pp 147-161 He, Qisheng “Unification and Division: Immovable Property Issues under the HCCH Judgement Convention”, Journal of International Law 1 (2020), pp 33-55 Jacobs, Holger “Der Zwischenstand zum geplanten Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen – Der vorläufige Konventionsentwurf 2016“, Zeitschrift für Internationales Privatrecht & Rechtsvergleichung (ZfRV) 2017, pp 24-30 Jang, Junhyok “The Public Policy Exception Under the New 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 97-111 Jovanovic, Marko Thou Shall (Not) Pass – Grounds for Refusal of Recognition and

Enforcement under the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, YbPIL 21 (2019/2020), pp. 309 – 332 Juepter, Eva “The Hague Jurisdiction Project – what options for the Hague Conference?”, Journal of Private International Law 16 (2020), pp 247-274 Kessedjian, Catherine “Comment on the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. Is the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 a useful tool for companies who are conducting international activities?“, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 19-33 Khanderia, Saloni „The Hague judgments project: assessing its plausible benefits for the development of the Indian private international law”, Commonwealth Law Bulletin 44 (2018), pp 452-475 Khanderia, Saloni “The Hague Conference on Private International Law’s Proposed Draft Text on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: Should South Africa Endorse it?”, Journal of African Law 63 (2019), pp 413-433 Mariottini, Cristina „Establishment of Treaty Relations under The 2019 Hague Judgments

Convention“, YbPIL 21 (2019/2020), pp. 365-380 Mariottini, Cristina “The Exclusion of Defamation and Privacy from the Scope of the Hague Draft Convention on Judgments, YbPIL 19 (2017/2018), pp 475-486. Meier, Niklaus “Notification as a Ground for Refusal”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 81-95 Nielsen, Peter Arnt “The Hague 2019 Judgments Convention – from failure to success”, Journal of Private International Law 16 (2020), pp 205-246 North, Cara “The 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention: A Common Law Perspective”, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2020, pp 202-210 North, Cara “The Exclusion of Privacy Matters from the Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 33-48 Oestreicher, Yoav „ ’We’re on a Road to Nowhere’ – Reasons for the Continuing Failure to Regulate Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, The International Lawyer 42 (2008), pp 59-86 Pertegás Sender, Marta “The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention: Its Conclusion and the road ahead”, in Asian Academy of International Law (publ.), Sinergy and Security: the Keys to Sustainable Global Investment: Proceedings of the 2019 Colloquium on International Law, 2019 Hong Kong, pp 181-190 Pertegás, Marta “Brussels I Recast and the Hague Judgments Project”, in Geert Van Calster (ed.), European Private International Law at 50: Celebrating and Contemplating the 1968 Brussels Convention and its Successors, Cambridge 2018, pp 67-82 Ribeiro-Bidaoui, João “The International Obligation of the Uniform and Autonomous Interpretation of Private Law Conventions: Consequences for Domestic Courts and International Organisations”, Netherlands International Law Review 67 (2020), pp 139 – 168 Rumenov, Ilija “Implications of the New 2019 Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments on the National Legal Systems of Countries in South Eastern Europe”, EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series (ECLIC) 3 (2019), pp 385-4040 Saumier, Geneviève “Submission as a Jurisdictional Basis and the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 49-65 Schack, Haimo “Wiedergänger der Haager Konferenz für IPR: Neue Perspektiven eines weltweiten Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommens?“, Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZEUP) 2014, pp 824-842 Schack, Haimo „Das neue Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen“, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2020, pp 1-96 Silberman, Linda “Comparative Jurisdiction in the International Context: Will the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention be Stalled?”, DePaul Law Review 52 (2002), pp 319-349 Spitz, Lidia „Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments on Public Policy Grounds in the Hague Judgments Convention – A Comparison with The 1958 New York Convention“, YbPIL 21 (2019/2020), pp 333-364 Stein, Andreas „Das Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen 2019 – Was lange währt, wird endlich gut?“, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2020, pp 197-202 Stewart, David P. „Current Developments: The Hague Conference adopts a New Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, American Journal of International Law (AJIL) 113 (2019), pp 772-783 Taquela, María Blanca Noodt; Abou-Nigm, Verónica Ruiz “News From The Hague: The Draft Judgments Convention and Its Relationship with Other International Instruments”, Yearbook of Private International Law 19 (2017/2018), pp 449-474 Teitz, Louise Ellen “Another Hague Judgments Convention? – Bucking the Past to Provide for the Future”, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 29 (2019), pp 491-511 van der Grinten, Paulien;
ten Kate, Noura „Editorial: The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention”, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 1-3 van Loon, Hans “Towards a global Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 4-18 van Loon, Hans “Towards a Global Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Collection of Papers of the Faculty of Law, Niš 82 (2019), pp 15-35 van Loon, Hans “Le Brexit et les conventions de La Haye”, Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 2019, pp 353-366 Wagner, Rolf “Ein neuer Anlauf zu einem Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen“, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2016, pp 97-102 Weidong, Zhu “The Recognition and Enforcement of Commercial Judgments Between China and South Africa: Comparison and Convergence”, China Legal Science 2019-06, pp 33-57 Weller, Matthias “The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: New Trends in Trust Management?”, in Christoph Benicke, Stefan Huber (eds.), Festschrift für Herbert Kronke zum 70. Geburtstag, Bielefeld 2020, pp 621-632 Weller, Matthias “The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention – The Jurisdictional Filters of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Yearbook of Private International Law 21 (2019/2020), pp 279 – 308 Weller, Matthias “Das Haager Übereinkommen zur Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Urteile”, in: Thomas Rauscher (ed.), Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht, Munich, 5th ed., forthcoming Weller, Matthias Die Kontrolle der internationalen Zuständigkeit im Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen 2019, in Christoph Althammer/Christoph Schärtl, Festschrift für Herbert Roth, in Vorbereitung. Wilderspin, Michael;
Vysoka, Lenka “The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention through European lenses”, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 34-49 Xu, Guojian “Comment on Key Issues Concerning Hague Judgment Convention in 2019 “, Journal of Shanghai University of Political Science and Law 35 (2020), pp 1-29 Xu, Guojian “To Establish an International Legal System for Global Circulation of Court Judgments”, Wuhan University International Law Review 5 (2017), pp 100-130 Xu, Guojian “Overview of the Mechanism of Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements Established by HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence No. 2020-02, pp 65-77 Yeo, Terence “The Hague Judgments Convention – A View from Singapore”, Singapore Academy of Law Journal (e-First) 3rd August 2020 (available here) Zhao, Ning “Completing a long-awaited puzzle in the landscape of cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments: An overview of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Swiss Review of International and European Law (SRIEL) 30 (2020), pp 345-368

 

by José Antonio Briceño Laborí, Professor of Private International Law, Universidad Central de Venezuela y Universidad Católica Andrés Bello

The Master’s Program in Private International Law and Comparative Law at the Universidad Central de Venezuela started on October 1st a series of conferences titled “Master Classes – Selected Topics on Private International Law” held in the Aula Maekelt (Maekelt Classroom), named in honor of the beloved late professor Tatiana B. de Maekelt. The conferences will be held in Spanish (unless otherwise indicated), every fifteen days through the application Google Meet (or other virtual conference application).

The Master Classes were inaugurated with a lecture by Professor Eugenio Hernández-Bretón titled “Scope of territorial application of data protection laws: a ‘revived’ conflict of laws?” where professor Hernández-Bretón explained the problems posed by the territoriality of data protection laws and how they can be solved through the principles of Private International Law. This opened a fruitful discussion among the attendees.

The next lecture will be held on October 15 at 4:00 p.m. (Venezuelan Time) by Professor Andrés Carrasquero Stolk on the subject “Enforcement immunity from judgements and awards against Venezuela”. If you want to attend this Master Class you can email the Master’s Program at mdipr.ucv@gmail.com, where they will give you all the information.

To stay current on the future activities of the Master’s Program, you can follow it on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and LinkedIn.

  

TABLE OF CONTENTS

________________

Foreword …………………………………………………………………………………………… xi

Abbreviations …………………………………………………………………………………… xiii

Doctrine

Janeen CARRUTHERS

Discerning the Meaning of “Habitual Residence of the Child” in

UK Courts – A Case for the Oracle of Delphi ……………………………………… 1

Christian KOHLER

The EU Succession Regulation before the German Courts 2016-2019 ….. 37

Mihail DANOV

Cross-Border Litigation – New Data, Initial Brexit Implications in

England and Wales and Long-Term Policy Choices …………………………… 57

Nikitas E. HATZIMIHAIL

On the Doctrinal Beginnings of the Conflict of Laws ……………………….. 101

Interim Measures in International Commercial Litigation

Proceedings of the SICL’s 31st Private International Law Day –

Lausanne, 23 May 2019

Andrea BONOMI

Interim Measures at the Crossroads of International Litigation and

Arbitration – Some Remarks on Concurrent Jurisdiction and Cross-

Border Enforcement ……………………………………………………………………… 137

Alexander LAYTON

Interim Measures in English Law and their Circulation …………………….. 159

Sandrine GIROUD / Noémie RAETZO

The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Interim Measures

in Switzerland ……………………………………………………………………………… 175

Ilaria PRETELLI

The Law Applicable to Provisional and Protective Measures – With

a Focus on the EU System of Ancillary Reliefs ………………………………… 197

Gilles CUNIBERTI

Jurisdiction to Grant Interim Measures in Support of Arbitration –

The Influence of European Law …………………………………………………….. 225

Laurent HIRSCH

Swiss Practice of Interim Relief in International Arbitration ……………… 237

Karim EL CHAZLI / Ahmed HABIB

Interim Measures in International Arbitration – An Arab Perspective …. 259

viii

The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention

Matthias WELLER

The Jurisdictional Filters of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention ….. 279

Marko JOVANOVIC

Thou Shall (Not) Pass – Grounds for Refusal of Recognition and

Enforcement under the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention ………………. 309

Lidia SPITZ

Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments on

Public Policy Grounds in the Hague Judgments Convention –

A Comparison with The 1958 New York Convention ……………………….. 333

Cristina M. MARIOTTINI

Establishment of Treaty Relations under The 2019 Hague Judgments

Convention ………………………………………………………………………………….. 365

National Reports

Yitshak COHEN

International Jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Courts in Claims for

Divorce in Israel ………………………………………………………………………….. 381

Florence GUILLAUME

The Connecting Factor of the Place of Celebration of Marriage in

Swiss Private International Law …………………………………………………….. 399

Yin LIU

Recognition of Foreign Same-Sex Unions in China ………………………….. 425

Richard Frimpong OPPONG / Sam TECLE

The lex loci delicti Rule in Canadian Conflict of Laws ……………………… 457

Eduardo PICAND ALBÓNICO

Law of Succession to Estates of Deceased Persons in Chilean Private

International Law …………………………………………………………………………. 489

Court Decision

Wolfgang FABER

Foreign Proprietary Security Rights Failing to Comply with National

Publicity Standards to Be Accepted? On Case No. 3 OB 249/18S of the

Austrian Supreme Court of Justice …………………………………………………. 509

ix

Forum

Pascal FAVROD-COUNE

The Legal Position of the Weaker Party in B2B Relationships with

Online Platforms in the European Union – An Analysis of Dispute

Resolution Mechanisms in Regulation (EU) 2019/1150…………………….. 523

Maria Chiara MARULLO

“Almost” Universal Jurisdiction …………………………………………………….. 549

Adeline MICHOUD

Public Policy Exceptions in U.S. and European Private International

Law – An Ultimate Fortress for Social and Environmental Standards? 569

Chukwuma Samuel Adesina OKOLI

Choice of Law in The European Union – Common Law Procedure and

Evidence …………………………………………………………………………………….. 589

Sven RIVA

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) in the Swiss

Legal Order …………………………………………………………………………………. 601

Cassius Jean SOSSOU BIADJA

Bridging the Gap in the OHADA Treaty with Respect to the

Interpretative Role of the CCJA in Arbitration Matters ……………………… 639

Index ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 663

In Case C‑471/18 P in which Tanchev AG Opined last month, Germany is asking the CJEU to set aside judgment in  T‑283/15 Esso Raffinage v ECHA by which the General Court annulled entitled a European Chemical Agency (‘ECHA’)  letter entitled ‘Statement of Non-Compliance following a Dossier Evaluation Decision under  [REACH]’. The letter concerned the outcome of ECHA’s compliance check of Esso Raffinage’s registration dossier for a particular chemical substance. The main thrust of its appeal is that the REACH Regulation does not provide for further examination by ECHA of the conformity of the information submitted with the first compliance check decision, and that this matter falls within the competences of the Member States pursuant to the REACH enforcement provisions. In support of its position, it argues that a registrant must conduct animal testing specified in the Evaluation Decision, and cannot submit adaptations at that stage.

Esso and ECHA find themselves in an unusual alliance with animal rights activists who argue that a registrant must be able to submit adaptations in lieu of performing animal testing specified in a first compliance check decision.

The case mostly concerns the respective competences of Member States and ECHA under Reach, I highlight it here for the AG’s emphasis on the relevance of animal welfare in the Regulation: consideration of animal welfare through the reduction of animal testing is one of the objectives pursued by the REACH Regulation. At 158: ‘Viewed more broadly, as indicated by Esso Raffinage and [NGO], the promotion of animal welfare and alternative methods to animal testing in the REACH Regulation reflects Article 13 TFEU, pursuant to which, in formulating and implementing the European Union’s policies, the European Union and the Member States are to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals.’

Animal welfare has come a long way since Michael Rose and I submitted it in CJEU C-1/96 Compassion in World Farming.

Geert.

 

For those interested in #AnimalWelfare & #REACH
Tanchev AG Opinion yday re allocation of competences between #ECHA and MS in assessing conformity of registration dossiers with #REACH.
Broader implications for the promotion of animal welfare under EU lawhttps://t.co/wxaJIxOfV1

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) September 25, 2020

Stephen Park (University of Connecticut School of Business) and Tim Samples (University of Georgia School of Business) have posted Distrust, Disorder, and the New Governance of Sovereign Debt on SSRN.

The unique characteristics of sovereign debt finance provide fertile ground for opportunistic behavior and intractable disputes. Lacking reliable contractual enforcement mechanisms and formal bankruptcy procedures, the sovereign debt restructuring process is hampered by fragmentation, costly standoffs, and unpredictable outcomes. The result is a non-system of ad hoc, decentralized negotiations and litigation that some fear is perpetually at risk of falling apart. To address these concerns, recent years have seen renewed efforts to fix sovereign debt through soft law, public-private collaboration, and informal governance mechanisms, which this Article collectively refers to as sovereign debt governance. This Article focuses on one of the most prominent proposed reforms in sovereign debt governance: the use of creditor committees to facilitate engagement between a sovereign debtor and its private external creditors. Notwithstanding the uniqueness of sovereign debt in international law and financial regulation, we explain how the debtor-creditor relationship reflects a fundamental governance challenge amidst individual distrust and collective disorder. This suggests that the sovereign debt restructuring process can be improved by reforming the procedural rules and institutional frameworks that govern debtor-creditor engagement. To assess this proposition, we examine the use of creditor committees in the current era of sovereign debt, focusing on factors that influence the conduct of debtors and their creditors vis-à-vis each other. Drawing on our observations, we consider the potential value and limitations of creditor committees in the context of sovereign debt governance.

The paper is forthcoming in the Harvard International Law Journal.

On 11 September 2020, the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs presented a draft report with recommendations to the Commission on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability. This report has already triggered first online comments by Geert van Calster and Giesela Rühl; the present contribution aims both at joining and at broadening this debate. The draft report consists of three proposals: first, a directive containing substantive rules on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability; secondly, amendments to the Brussels Ibis Regulation that are designed to grant claimants from third states access to justice in the EU Member States; and thirdly, an amendment to the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations. The latter measure would introduce a new Art. 6a Rome II, which codifies the so-called principle of ubiquity for business-related human rights claims, i.e. that plaintiffs are given the right to choose between various laws in force at places with which the tort in question is closely connected. While the basic conflicts rule remains the place of damage (lex loci damni) under Art. 4(1) Rome II, Art. 6a of the Rome II-draft will allow plaintiffs to opt for the law of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred (the place of action or lex loci delicti commissi in the narrow sense), the law of the country in which the parent company has its domicile, or, where it does not have a domicile in a Member State, the law of the country where it operates.

The need for having a conflicts rule on the law applicable to business-related human rights claims derives from the fact that the draft report proposes a directive which only lays down minimum requirements for corporate due diligence concerning human rights, but which does not contain an independent set of rules on civil liability triggered by a violation of such standards. Thus, domestic corporate and tort laws will continue to play an important role in complementing the rules of the directive once they have been transposed into domestic law. In theory, this problem might be avoided by trying to pass a wholesale EU Regulation containing both rules on corporate due diligence as well as on related issues of civil liability. The EU has already passed the Regulations on Timber and Conflict Minerals, which deal with fairly specific issues and which are limited in their scope. Taking into account, however, that both domestic corporate law and tort law are very intricate bodies of law, the EU legislature so far has, in the overwhelming number of cases, opted for the less intrusive and more flexible instrument of a directive (see, e.g., the Directive [EU] 2017/1132 relating to certain aspects of company law or the Product Liability Directive). The regulatory choice made in the draft report is thus fully consistent with established modes of EU legislation and the principle of subsidiarity.

The fundamental conflicts problem arising in cross-border human-rights litigation is well-known: Art 4(1) Rome II leads to the application of the law in force at the place of damage, which is frequently located in a third world country having a “weak legal system and enforcement (cf. Recital 2 of the draft directive). Starting a suit in such a forum frequently results not in a “home-court advantage” for plaintiffs, but rather diminishes their prospects of success. Insofar, suing a multinational corporation in the EU becomes attractive. While the hurdle of international jurisdiction can be surmounted rather easily in most cases, e.g. by suing the defendant at its general jurisdiction (Art. 4(1) Brussels Ibis), a Member State court will nevertheless, under Art. 4(1) Rome II, apply a third state law. In the discussion about domestic due diligence laws, the widely preferred, if not the only viable solution so far has consisted in characterising such laws as being of an overriding mandatory nature within the meaning of Art. 16 Rome II, thus ensuring their application in spite of the otherwise applicable tort law. Seen from the national perspective, this is of course a sound approach because a Member State legislature simply has no mandate to tinker with the Rome II Regulation itself. Once the question of corporate due diligence and liability is answered at the EU level itself, however, there is no practical need for limiting the doctrinal discussion to a unilateral approach within the narrow framework of Art. 16 Rome II. In light of this fact, it is not surprising that the draft report explores another conflicts tool that has been developed in order to strengthen the protection of weaker parties or general interests, i.e. the principle of applying the law more favourable to a party in a given case. This approach, which nowadays mostly consists in letting the plaintiffs choose which law they consider more favourable to them, is well-known, for example, in the domestic PIL codes of Italy and Germany. In those countries, it even is the general rule in international tort law – a hardly convincing solution, because the victim is not the weaker party in every case (for an in-depth treatment of this issue, see here). Therefore, the more modern Rome II Regulation opted for a more differentiating approach: lex loci damni is the general rule (Art. 4(1) Rome II), whereas the principle of ubiquity – i.e. that a tort may be located in more than one place – is only codified in groups of cases where a specific interest legitimises deviating from this rule: first, environmental damage (Art. 7 Rome II), and secondly, multi-state cases involving cartel damages (Art. 6(3) Rome II). Moreover, while Rome II is not applicable to violations of personality rights, the CJEU’s case law on Art. 7(2) Brussels Ibis has frequently been emulated in domestic conflicts law as well. In sum, the principle of ubiquity has always remained a part of the doctrinal toolbox of EU choice of law.

Insofar, the question must be answered as to whether the ubiquity approach has major advantages compared with the mandatory rule approach. The first factor in favour of applying the principle of ubiquity to business-related human rights claims as well is that it considerably reduces the need for the frequently difficult delineation between human rights violations (Art. 6a Rome II draft) and environmental damages (Art. 7 Rome II). Thus, intricate problems of characterisation and, if necessary, adaptation, are avoided at the outset. In addition, tortious human rights claims may also be rooted in a violation of ILO labour standards (see the definition of “human rights risk” in Art. 3 of the proposed directive). In light of the fact that Art. 8(1) Rome I favours the employee as well by providing for an alternative connection of contractual claims, having a favor laboratoris for labour-related human-rights claims fits into the normative framework of EU law, too.

A second advantage is that the ubiquity approach respects party autonomy (Art. 14 Rome II), whereas the parties could not derogate from a truly mandatory rule (Art. 16 Rome II). Thus, the ubiquity approach facilitates settlements, particularly in human rights cases that involve a large number of claimants.

Thirdly, claimants from the Global South are frequently compelled by the “weak legal systems and enforcement“ of their home country to seek their fortune abroad rather than by weaknesses of their own substantive laws. In many former colonies, the Common Law or the French Code Napoléon are still in force (with modifications) and would in principle allow a successful suit based on a tortious claim. In this regard, giving claimants the option to sue a company in a Member State, while at the same time applying their own law if they so wish, avoids a paternalistic, neo-colonialist stance that rests on the implicit assumption that our Western laws are inherently better than those of developing countries.

A fourth factor arguing for giving plaintiffs the right to choose the applicable law is that the mandatory rule approach will frequently not sufficiently cover the risks inherent in cross-border litigation. In the German Rana Plaza case, the claims of the plaintiffs failed because, under the law of Pakistan, they were barred by the statute of limitations, which was extremely short (just one year) compared with German standards, particularly for a cross-border case (see OLG Hamm NJW 2019, 3527). In light of the CJEU case law on Art. 16 Rome II, however, German limitation periods could hardly be characterised as being of an overriding mandatory nature (ECLI:EU:C:2019:84). Under Art. 6a Rome II-draft, the claimants could simply have chosen German law to govern their case.

On the other hand, the ubiquity approach has been criticised as leading to an impairment of foreseeability because the question of the applicable law remains unanswered until the plaintiffs have made their choice. However, under the mandatory rule approach as well, foreseeability of the applicable law is not necessarily guaranteed. Only a Member State court would apply the due diligence standard as a part of its own lex fori (Art. 16 Rome II), but a company would always face the risk of being sued in a third state where it would not be ensured that a local court would take a foreign mandatory rule into account. Even among the Member States, such a courtoisie could not be taken for granted because, unlike Art. 9(3) Rome I, the Rome II Regulation contains no rule on the applicability of foreign overriding mandatory rules. One might argue that this concern is purely academic because the proposed directive would harmonise the standards of corporate due diligence in the EU anyway. Yet this would be a serious error because the proposal (Art. 1(1) subpara. 2) only establishes minimum requirements.

Thus, the advantages inherent in the ubiquity approach clearly outweigh those of the mandatory rule approach. Nevertheless, it is certainly true that there can be too much of a good thing. Allowing the plaintiffs to choose between four different laws is hardly practical and sets up a very dangerous liability trap for lawyers who would have to perform extremely difficult studies in comparative law before advising their clients on where to sue a defendant. Thus, the number of options should simply be reduced to two: either the place of damage or the habitual residence of the defendant.

The latter option should refer to the habitual residence of a corporation because this is the connecting factor commonly used in the Rome II Regulation (Art. 23 Rome II). There is no practical need to replace it with “domicile” which is a concept deployed in European civil procedure (Art. 63 Brussels Ibis), but not in EU choice-of-law Regulations.

In sum, Article 6a Rome II-draft certainly leaves room for further refinement, but its basic approach rests on a sound doctrinal rationale and has major practical advantages compared with the mandatory rule model so far favoured in domestic due diligence laws. Thus, the EP draft deserves an appropriate and thorough consideration rather than a hasty judgment.

The third issue of the Journal du Droit International for 2020 includes three articles concerned with private international law and several case notes.

In the first article, Caroline Devaux (University of Nantes) offers an analysis of the 2018 Singapore Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (Entrée en vigueur de la Convention de Singapour : de nouveaux horizons pour la médiation commerciale internationale). The English abstract reads:

The United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation was adopted on 20 December 2018 under the auspices of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and will enter into force on 12 September 2020. By establishing an international mechanism for the recognition and enforcement of mediated settlement agreements, the Singapore Convention aims to encourage the use of international commercial mediation in the same way that the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards had facilitated the growth of international commercial arbitration. If successful, the Singapore Convention could transform dispute settlement in the field of international trade.

In the second article, Etienne Thomas discusses the procedure for the return of the child under the Brussels 2 ter Regulation (La procédure de retour de l’enfant à l’aune du règlement Bruxelles 2 ter).

On the 25th of June 2019, the Council of the European Union adopted the regulation Brussels 2 ter, amending substantially the regulation Brussels 2 bis. Like its predecessor, regulation Brussels 2 ter complements, within the European Union, the regime of The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. It also rectifies some dysfunctions attributed to regulation Brussels 2 bis while restoring balance in the relations between the judge of the Member state of origin of the child and the judge of the Member state of execution of the return decision. Since the end of the 1990s, the Council used its best endeavours to deepen the cooperation between Member states in child abduction cases. However, the number of cases is still high. In this regard, the central issue remains, i.e. the end of judicial imbroglios, in the obvious interest of the child.

Finally, Elodie Kleider explores certain issues related to the divorce of French residents working in Switzerland (Travailler en Suisse et divorcer en France : le partage du deuxième pilier, compétence exclusive des juridictions suisses).

Since the revision of 19 June 2015 came into force, Swiss courts have exclusive jurisdiction in divorce cases, to rule upon claims for the allocation of occupational pension against Swiss pension funds (2E pillar) and will apply Swiss law. As a result, French decrees that resolved the issue by taking those assets into account when calculating the compensatory allowance will not be recognized in Switzerland anymore.

The full table of contents is available here.

(This is another version of views for the recent Chinese case on international commercial arbitration provided by Chen Zhi, a PhD candidate in the University of Macau, Macau, PRC)

On 6 August 2020, Guangzhou People’s Intermediate Court (“Guangzhou court”) handed down a ruling on a rare case concerning the enforcement of an award rendered by International Commercial Court of Arbitration (“ICC”) in China,[1] which have given rise to heated debate by the legal community in China. This case was thought to be of great significance by many commentators because it could open the door for enforcement of arbitral awards issued by foreign institution with seat of proceeding in China, and demonstrates the opening-up trend for foreign legal service.
[1]Brentwood Industries Inc. v. Guangdong Faanlong Co, Ltd and Others 2015 Sui Zhong Min Si Fa Chu No.62?

Backgrounds of the facts
The plaintiff, Brentwood Industries, Inc. a USA based company, entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) along with a Supplementary Agreement with three Chinese companies (collectively, “Respondents”) in April 2010. Article 16 of Sale and Purchase Agreement provided as follow:
Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract shall be settled by amicable negotiation between the parties. If such negotiations fail to resolve the dispute, the matter shall be referred to the Arbitration Commission?sic?of International Chamber of Commerce for arbitration at the project site in accordance with international practice. The award thereof shall be final and binding on the Parties. The costs of the arbitration shall be borne by the losing party, unless the Arbitration Commission?sic?decides otherwise. The language of the arbitration shall be bilingual, English and Chinese.

According to Article 3 of Supplementary Agreement, the project site was in Guangzhou.
On 29 May 2011, Brentwood submitted an application to Guangzhou Court, seeking for nullification of the arbitration clause in SPA. The Guangzhou Court handed down a judgement in early 2012 rejecting Brentwood’s application and confirming the validity of the arbitration clause.
Because the ICC does not have an office in Guangzhou, Brentwood subsequently commenced an arbitration proceeding before Arbitration Court of International Chamber of Commerce Hong Kong Office on 31 August of 2012. In the course of proceeding, all three respondents participate in the arbitration presenting their written defenses, and among them, one respondent also raised objection of jurisdiction of the ICC Court to handle the case. The ICC Court decided that the jurisdiction issue shall be addressed by a sole arbitrator after giving all parties equal opportunities to present their arguments. Hence, with the consensus of all parties, the ICC Court appointed a sole arbitrator on 10 January of 2013.

On 3rd April 2013, the case management conference was held in Guangzhou and each party appeared and agreed upon the Term of Reference. After exchange of written submissions and hearing (all attended by all parties), the arbitrator rendered Final Award with the reference No. 18929/CYK (the Final Award) on 17 March 2014.

Enforcement proceeding and judgment
Brentwood sought to enforce the Final Award before the Guangzhou Court, mainly on the basis of non-domestic award as prescribed in Article 1(1) of the “New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958, which China is a signatory party (“New York Convention”). To increase its options in obtaining enforcement, Brentwood also invoked the Arrangement on Reciprocal Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Between SPC and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, in the event the court regards the award as Hong Kong award because conducted by the ICC Hong Kong Office.
The Respondents raised their own objections respectively, which can be summarized to four main points:
(1) non-domestic award under New York Convention was not applicable to the PRC because it had declared reservation on this matter;
(2) the arbitration clause was invalid because the ICC Court was not an arbitration institutions formed in accordance with Article 10 of the PRC Arbitration Law (revised in 2017);
(3) there are substantive errors in the Final Award;
(4) the arbitrator exceeded its power in the Final Award.

The Guangzhou Court ruled that the arbitration clause was valid and its validity had been confirmed in previous case by the same court. As for the nationality and enforceability of the Final Award, the court opined that it shall be regarded as a domestic award which can be enforced in accordance to Article 273 of Civil Procedural Law (revised in 2012), and stipulated that the awards by foreign-related arbitration institutions in China were enforceable before competent intermediated courts. Based on the above reasoning, the court stated that Brentwood had invoked the wrong legal basis, and it refused to amend its claim after the court asked clarification multiple times. Hence, the court concluded that the case shall be closed without enforcing the Final Award, while Brentwood had the right to file a new enforcement proceeding with correct legal basis.

China’s Stance to domestic award by foreign institutions
There is no law directly applicable to awards issued by foreign institution with seat in China. The current legislation divided awards into three categories:
(1) domestic award rendered by Chinese arbitration institutions, which is governed by the Arbitration Law and Civil Procedure Law.
(2) foreign-related award made by Chinese institutions, which is enforceable under Article 273 of Civil Procedure Law.
(3) awards made offshore, which are governed by international conventions (i.e. New York Convention), judicial arrangements and Supreme People Court’s judicial interpretation depending on the place of arbitration.

The problem arises mainly because of the conflict between Chinese law and international conventions. Unlike the common practice in international arbitration across the world, which decides the nationality of award and competent court for remedies thereof based on the seat of arbitration proceeding, Chinese law traditionally relied upon the nationality of arbitration institutions instead. The term “arbitration seat” was not embedded in the legislation framework until the SPC’s Interpretation on Application of Arbitration Law in 2006, and Supreme People’s Court only begins to decide the nationality of award based on the seat since 2009.[2]
Due to the lacuna in law, there is no remedy for such China seated foreign award, and therefore parties may face enormous legal risks: on one hand, such award cannot be enforced by any Chinese court if the losing party refuse to perform it voluntarily, on the other hand, the party who is dissatisfactory with the award or arbitration proceeding has no way to seek for annulment of the award.
In 2008, Ningbo Intermediate Court ruled on a controversial case concerning the enforcement of an ICC award rendered in Beijing,[3] granting enforcement by regarding the disputed award as “non-domestic” award as prescribed in the last sentence of the Article 1(1) of New York Convention, under which the member states may extend the effect of Convention to certain type of award which is made inside its territory while is not considered as domestic for various reasons. It shall be noted that the method used by Ningbo Court is problematic and have given rise to heavy criticisms,[4] because China had filed the reservation set out in Article 1(3) of New York Convection confirming that it will apply the Convention to the “recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of another Contracting State”. In other words, said non-domestic award approach shouldn’t be use by Chinese courts.
With this respect, the approach employed in Brentwood seems less controversial because it does not concern a vague and debatable concept not included in current law. Moreover, by deciding the nationality of award based on the seat of arbitration instead of the base of institution, the Guangzhou Court is actually promoting the reconciliation of Chinese law with New York Convention.

[2]See Article 16 of SPC’s Interpretation on Several Questions in Application of Arbitration Law Fa Shi 2006 No.7, see also SPC’s Notice on Matters of Enforcing Hong Kong Award in Continental China Fa 2009 No. 415. As cited in Gao Xiaoli, The Courts Should Decide the Nationality of Arbitral Award by Seat Instead of Location of Arbitration Institution, People’s Judicature (Volume of Cases), Vol.2017 No. 20, p. 71.
[3] Duferco S.A. v. Ningbo Art & Craft Import & Export Corp. 2008 Yong Zhong Jian No.8.
[4] Author Dong et al, Does Supreme People’s Court’s Decision Open the Door for Foreign Arbitration Institutions to Explore the Chinese Market?, available at http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2014/07/15/does-supreme-peoples-courts-decision-open-the-door-for-foreign-arbitration-institutions-to-explore-the-chinese-market/

Comments
Brentwood decision does not appear out of thin air, but contrarily, it is in line with the opening-up trend in the judicial practice of commercial arbitration in China started in 2013. At that time, the Supreme People’s Court ruled on the landmark Longlide case by confirming the validity of arbitration agreement which require arbitration proceeding conducted by foreign arbitration in China.[5]This stance has been followed and further developed by the First Intermediate Court of Shanghai in the recent Daesung Industrial Gases case,[6]. In this case, a clause providing “arbitration in Shanghai by Singapore International Arbitration Center” was under dispute by two respondents who alleged that foreign based institutions were prohibited from managing arbitration proceeding in China. However the court viewed this assertion as lacking of legal basis in Chinese law, and was contradictory to the developing trend of international commercial arbitration in the PRC.
In addition, local administrative authorities have shown firm stance and laudable attempt to promote the opening-up policy by attracting foreign institutions to carry out business in China. In late 2019, the justice department of Shanghai adopted new policies permitting foreign arbitration bodies to setup branch and carry out business in Lingang Free Trade Pilot Zone, and to set up detailed rules for registration and supervision in this regard.[7] On 28 August of 2020, the State Council agreed to a new proposal jointly by the Beijing government and the Ministry of Commerce on further opening up service industry, allowing world-renowned offshore arbitration institutions to run business in certain area of Beijing after registration at the Beijing justice department and the PRC Justice Ministry. This goes even further than Shanghai’s policy by stipulating that competent authorities shall support preservations for arbitration proceeding, increasing the reach of foreign institution on local justice system.[8]
Nevertheless, there are still lots of works to be done for the landing of foreign institutions:
First, as the lacuna in the law still exists, the judicial policy will continue to be “uncertain, fraught with difficulty and rapidly evolving” in this regard, as described by the High Court of Singapore. [9] Because Article 273 of Civil Procedural Law does not contain award by foreign institution stricto senso, and Guangzhou Court applied it only on analogous basis, this approach is more likely to be an expedient measure by taking into account surrounding circumstances (i.e. the validity of arbitration clause in dispute had been confirmed by the court itself, and all respondents had actively participated in the arbitration proceeding), instead of corollary of legal terms. Further, albeit the decision in Brentwood case is consistent with SPC’s opening-up and arbitration friendly policy, no evidence shows its legal validity was endorsed by SPC like that in Longlide case. Therefore, it is doubtful whether this approach will be employed by other courts in future.
Second, even though the validity and enforceability issues have been settled, the loophole in law concerning auxiliary measures (i.e. interim relief, decision of jurisdiction, etc.) and annulment proceeding remains unsolved, which will probably be another obstruction for foreign institution to proceed with arbitration proceeding in Continental China. The above mentioned proposal by Beijing government provides a good example in this respect, while this problem can only be fully settled through revision of law.

Third, the strict limitations on the content of arbitration agreement remain unchanged. Arbitration agreements providing ad hoc proceeding is still invalid by virtue of the law. Moreover referring dispute without foreign-related factor to foreign institutions is also unacceptable under current judicial policy, even for exclusively foreign-owned enterprises. These limitations have been heavily criticized by legal practitioners and researchers over the years, however whilst the above issues have been formally lifted, the arbitration agreement shall be well drafted in terms of both arbitration institution and the seat of arbitration.

[5] Longlide Packaging Co. Ltd. v. BP Agnati S.R.L. (SPC Docket Number: 2013-MinTa Zi No.13).
[6] Daesung Industrial Gases Co., Ltd.&Another v. Praxair (China) Investment Co., Ltd 2020 Hu 01 Min Te No.83.
[7] See: Measures for the Establishment of Business Bodies by Offshore Arbitration Institutions in the New Lingang Area of the Pilot Free Trade Zone of China (Shanghai) available at http://sfj.sh.gov.cn/xxgk_gfxwj/20191020/3fbcd61ef43147379c5841e28bdf6007.html
[8] See Article 8 of State Council’s Instruction on the Work Plan for the Construction of a National Demonstration Zone for Expanding and Opening Up Beijing’s Services Industry in a New Round of Comprehensive Pilot Project?available at http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2020-09/07/content_5541291.htm?trs=1
[9] BNA v BNB [2019] SGHC 142 para.116.

Written by Stephen Armstrong, lawyer practicing in Toronto, Ontario, Canada with an interest in international arbitration. [Linkedin]

On Friday, October 9, 2020, the United Kingdom Supreme Court released an interesting decision concerning the applicable law governing arbitration agreements in international contracts and the jurisdiction of the courts of the seat of the arbitration to grant anti-suit injunctions. The case is Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi A.S. v 000 Insurance Company Chubb, [2020] UKSC 38.

The full text of the Supreme Court’s decision is available here.

A digestible summary of the case, including the facts, the breakdown of votes, and the reasons, is available here.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court fundamentally disagreed with the Court of Appeal on the role of the seat of the arbitration for determining the law of the arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court held that an express choice of law in the main contract should be presumptively taken as an implied choice of law governing the arbitration agreement. By contrast, the Court of Appeal had held that the law of the seat was the parties’ presumptive implied choice of law for the arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court did, however, affirm the Court of Appeal’s holding that the courts of the seat are always an appropriate forum to grant an anti-suit injunction, regardless of the applicable law.

Unlike other choice of law issues in the UK, this issue is governed by the common law, rather than the EU’s Rome I regulation. This makes the Supreme Court’s decision a common law authority, rather than an EU law authority. I therefore expect that this decision will find purchase throughout the Commonwealth, including my home jurisdiction of Ontario, Canada.

The German Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) in August finally decided the case “Sahyouni” that made it twice to the ECJ (Sahyouni I  and Sahyouni II). The BGH decision (German text here) applied the new German rules on private divorces. The German legislator had enacted these rules after the ECJ declared the Rome III Regulation as only applicable on divorces by a court. Additionally, the court took the opportunity to comment on several other private international law issues. The probably most interesting issues of the case are (1) the new German rules, (2) the treatment of parties with more than one nationality if the connecting factor is nationality and (3) the question whether the unilateral private divorce finally was recognized.

1. German law regarding “private divorces”

Following the second “Sahyouni” decision, new private international law rules were enacted. German private international law follows the principle of “recognition via conflict of laws”, meaning that a divorce not issued by a court decision will only be recognized if it complies with the rules applicable according to German private international law. The new rules basically declared the Rome III Regulation applicable to private divorces mutatis mutandis except for those rules that could not be applied on a private divorce (e.g. the application of lex fori as there is not forum). Furthermore, Article 10 Rome III, the rule that initially triggered the request for the preliminary ruling, is not applicable. Thus, only the “usual” public policy exception can prevent the application of the lex causae.

1. Treatment of double-nationality

The court came to the conclusion that the spouses did not have a common habitual residence as required by Article 8 lit a, b Rome III (mutatis mutandis). So, the question occurred whether the spouses had a common nationality (Article 8 lit. c). In this special case, both spouses did not only have one common nationality but two: German and Syrian. As the Rome III regulation is silent to the treatment of double-nationals (and, furthermore, Rome III only applied mutatis mutandis), the court applied Article 5 para. 1 EGBGB (English non-official translation here). This rule provides in case of double-nationality (1) a prevalence of the German nationality and (2), if no German nationality is in play, a prevalence of the “effective” nationality, ie the nationality that is closer connected to the person, usually the one of habitual residence. In the context of EU private international law, there was a discussion whether these two rules can hold – given that in Garcia Avello and Haddadi similar rules had been regarded as violating EU primarily law, esp. the principle of non-discrimination.

In “Sahyouni” the BGH concluded that both cases were not relevant. The second (and probably non-effective) nationality of both spouses was the Syrian, a non-EU nationality. Thus, the principle of non-discrimination did not apply. Therefore, German law applied on the case. German law does not allow a “private divorce”. For that reason, the divorce was regarded as invalid in Germany.

1. Unilateral divorces and public policy

Finally, the court took the opportunity to mention that the poblic policy exception also would have made the divorce invalid: Article 10 Rome III was not applicable, thus, Article 6 EGBGB (English) would have applied. Contrary to Article 10, Article 6 requires an analysis of the concrete result of the application of the lex causae to determine whether this result violates fundamental principles/values of the German legal system. In Germany, divorces by unilateral declarations (such as talaq or ghet) can be regarded as not violating the German ordre public, especially if both spouses agree on the divorce. From the facts of the case the BGH concluded that in “Sahyouni” the wife did not wish for divorce. For that reason, the recognition of the unilateral declaration would violate the German public policy (“would” as this argument was not decisive for the case – as aforementioned, German law applied).

Written by Giesela Rühl, Humboldt-University of Berlin

 

The protection of human rights in global supply chains has been high on the agenda of national legislatures for a number of years. Most recently, also the European Union has joined the bandwagon. After Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders announced plans to prepare a European human rights to due diligence instrument in April 2020, the JURI Committee of the European Parliament has now published a Draft Report on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability. The Report contains a motion for a European Parliament Resolution and a Proposal for a Directive which will, if adopted, require European companies – and companies operating in Europe – to undertake broad mandatory human rights due diligence along the entire supply chain. Violations will result, among others, in a right of victims to claim damages.

The proposed Directive is remarkable because it amounts to the first attempt of the European legislature to establish cross-sectoral mandatory human rights due diligence obligations coupled with a mandatory civil liability regime. However, from a private international law perspective the Draft Report attracts attention because it also contains proposals to change the Brussels Ia Regulation and the Rome II Regulation. In this post I will briefly discuss – and criticize – the proposed changes to the Rome II Regulation. For a discussion of the changes to the Brussels Ia Regulation I refer to Geert Van Calster’s thoughts on GAVC.

Victims’ unilateral right to choose the applicable law

The proposed change to the Rome II Regulation envisions the introduction of a new Article 6a entitled “Business-related human rights claims”. Clearly modelled on Article 7 Rome II Regulation relating to environmental damage the proposal allows victims of human rights violations to choose the applicable law. However, unlike Article 7 Rome II Regulation, which limits the choice to the law of the place of injury and the law of the place of action, the proposed Article 6a allows victims of human rights violations to choose between potentially four different laws, namely

1) the law of the country in which the damage occurred, i.e. the law of the place of injury,

2) the law of the country in which the event giving rise to damage occurred, i.e. the law of the place of action,

3) the law of the country in which the parent company has its domicile or, where the parent company does not have a domicile in a Member State,

4) the law of the country where the parent company operates.

The rationale behind the proposed Article 6a Rome II Regulation is clear: The JURI Committee tries to make sure that the substantive provisions of the proposed Directive will actually apply – and not fall prey to Article 4(1) Rome II Regulation which, in typical supply chain cases, leads to application of the law of the host state in the Global South and, hence, non-EU law. By allowing victims to choose the applicable law, notably the law  of the (European) parent company, the JURI Committee takes up recommendations that have been made in the literature over the past years.

However, a right to choose the applicable law ex post – while certainly good for victims – is conceptually ill-conceived because it results in legal uncertainty for all companies that try to find out ex ante what their obligations are. Provisions like the proposed Article 6a Rome II Regulation, therefore, fundamentally impair the deterrence function of tort law and increase compliance costs for companies because they have to adjust their behaviour to four – potentially – different laws to avoid liability. It is for this reason that choice of law rules that allow one party to unilaterally choose the applicable law ex post have largely (even though not completely) fallen out of favour.

Alternative roads to European law

The proposed Article 6a Rome II Regulation, however, does not only fail to convince conceptually. It also fails to convince as regards to the purpose that it seeks to achieve. In fact, there are much better ways to ensure that European standards apply in supply chain cases. The most obvious way is to simply adopt the envisioned European instrument in the form of a Regulation. Its provisions would then have to be applied as international uniform law by all Member State courts – irrespective of the provisions of the Rome II Regulation. However, even if the European legislature prefers to adopt a European instrument in the form of a Directive – for political or competence reasons –, no change of the Rome II Regulation is necessary to ensure that it is applied throughout Europe. In fact, its provisions can simply be classified as overriding mandatory provisions in the meaning of Article 16 Rome II Regulation. The national provisions implementing the Directive will then apply irrespective of the otherwise applicable law.

In the light of the above, application of European human rights due diligence standards can be ensured without amending the Rome II Regulation. It is, therefore, recommended that the JURI Committee rethinks – and then abandons – the proposed Article 6a Rome II Regulation.

 

Note: This post is also available via the blog of the European Association of Private International Law.

This post was written by Giesela Rühl, LL.M. (Berkeley), Humboldt-University of Berlin.

The protection of human rights in global supply chains has been high on the agenda of national legislatures for a number of years. Most recently, also the European Union has joined the bandwagon. After Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders announced plans to prepare a European human rights to due diligence instrument in April 2020, the JURI Committee of the European Parliament has now published a Draft Report on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability. The Report contains a motion for a European Parliament Resolution and a Proposal for a Directive which will, if adopted, require European companies – and companies operating in Europe – to undertake broad mandatory human rights due diligence along the entire supply chain. Violations will result, among others, in a right of victims to claim damages.

The proposed Directive is remarkable because it amounts to the first attempt of the European legislature to establish cross-sectoral mandatory human rights due diligence obligations coupled with a mandatory civil liability regime. However, from a private international law perspective the Draft Report attracts attention because it also contains proposals to change the Brussels I bis Regulation and the Rome II Regulation. In this post I will briefly discuss – and criticize – the proposed changes to the Rome II Regulation. For a discussion of the changes to the Brussels I bis Regulation I refer to Geert Van Calster’s thoughts on GAVC.

Victims’ Unilateral Right to Choose the Applicable Law

The proposed change to the Rome II Regulation envisions the introduction of a new Article 6a entitled “Business-related human rights claims”. Clearly modelled on Article 7 Rome II Regulation relating to environmental damage the proposal allows victims of human rights violations to choose the applicable law. However, unlike Article 7 Rome II Regulation, which limits the choice to the law of the place of injury and the law of the place of action, the proposed Article 6a allows victims of human rights violations to choose between potentially four different laws, namely

1) the law of the country in which the damage occurred, i.e. the law of the place of injury,

2) the law of the country in which the event giving rise to damage occurred, i.e. the law of the place of action,

3) the law of the country in which the parent company has its domicile or, where the parent company does not have a domicile in a Member State,

4) the law of the country where the parent company operates.

The rationale behind the proposed Article 6a Rome II Regulation is clear: The JURI Committee tries to make sure that the substantive provisions of the proposed Directive will actually apply – and not fall prey to Article 4(1) Rome II Regulation which, in typical supply chain cases, leads to application of the law of the host state in the Global South and, hence, non-EU law. By allowing victims to choose the applicable law, notably the law of the (European) parent company the JURI Committee takes up recommendations that have been made in the literature over the past years.

However, a right to choose the applicable law ex post – while certainly good for victims – is conceptually ill-conceived because it results in legal uncertainty for all companies that try to find out ex ante what their obligations are. Provisions like the proposed Article 6a Rome II Regulation, therefore, fundamentally impair the deterrence function of tort law and increase compliance costs for companies because they have to adjust their behaviour to four – potentially – different laws to avoid liability. It is for this reason that choice of law rules that allow one party to unilaterally choose the applicable law ex post have largely (even though not completely) fallen out of favour.

Alternative Roads to European law

The proposed Article 6a Rome II Regulation, however, does not only fail to convince conceptually. It also fails to convince as regards to the purpose that it seeks to achieve. In fact, there are much better ways to ensure that European standards apply in supply chain cases. The most obvious way is to simply adopt the envisioned European instrument in the form of a Regulation. Its provisions would then have to be applied as international uniform law by all Member State courts – irrespective of the provisions of the Rome II Regulation. However, even if the European legislature prefers to adopt a European instrument in the form of a Directive – for political or competence reasons –, no change of the Rome II Regulation is necessary to ensure that it is applied throughout Europe. In fact, its provisions can simply be classified as overriding mandatory provisions in the meaning of Article 16 Rome II Regulation. The national provisions implementing the Directive will then apply irrespective of the otherwise applicable law.

In the light of the above, application of European human rights due diligence standards can be ensured without amending the Rome II Regulation. It is, therefore, recommended that the JURI Committee rethinks – and then abandons – the proposed Article 6a Rome II Regulation.

The members of the European Association of Private International Law have recently received, by e-mail, the first issue of the Association’s Newsletter.

The issue can now be accessed by all readers of this blog here.

It comes with updates on the EAPIL conference in Aarhus, which is scheduled to take place on 27, 28 and 29 May 2020, and with news on the activities of the Association, notably the creation of a Working Group on the Feasibility of a European Private International Law Act, chaired by Thomas Kadner Graziano, and the establishment of the Young EU Private International Law Research Network, co-chaired by Martina Melcher and Tamás Szabados.

The Newsletter also provides a presentation of four more Working Groups whose creation has recently been proposed: a Working Group on Interests in European private international law, led by Caroline Kleiner; one on The law applicable to the validity of choice of court agreements, coordinated by Laurence Usunier and Eva Lein; one on Liberalizing the cross-border taking of evidence within the EU, proposed by Gilles Cuniberti; and one on A future European Regulation on international property law, headed by Eva-Maria Kieninger.

The members of the Association are warmly encouraged to contribute to the above activities, or launch new ones!

One of the articles in the Newsletter is about this blog. The blog is seeking new permanent editors and a social media manager. Interested EAPIL members are invited to get in touch with Pietro Franzina at pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.

Finally, the Newsletter provides an account of the current status of the EAPIL membership, less than one year after its creation. The Association has now 216 members, coming from 40 countries around the world.

This issue’s guest editorial is by Patrick Kinsch, Secretary General of GEDIP (Groupe européen de droit international privé), and is titled Fraternal greetings from a fellow association of European private international law.

The ‘transparency’ or ‘notification’ Directive 2015/1535 (the successor to Directive 98/34) featured twice at the CJEU yesterday. In Case C‑711/19 Admiral Sportwetten, the Court held that a national tax rule that provides for taxation of the operation of betting terminals does not constitute a ‘technical regulation’ that needs to be notified under the Directive. In Case C-514/19 Union des industries de la protection des plantes it held more directly than Kokott AG had opined, that France had validly informed the Commission of the need to take measures intended, in particular, to protect bees by banning the use of 3 active substances of the neonicotinoid family which had been authorised for use under the relevant EU procedure. That procedure is regulated by Directive 1107/2009 on plant protection products.

The complication in the case in essence is a result of the dual procedure for national safeguard measures as a result of the existence of both the PPP and the notification Directive. May a communication of a Member State under the Notification Directive, double as notification of emergency measures under the PPP Directive? The CJEU held it can, provided the notification contains a clear presentation of the evidence showing, first, that those active substances are likely to constitute a serious risk to human or animal health or to the environment and, second, that that risk cannot be controlled without the adoption, as a matter of urgency, of the measures taken by the Member State concerned, and where the Commission failed to ask that Member State whether that communication must be treated as the official provision of information under the regulation.

The Court referred to its findings in C-116/16 Fidenato, that a Member State’s power, provided by an EU act, to adopt emergency measures requires compliance with both the substantive conditions and procedural conditions laid down by that act (a requirement, I would add, which conversely also applies to the European Commission), but adds that a notification to the Commission under Article 71(1) of Regulation 1107/2009 requires only that the Member State concerned ‘officially informs’ that institution, without having to do so in a particular manner.

More generally, the Court emphasises the principle of sound administration imposed upon the EC, which explains its insistence on the EC having proactively to ensure the Member State concerned be aware of its obligations under the EU law concerned or indeed adjacent law. A certain parallel here may be made with the rules of civil procedure which require from those soliciting the courts that they approach the court with clean hands.

The Court in essence, I submit, finds that, the consequences for the Member State concerned in failing to meet the requirements for it to be able to make use of a safeguard provision in secondary law being so great, the conditions imposed on them must be met by a strict due diligence on behalf of the European Commission.

Of note is that the judgment does not entail any finding on the substantive legality of the French ban.

Geert.

 

 

A foreign judgment is generally not to be reviewed on the merits at the recognition and enforcement stage. Yet, an exception has always been carved out for fraud under the common law rules on the basis that ‘fraud unravels everything’ (Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702, 712 per Lord Denning). Thus, English courts allow a judgment debtor to raise fraud at the recognition and enforcement stage even if no new evidence is adduced and fraud had been considered and dismissed by the court of origin (Abouloff v Oppenheimer & Co (1882) 10 QBD 295). This seeming anomaly with the prohibition against a review of the merits of a foreign judgment has been justified on the basis that where fraud is concerned, the court of origin is misled, not mistaken (Abouloff). The Abouloff rule has been much criticized, but successive courts have refused to depart from it (see also Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7, [2012] 1 WLR 1804, [116] (Privy Council)). Further, in Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd ([2019] UKSC 13, [2020] AC 450) which is a case on fraud and domestic judgments, the Supreme Court held that, generally, no requirement that the fraud could not have been uncovered with reasonable diligence in advance of obtaining the judgment would be imposed on the party seeking to set aside the judgment on the basis of fraud. As one of the oft-cited criticisms for the Abouloff rule is that it is out of step with how English courts deal with domestic judgments, Takhar may have the effect of further embedding the Abouloff rule.

In Hong Pian Tee v Les Placements Germain Gauthier ([2002] SGCA 17, [2002] 1 SLR(R) 515), the Singapore Court of Appeal criticized the Abouloff rule on the basis that it would encourage ‘endless litigation’ and ‘judicial chauvinism’ (at [27]-[28]). Drawing on Canadian and Australian authorities on fraud and foreign judgments, the Court held that insofar as intrinsic fraud (ie, fraud which goes to the merits of the case) is concerned, the foreign judgment may only be impeached where ‘fresh evidence has come to light which reasonable diligence on the part of the defendant would not have uncovered and the fresh evidence would have been likely to make a difference in the eventual result of the case’ (at [30]).

The current position on fraud and domestic judgments under Singapore law is that the fresh evidence rule applies, albeit flexibly (see, eg, Su Sh-Hsyu v Wee Yue Chew [2007] SGCA 31, [2007] 3 SLR(R) 673). However, the Court of Appeal recently considered Takhar in a decision concerning a domestic adjudication determination (AD). Adjudication is available under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, Rev Ed 2006) and is a quick and inexpensive process to resolve payment disputes arising from building and construction contracts. In Facade Solution Pte Ltd v Mero Asia Pacific Pte Ltd ([2020] SGCA 88), the Court of Appeal held that an AD could be set aside on the ground of fraud. The party raising fraud would have to establish that the facts which were relied on by the adjudicator were false; that the other party either knew or ought reasonably to have known them to be false; and that the innocent party did not in fact, subjectively know or have actual knowledge of the true position throughout the adjudication proceedings (at [30]). The Court emphasised that ‘there is no requirement on the innocent party to show that the evidence of fraud could not have been obtained or discovered with reasonable diligence during the adjudication proceeding’ (at [31]). It cited Takhar and the High Court of Australia decision of Clone Pty Ltd v Players Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [2018] HCA 12 with approval, the High Court of Australia having also rejected the reasonable diligence requirement in the context of a fraudulently obtained domestic judgment in the latter case.

The Court held (at [33]; emphasis added):

‘Where it is established that an AD is infected by fraud, it is neither material nor relevant to inquire as to whether the innocent party could have discovered the truth by the exercise of reasonable diligence. A fraudulent party cannot be allowed to claim that he could have been caught had reasonable diligence been exercised, but because he was not caught, he should be allowed to get away with it. Such a view would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and it would be unprincipled to hold in effect that there is no sanction on the fraudulent party because he could have been found out earlier. Parties dealing with the court, and in the same vein, with the adjudicator in the adjudication of their disputes under the Act are expected to act with utmost probity.’

This passage suggests that the position on fraud and domestic judgments would change in the near future. It also raises the question whether the requirement of reasonable diligence in respect of intrinsic fraud and foreign judgments would survive for long. On the one hand, the Court in Hong Pian Tee had said that: ‘There is no logical reason why a different rule should apply in relation to a foreign judgment’ (at [27]) (ie, vis-à-vis a domestic judgment). The requirement of reasonable diligence has also been criticized on the basis that the court would be ‘taking the side of the fraudster against his negligent opponent’ (Briggs, ‘Crossing the River by Feeling the Stones; Rethinking the Law on Foreign Judgments’ (2005) 8 SYBIL 1, 21). On the other hand, there was a heavy emphasis on judicial comity in Hong Pian Tee. The Court observed that: ‘It is … vitally important that no court of one jurisdiction should pass judgment on an issue already decided upon by a competent court of another jurisdiction …. It must be borne in mind that the enforcement forum is not an appellate tribunal vis-à-vis the foreign judgment’ (at [28]).

It remains to be seen whether the Singapore Court of Appeal would in future resile from Hong Pian Tee. At least, the recent developments in the domestic context intimate that the point is arguable.