Conflictoflaws

This post was written by Luana Matoso, a PhD candidate and research associate at Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg, Germany.

Brazil has changed its law on international forum selection clauses. In June this year, a new statutory provision came into force, adding, unexpectedly, new requirements for their enforceability. In this attempt to redistribute domestic litigation, the Brazilian legislator may well have thrown out the baby, international forum selection clauses, with the bathwater.

The Recognition of International Forum Selection Clauses Under Brazilian Law

International forum selection clauses are among the most controverted topics in Brazilian Private International Law. Although the positive effect of such clauses has been generally accepted in Brazil since 1942, their negative effects have been in center of the legal debate ever since. Until very recently, Brazilian courts would not enforce a clause that selected a foreign forum, arguing that parties could not, by agreement, oust the jurisdiction of Brazilian courts established by law — an approach quite similar to that adopted by U.S. courts prior to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bremen v Zapata Off-Shore Co. (1972).

Brazilian courts seemed to follow suit in 2015, when — as a result of serious efforts by legal scholars — a provision explicitly recognizing the derogatory effect of forum selection clauses was included in the latest reform of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). According to Art. 25 CCP, Brazilian courts do not have jurisdiction over claims in which the parties have agreed to the exclusive jurisdiction of a foreign forum. The provision references Art. 63 §§1-4 CCP, which sets out the requirements for national forum selection clauses. Thus, national and international forum selection clauses are subject to similar requirements for validity, including that the agreement must be in writing and relate to a particular transaction.

The New Amendment of June 2024: A Setback for Party Autonomy

What seemed settled since 2015 is now back in the center of debate. On June 4, 2024, the Brazilian National Congress passed a law amending Art. 63 CCP and creating additional requirements for forum selection clauses. According to the new wording of Art. 63 §1 CCP, a forum selection clause is valid only if the chosen court is “connected with the domicile or residence of one of the parties or with the place of the obligation.”

Essentially, this new law significantly limits the autonomy of the parties in selecting a forum of their choice. Before the amendment there were no restrictions on the forum to be selected; now Brazilian courts will only enforce clauses in which the chosen forum is related to the dispute. In practice, the choice of a “neutral” forum in a third State will not be enforceable in Brazilian courts.

International Forum Selection Clauses: The Wrong Target?

The application of the new requirements also to international clauses may have resulted from an oversight on the part of the legislator. The explanatory memorandum accompanying the draft bill indicates that the main objective of the reform was to address a problem of domestic, not international, forum shopping. The document specifically cites the current congestion of the courts of the Federal District, the federal unit in which Brazil’s capital, Brasília, is located. It is known for its efficient courts, which have increasingly received disputes that have no connection to the court other than a forum selection clause. Unlike common law jurisdictions, Brazilian courts may not decline jurisdiction based on forum non conveniens. Rather, forum selection clauses, if valid, will bind the jurisdiction of the chosen court. Describing this practice as “abusive” and “contrary to the public interest,” the legislator sought to address this (domestic) issue.

The memorandum makes no mention of international forum selection clauses. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the amendment also applies to international forum selection clauses. The explicit reference of Art. 25 CCP to Art. 63 §1 leaves little room for an argument to the contrary.

The circumstances of this apparent oversight have led to strong criticism. Scholars have argued that the legislative process lacked publicity and public participation, especially from legal experts. The process was indeed fast-paced. Less than 14 months elapsed between the introduction of the draft bill and its enactment. After less than 10 months in the Chamber of Deputies, the bill was approved in the Senate under an emergency procedure and entered into force immediately after its publication on June 4, 2024.

And Now? First Clues in Recent Case Law

The implications of the new amendment for courts and parties remain unclear. First, is the new amendment applicable only to forum selection agreements concluded after its entry into force, on June 4, 2024, or for court proceedings commenced after that date? Second, what is a sufficient connection of the chosen court to “the domicile or residence of one of the parties or with the place of the obligation” under Art 63 §1 CCP?

Three recent decisions provide a few clues. A district court in the county of Santos, São Paulo, addressed the temporal application of the rule in a decision of November 7, 2024, holding that the new amendment applies only to contracts concluded after June 4, 2024, since the selected forum and the enforceability of the clause have a significant impact on the parties’ risk calculation when entering into the contract. Applying the law as of before the amendment, the court enforced a forum selection clause in a bill of lading that selected New York courts to hear the dispute, even though both parties to the contract were seated in Brazil.

On June 24, 2024, another decision, this time by a district court in the state of Ceará, enforced a jurisdiction clause in which the chosen forum had no direct connection with the dispute or the domicile of the parties. The dispute arose between a Brazilian seafood retailer and the Brazilian subsidiary of the global shipping company Maersk. Without even mentioning the new amendment, the court stayed proceedings on the basis of the forum selection clause contained in the bill of lading, which selected the courts of Hamburg, the German headquarters of Maersk’s parent company, Hamburg Süd, as having jurisdiction over the dispute. This leaves open the question of whether, in the future, the choice of the seat of the parent company of one of the parties as the place of jurisdiction will constitute a sufficient connection as required by the new amendment.

Another interesting decision was rendered on September 4, 2024, in the county of Guarulhos, also in the state of São Paulo, concerning a forum selection clause in a publishing contract between an author and a publisher, both domiciled in Brazil. The clause selected Lisbon, Portugal, as the forum for hearing the dispute. In enforcing the clause, the court stayed proceedings brought by the author in Brazil. Although the new amendment was not explicitly mentioned in the decision, the court’s reasoning included the justification that the clause was enforceable since the contract provided that the title, which was the subject of the publishing contract, was also to be marketed in Portugal. This could be an indication that the place of performance of the contract establishes a sufficient connection with the “place of the obligation” pursuant to Art. 63 §1 CCP. Referring to Article 9 of the Law of Introduction to the Brazilian Civil Code, scholars argue that the place of conclusion of the contract may also satisfy this requirement.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the broader or narrower approach taken by the courts in interpreting the new requirements will determine the extent to which the amendment will restrict the parties’ ability to choose where to litigate their disputes. Equally important for parties, as a factor of predictability, is the question of how consistent this interpretation will be among the various courts in Brazil. To date, I am not aware of any decision in which a Brazilian court has expressly refused to enforce a forum selection clause on the basis of the new wording of the law. How this will play out in practice remains to be seen.

This post is cross-posted at Transnational Litigation Blog.

Humboldt University Berlin is launching an English-language LL.M. program!

While Humboldt University has been offering a variety of Master-programs in German for many years, this will be the first general LL.M. program in English. The program will provide students with an in-depth understanding of German and European law, enriched with and very much in the context of global perspectives.

The program will start in October 2025 and aims to attract graduates from all over the world with strong foundational knowledge in their respective legal system and at least one year of professional experience. Applications for the program will be possible from 1 to 31 March 2025.

More information is available on this flyer and online.

For any questions, please contact int.rewi@hu-berlin.de.

Following the conference held previously this year (reported here), the book on Private International Law and Global Trends (Medunarodno privatno pravo i globalni trendovi) has been published by the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts (Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, HAZU) within the series Modernisation of Law edited by the academic and professor Jaksa Barbic.

The book includes the following contributions (all in Croatian, while the titles are translated for the convenience of the readers of this blog):

Jaksa Barbic
Editorial

Ines Medic, University of Split, Faculty of Law
Challenges of globalization of private international law for national judiciary

Ivana Kunda, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Law
Have frontier digital technologies surpassed the boundaries of private international law?

Mirela Zupan, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Paula Poretti, Jura Golub, University of J. J. Strossmayer in Osijek, Faculty of Law
Foreign public documents in the digital age

Danijela Vrbljanac, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Law
Breach of personal data in private international law

Tena Hosko, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Law
Protection of workers in private international law

Dora Zgrabljic Rotar, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Law
The effect of the Hague Judgments Convention of 2019 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions in the Republic of Croatia

The book is presented at the HAZU official webisite, while it can be bought for a symbolic price at stores such as here.

Conventions & Instruments

On 1 November 2024, the 2007 Child Support Convention entered into force for Kyrgyzstan. At present, 52 States and the European Union are bound by the 2007 Child Support Convention. More information is available here.

On 21 November 2024, North Macedonia deposited its instrument of ratification of the 2005 Choice of Court Convention. With the ratification of North Macedonia, 36 States and the European Union are bound by the 2005 Choice of Court Convention. It will enter into force for North Macedonia on 1 March 2025. More information is available here.

 

Meetings & Events

From 28 October to 1 November 2024, the Working Group on Matters Related to Jurisdiction in Transnational Civil or Commercial Litigation met for the seventh time. Pursuant to its mandate, the Working Group made further progress on the development of draft provisions on parallel proceedings and related actions or claims. More information is available here.

From 4 to 8 November 2024, the Working Group on Parentage / Surrogacy met for the third time. Pursuant to its mandate, the Working Group continued its consideration of draft provisions for one new instrument on legal parentage generally, including legal parentage resulting from an international surrogacy agreement. More information is available here.

From 12 to 14 November 2024, the Experts’ Group on Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) held its second working meeting. Pursuant to its mandate, the Experts’ Group made further progress on the study of the applicable law and jurisdiction issues raised by the cross-border use and transfers of CBDCs. More information is available here.

On 13 November 2024, the Working Groups on the Practical Handbook and Country Profile for, respectively, the 1965 Service Convention and 1970 Evidence Conventions met online to discuss the draft Service and Evidence Country Profiles. The Working Group on the 1970 Evidence Convention met again on 26 November 2024 to review and refine updates to the Practical Handbook.

From 13 to 15 November 2024, the Regional Workshop on Intercountry Adoption: Sharing Experiences on the Effective Implementation of the 1993 Adoption Convention in Africa was held in Lomé (Togo). The workshop provided a forum for francophone and lusophone States in Africa to discuss good practices in the implementation and operation of the 1993 Adoption Convention and, more broadly, in the international protection of children. More information is available here.

On 13 and 27 November 2024, the Administrative Cooperation Working Group met to discuss and finalise updates to the Country Profile on the 2007 Child Support Convention in the light of comments received following its circulation among Members and Contracting Parties. More information is available here and here.

From 18 to 21 November 2024, an informal brainstorming session on future meetings of the Special Commission on the 1980 Child Abduction and 1996 Child Protection Conventions was held online. More information is available here.

On 19 November 2024, the HCCH and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan co-hosted the 2024 Webinar on the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention in Asia and the Pacific. More information is available here.

On 21 November 2024, the HCCH hosted a workshop on Recognition of Non-EU Judgments in the EU Member States, organised by the European Association of Private International Law’s Young Research Network in cooperation with the Center for International Legal Cooperation’s Balkan Enforcement Strengthening Project. More information is available here.

 

These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.

The book titled Private International Law on Rights in rem in the European Union. Derecho internacional privado sobre derechos reales en la Unión Europea and edited by Maria Font-Mas of the Universitat Rovira i Virgili in Spain, has just been released with Marcial Pons.

The book is the result of the several years of collaborative work (referred to here and here) of the researchers from different countries convened by Maria Font Mas under the project PID2020-112609GB-I0 “Property Rights System over Tangible Goods in the Field of European Private International Law: Aspects of International Jurisdiction and Applicable Law”, funded by the Spanish Government.

The great achievement of the editor is in her ability not only to gather and coordinate many authors of various provenance around under-researched topic of rights in rem in PIL but also to have this book published in open access so that it is available to all under no limitations except to have the internet access. The book may be viewed and downloaded at https://marcialpons-openaccess.es/index.php/juridicas/catalog/book/5 as a single volume or chapter-by-chapter. In case you prefer the paper version, it is available for purchase here.

The contributors (in the order of appearance) are: Maria Font-Mas, Georgina Garriga Suau, Josep M. Fontanellas Morell, Héctor Simón Moreno, Christopher A. Whytock, Rocío Caro Gándara, Josep M. Fontanellas Morell, Iván Heredia Cervantes, Nerea Magallón Elósegui, Ángel Serrano de Nicolás, Albert Font i Segura, Pau Oriol Cosialls Perpinyà, Ilaria Pretelli, Carmen Parra Rodríguez, Cristina González Beilfuss, Diana Marín Consarnau, Eva-Maria Kieninger, Francisco J. Garcimartín Alférez, Afonso Patrão, Pietro Franzina, Gilles Cuniberti, Jonathan Schenk, Birgit van Houtert, Alfonso Ortega Giménez, Ivana Kunda, Janeen M. Carruthers, Sabrina Ferrazzi, Guillermo Palao Moreno, Rosa Miquel Sala, Silvana Canales Gutiérrez and Vésela Andreeva Andreeva.

This post was written by Prof. Dr. Giesela Rühl, LL.M. (Berkeley), Humboldt University of Berlin, and is also available via the EAPIL blog.

As reported earlier on this blog, Germany has been discussing for years how the framework conditions for the settlement of (international) commercial disputes can be improved. Triggered by increasing competition from international commercial arbitration as well as the creation of international commercial courts in other countries (as well as Brexit) these discussions have recently yielded a first success: Shortly before the German government coalition collapsed on November 6, the federal legislature adopted the Law on the Strengthening of Germany as a Place to Settle (Commercial) Disputes (Justizstandort-Stärkungsgesetz of 7 October 2024)[1]. The Law will enter into force on 1 April 2025 and amend both the Courts Constitution Act (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz – GVG) and the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessodnung – ZPO)[2] with the aim of improving the position of Germany’s courts vis-à-vis recognized litigation and arbitration venues – notably London, Amsterdam, Paris and Singapore. Specifically, the new Law brings three innovations.

English as the language of proceedings

The first innovation relates to the language of court proceedings: To attract international disputes to German courts, the new Law allows the German federal states (Bundesländer)[3] to establish “commercial chambers” at the level of the regional courts (Landgerichte) that will offer to conduct proceedings in English from beginning to end if the parties so wish (cf. § 184a GVG). Before these chambers parties will, therefore, be allowed to file their briefs and all their statements in English, the oral hearings will be held in English and witnesses will be examined in English. In addition, commercial chambers will communicate with the parties in English and write all orders, decisions and the final judgment in English. Compared to the status quo, which limits the use of English to the oral hearing (cf. § 185(2) GVG) and the presentation of English-language documents (cf. § 142(3) ZPO) this will be a huge step forward.

The new Law, however, does not stop here. In addition to allowing the establishment of (full) English language commercial chambers at the regional court level it requires that federal states ensure that appeals against English-language decisions coming from commercial chambers will also be heard (completely) in English in second instance at the Higher Regional Courts (Oberlandesgerichte) (cf. § 184a(1) No. 1 GVG). The new Law also allows the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) to conduct proceedings entirely in English (cf. § 184b(1) GVG). Unfortunately, however, the Federal Supreme Court is not mandated to hear cases in English (even if they started in English). Rather, it will be in the discretion of the Federal Supreme Court to decide on a case-by-case basis (and at the request of the parties) whether it will hold the proceedings in English – or switch to German (cf. § 184b GVG). The latter is, of course, unfortunate, as parties cannot be sure that a case that is filed in English (and heard in English at first and second instance) will also be heard in English by the Federal Supreme Court thus reducing incentives to commence proceedings in English in the first place. But be this as it may: it is to be welcomed that the German federal legislature, after long and heated debates, finally decided to open up the German civil justice system to English as the language of the proceedings.

Specialized “commercial courts” for high-volume commercial disputes

The second innovation that the new Law brings relates to the settlement of high-volume commercial cases (whether international or not). To prevent these cases from going to arbitration (or to get them back into the state court system) the new Law allows the German federal states to establish specialized senates at the Higher Regional Courts. Referred to as “commercial courts” these senates will be distinct from other senates in that they will be allowed to hear (certain) commercial cases in first instance if the parties so wish (cf. § 119b(1) GVG) thus deviating from the general rule that cases have to start either in the local courts (if the value in dispute is below € 5.000,00) or in the regional courts (if the value in dispute is € 5.000,00 or higher). In addition, commercial courts will conduct their proceedings in English (upon application of the parties) and in a more arbitration-style fashion. More specifically, they will hold a case management conference at the beginning of proceedings and prepare a verbatim record of the hearing upon application of the parties (cf. §§ 612, 613 ZPO). Commercial courts will, hence, be able to offer more specialized legal services as well as services that correspond to the needs and expectations of (international) commercial parties.

It is unfortunate, however, that the German legislature was afraid that the commercial courts would be flooded with (less complex) cases – and, therefore, decided to limit their jurisdiction to disputes with a value of more than € 500.000,00 (cf. § 119b(1) GVG). As a consequence, only parties with a high-volume case will have access to the commercial courts. This is problematic for several reasons: First, it is unclear whether a reference to the value of the dispute is actually able to distinguish complex from less complex cases. Second, any fixed threshold will create unfairness at the margin, as disputes with a value of slightly less than € 500.00,00 will not be allowed to go to the commercial courts. Third, requiring a minimum value can lead to uncertainty because the value of a dispute may not always be clear ex ante when the contract is concluded. Fourth, a fixed threshold may create the impression of a two-tier justice system, in which there are “luxury” courts for the rich and “ordinary” courts for the poor. And, finally, there is a risk that the commercial courts will not receive enough cases to build up expertise and thus reputation. Against this background, it would have been better to follow the example of France, Singapore, and London and to open commercial courts for all commercial cases regardless of the amount in dispute. At the very least, the legislature should have set the limit much lower. The Netherlands Commercial Court, for example, can be used for any disputes with a value higher than € 25,000.00.

Better protection of trade secrets

The third innovation, finally, concerns the protection of trade secrets. However, unlike the other innovations the relevant provisions are not limited to certain chambers or senates (to be established by the federal states on the basis of the new Law), but apply to all civil courts and all civil proceedings (cf. § 273a ZPO). They allow the parties to apply for protection of information that qualifies as a trade secret within the meaning of the German Act on the Protection of Trade Secrets (Gesetz zum Schutz von Geschäftsgeheimnissen – GeschGehG). If the court grants the application, all information classified as a trade secret must be kept confidential during and after the proceedings (cf. §§ 16 Abs. 2, 18 GeschGehG). In addition, the court may restrict access to confidential information at the request of a party and exclude the public from the oral hearing (§ 19 GeschGehG). The third innovation, thus, account for the parties’ legitimate interests in protecting their business secrets without unduly restricting the public nature of civil proceedings, which is one of the fundamental pillars of German civil justice. At the same time, it borrows an important feature from arbitration. However, since the new rules are concerned with the protection of trade secrets only, they do not guarantee the confidentiality of the proceedings as such. As a result, the parties cannot request that the fact that there is a court case at all be kept secret.

Success depends on the federal states

Overall, there is no doubt that the new Law is to be welcomed. Despite the criticism that can and must be levelled against some provisions, it will improve the framework for the resolution of high-volume (international) commercial disputes in German courts. However, there are two caveats:

The first caveat has its root in the Law itself. As it places the burden to establish commercial chambers and commercial courts on the federal states, the extent to which it will be possible for civil court proceedings to be conducted entirely in English and the extent to which there will be specialized senates for high-volume commercial disputes will depend on whether the federal states will exercise their powers. In addition, the practical success of the Law will also depend on whether the federal states will make the necessary investments that will allow commercial chambers and commercial courts to strive. For example, they will need to make sure that commercial chambers and commercial courts are staffed with qualified judges who have the necessary professional and linguistic qualifications and ideally also practical experience to settle high-volume (international) commercial disputes. In addition, they will have to ensure that judges have sufficient time to deal with complex (national and international) cases. And, finally, federal states will have to ensure that sufficiently large and technically well-equipped hearing rooms are available for the kind of high-volume disputes that they seek to attract. Should federal states not be willing to make these kinds of investments commercial chambers and commercial courts will most likely be of limited use.

The second caveat concerns the likely success of the new Law with regards to international disputes. In fact, even if the federal states implement the new Law in a perfect manner, i.e. even if they establish a sufficient number of commercial chambers and commercial courts and even if they make the investments described above, it seems unlikely that German courts will become sought-after venues for the settlement of international commercial disputes. This is because the German civil justice system has numerous disadvantages when compared with international commercial arbitration. In addition, the attractiveness of German courts suffers from the moderate reputation and poor accessibility of German substantive law. Both problems will not disappear with the implementation of the new Law.

Against this background, the new Law holds the greatest potential for national high-volume commercial disputes. However, it should not be forgotten that these kinds of disputes represent only a small fraction of the disputes that end up before German courts each year. In order to really strengthen Germany as a place to settle dispute, it would, therefore, be necessary to address the problems that these cases are facing. However, while the (now former) Federal Minister of Justice made promising proposals to this effect in recent months, the collapse of the German government coalition in early November makes is unlikely, that these proposals will be adopted any time soon. In the interest of the German civil justice system as a whole, it is, therefore, to be hoped that the proposals will be reintroduced after the general election in early 2025.

 

[1]     Gesetz zur Stärkung des Justizstandortes Deutschland durch Einführung von Commercial Courts und der Gerichtssprache Englisch in die Zivilgerichtsbarkeit (Justizstandort-Stärkungsgesetz) vom 7. Oktober 2024, Bundesgesetzblatt (Federal Law Gazette) 2024 I Nr. 302.

[2]        Note that both the translations of the GVG and the ZPO do not yet include the amendments introduced through the new Law discussed in this post.

[3]        The German civil justice system divides responsibilities between the federal state (Bund) and the 16 federal states (Bundesländer). While the federal state is responsible for adopting unified rules relating to the organization of courts as well as the law of civil procedure (Art. 74 No. 1 of the Basic Law), the federal states are responsible for administering (most) civil courts on a daily basis (Art. 30 of the Basic Law). It is, therefore, the federal states that organize and fund most civil courts, appoint judges, and manage the court infrastructure.

Introduction

The New Zealand Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against a permanent anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunction in relation to a default judgment from Kentucky, which the plaintiff alleged had been obtained by fraud: Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609. The Court upheld the findings of fraud. It also did not rule out the possibility of an injunction being an appropriate remedy in the future. However, the Court concluded that an injunction could only be granted as a step of last resort, which required the plaintiff to pursue its right of appeal against the Kentucky judgment.

The background to the case is set out in a previous post on this blog (see also here). In summary, the case involved allegations of “a massive worldwide fraud” perpetrated by the defendants — a New Zealand company (Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd), an Australian resident with a long business history in New Zealand (Mr Kenneth Wikeley), and a New Zealand citizen (Mr Eric Watson) — against the plaintiff, Kea Investments Ltd (Kea), a British Virgin Islands company owned by a New Zealand businessman. Kea alleged that the US default judgment obtained by WFTL was based on fabricated claims intended to defraud Kea. Kea claimed tortious conspiracy and sought a world-wide anti-enforcement injunction, which was granted by the High Court, first on an interim and then on a permanent basis. Wikeley, the sole director and shareholder of WFTL, appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against the grant of the injunction. At the same time, it upheld the High Court’s declarations that the Kentucky default judgment was obtained by fraud and that it was not entitled to recognition or enforcement in New Zealand. It also upheld the High Court’s damages award (for legal costs incurred in overseas proceedings in defence of the tortious conspiracy).

 

The judgment

There are two points from the judgment that I want to focus on here: the Court’s emphasis on comity, and the relevance of fraud as a basis for an anti-enforcement injunction.

Comity

An entire section of the judgment is dedicated to the concept of comity, which the Court relied on as a guiding principle. The Court said that it was necessary “to confront, head on, the appropriateness, in comity terms, of an order which … in substance, is addressed to United States courts and which could, at least in theory, provoke countermeasures, with the result that no legal system will be able to administer justice” (at [167]). Drawing on work by Professor Andrew Dickinson, the Court confirmed that comity was not simply “a matter of judicial collegiality” (at [164]). In the international system, comity was like “the mortar which cements together a brick house” (citing Judge Wilkey in Laker Airways Ltd v Sabena Belgian World Airlines 731 F 2d 909 (DC Cir 1984) at 937).

Anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions had the effect of interfering with comity, because they interfered with “the interests of a foreign legal system in administering justice within its own territory” (at [164]). Drawing again on Dickinson’s work, the Court said that anti-suit/enforcement injunctions “push[ed] at the boundaries of … the global system of justice” (at [166]). The Court disagreed (at [189]) with the High Court’s observation that the injunction “may even be seen as consistent with the requirements of comity”, insofar as the injunction had the effect of restraining a New Zealand company from abusing the process of the Kentucky court to perpetuate a fraud. The United States courts were “unlikely to look for or need the protection of New Zealand courts” and were “well capable of identifying fraud and ensuring no reward flows from it” (at [189]).

Extreme caution was necessary, therefore, before exercising the power to grant an anti-suit/enforcement injunction (at [176]). Comity required “the court to recognise that, in deciding questions of weight to be attached to different factors, different judges operating under different legal systems with different legal policies may legitimately arrive at different answers” (at [177]). Anti-enforcement injunctions were especially rare and were “characterised by particularly careful assessments of whether the relief sought is truly necessary and consistent with comity” (at [180]).

Because of these concerns, an anti-enforcement injunction should be “a measure of last resort” (referring again to Dickinson, at [185]). This meant that the Court in this case had to “at least await the outcome of the appeal process [in Kentucky] before considering whether to issue an anti-suit or anti-enforcement judgment” (at [186]).

 Fraud as a distinct category?

In the anti-enforcement context, some scholars have treated fraud as a distinct category of case that may justify the grant of an injunction: see, most recently, Hannah L Buxbaum and Ralf Michaels “Anti-enforcement injunctions” [2024] 56 NYU Journal of International Law and Politics 101 at 110-111, citing Ellerman Lines Ltd v Read [1928] 2 KB 144 (CA) in support. The Queensland Supreme Court also relied on Ellerman Lines when granting relief in aid of the New Zealand interim orders (Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley (No 2) [2023] QSC 215 at [178]–[188], with the Queensland Court of Appeal upholding the reasoning in Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] QSC 201).

The Court of Appeal’s reasoning casts doubt on the existence of fraud as a distinct category. In [176], the Court adopted Dickinson’s “convenient collection” of the following four categories that may justify anti-suit relief (see fn 157): that “the foreign court has acted or is likely to act in excess of its jurisdiction under international law, in violation of the requirements of natural justice, otherwise in a manner manifestly incompatible with New Zealand’s fundamental policies, or that its proceedings are likely significantly and irreversibly to interfere with the administration of justice in New Zealand”.

On the facts of the present  case, the Court thought that the category of natural justice was most relevant. The Court considered it “almost inevitable” that, had the New Zealand court been in the Kentucky court’s position, it would have set aside the default judgment, on the basis that the proceeding had not been drawn to Kea’s attention and sufficiently substantial grounds of defence had been made out (at [182]). The Court said that, in these circumstances, “[a]t least if the judgment were final, with all appeal rights exhausted and against a New Zealand entity … a New Zealand court might well consider that, despite its respect for the United States courts, a sufficiently fundamental policy issue was engaged – one ultimately based in principles of natural justice and fair hearing rights – that an anti-suit or anti-enforcement order should issue” (at [183], emphasis added).

What is more, the Court distinguished the case from Ellerman Lines Ltd v Read [1928] 2 KB 144 (CA) on the basis “there was no contractual jurisdiction clause that the New Zealand Court was seeking to enforce” (at [187]). It expressed “caution” about the proposition that the pursuit of the Kentucky proceedings should be injuncted because the proceeding was fraudulent and therefore “inherently unconscionable”, referring to criticism by Dickinson that the language of unconscionability is “a vestige of an earlier monotheistic society [which] no longer performs any useful role and obscures the real reasons for granting injunctions” (at [190]). A conclusion by the New Zealand court that the Kentucky proceeding was vexatious or oppressive had “the capacity to look patronising from the perspective of the United States – something which in comity terms should be avoided” (at [191]). The issue of fraud could be addressed by the United States court, “with all of the advanced legislative and common law apparatus available to it to do justice between the parties” (at [191]).

On the other hand, the Court clarified that it was not suggesting that “it would never be appropriate for a New Zealand court to issue a worldwide anti-enforcement order” (at [188], emphasis in original).

 

Comments

The Court’s detailed engagement with comity is heartening for anyone who is concerned about the destabilising effects of anti-suit/enforcement injunctions on the international system. Yet the reasoning is also underpinned by tension.

First, the Court seemed to eschew fraud as a distinct basis for the award of an anti-enforcement injunction, while accepting the appropriateness of determining whether the foreign proceeding was fraudulent (and granting declaratory relief to that effect). If the Court is willing to entertain a claim that the pursuit of a foreign proceeding forms part of a tortious conspiracy, why should this not provide a potential basis for an injunction (as opposed to, say, natural justice)?

This potential contradiction had flow-on effects for the scope of the Court’s orders, because the Court refused to discharge the appointment of interim liquidators of WFTL. Interim liquidators had been appointed after attempts by the defendant to assign the benefit of the Kentucky default judgment from WFTL to a United States entity, to “insulate” WFTL from “any New Zealand judgment” (at [43]). The Court considered that the appointment of interim liquidators was “for valid domestic reasons by ensuring assets available to satisfy any New Zealand judgment remained under the control of New Zealand parties” and that it was “unaffected by discharge of the anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions” (at [196], [211](e)). The Court acknowledged that the interim liquidators could face pressure to enforce the Kentucky default judgment “in order to meet the New Zealand judgment debt and costs awards against WFTL – this despite the judgments of the High Court and this Court finding claims under the Coal Agreement to be fraudulent and made pursuant to conspiracy” (at [201]). The Court did not “at this stage express any view about how the principles of international comity might respond to that particular scenario” (at [201]). Why is it a “valid domestic reason” to protect the satisfaction of a New Zealand judgment for damages that were incurred in defending the foreign fraudulent proceeding, but it is not a “valid domestic reason” to prevent enforcement of a judgment that is the result of such a fraudulent proceeding?

Second, while the injunction had the potential to interfere with comity, it was also, arguably, a tool for dialogue. The Court of Appeal was clear that the injunction could not be understood as “an act of comity”; and it thought it was unlikely that the Kentucky court would want or would need the help of the New Zealand Court. At the same time, it would be strange if the Kentucky court did not take account of the finding of fraud, or the concerns about natural justice. In this way, the Court of Appeal’s decision to treat the injunction as a last resort, and to require the plaintiff to pursue an appeal in Kentucky, may be seen as part of an unfolding dialogue between the courts that would not have happened – and would not have been possible – without the potential of anti-enforcement relief. At the very least, the decision will serve as a pointer to the Kentucky court that the default judgment has cross-border implications and gives rise to a risk of conflicting orders.

Third, the Court seemed to characterise the plaintiff’s decision to bring proceedings in New Zealand as a strategic move, noting that “WFTL’s New Zealand registration and its status as a trustee of a New Zealand trust provided a jurisdictional leg up with which to challenge enforcement [of the Kentucky default judgment]” (at [194]). This characterisation sits uncomfortably with the Court’s acceptance that the Kentucky proceeding – including the defendants’ choice of Kentucky as a forum – was itself based on fraudulent fabrications. It is one thing to conclude that the plaintiffs should have persevered in Kentucky by pursuing their appeal there, on the basis that a foreign court must be left to control its own proceedings. It is another to say that the plaintiff, by turning to the New Zealand court for help, was using WFTL’s registration in New Zealand as a “jurisdictional leg up” (cf also the Court’s discussion in [183] that there would be a potential case for an anti-enforcement injunction if the default judgment was in breach of a New Zealand entity’s rights to natural justice – that is, if the plaintiff was a New Zealand entity). Where a New Zealand entity is used as a vehicle for fraud, the New Zealand court may have a legitimate interest – or even a responsibility – to stop the fraud, albeit that an injunction is a measure of last resort.

Fourth, the Court of Appeal distinguished Ellerman Lines on the basis that the latter case involved an English jurisdiction clause. This reasoning suggests that anti-suit/enforcement relief may be an appropriate response to foreign proceedings brought in breach of a New Zealand jurisdiction clause, but that it may not be an appropriate response to foreign fraudulent proceedings between strangers. Why is it worse to suffer a breach of a jurisdiction clause, than to be dragged into a random foreign court on the basis of a fraudulent claim (including a forged jurisdiction clause in favour of the foreign court)? The Court did not address this question. The Court also did not address – but noted, in a different part of the judgment – the question whether a breach of a jurisdiction clause should justify injunctive relief as a matter of course (see footnote 158). Clearly, the Court did not think that this question was relevant to its decision to distinguish Ellerman Lines, but a more detailed discussion would have been helpful, to ensure the coherent development of the court’s power to grant anti-suit/enforcement injunctions.

On 2 December 2024, at 6 pm CET, a free webinar will take place in preparation of the 2025 edition of the EAPIL Winter School on Multistate Torts, which will be held on-site in Como between 10 and 15 February 2025 (see here for the full program and further details).

The webinar will give a glimpse of what the Winter School will be about and will briefly present some of its hot topics, such as online defamation, climate change litigation, artificial intelligence and crypto values.

The speakers are some of those who will be lecturing at the Winter School, namely Javier Carrascosa González (University of Murcia), Anatol Dutta (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich), Thomas Kadner Graziano (University of Geneva), Tobias Lutzi (University of Augsburg), Satu Heikkilä (Administrative Law Judge), Silvia Marino (University of Insubria), Nadia Rusinova (The Hague University, attorney at law), Geert van Calster (KU Leuven) and Anna Wysocka-Bar (Jagiellonian University).

The webinar will also offer an opportunity to provide information about the EAPIL Winter School.

Join the free seminar to discover what awaits you during the Winter School week, and…if you want to know more, enrol and come to Como in February!

Those interested in attending the webinar shall write at eapilws@gmail.com in order to receive the Teams link.

More information on the Winter School is found here. To enrol in the Winter School, please fill in this form.

As foreign law assumes an increasingly significant role in judicial practice, the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law is pleased to announce a Workshop on Providing Information on Foreign Law to Courts, which will take place in Lausanne on November 26.

Renowned experts, both individuals and institutions, will delve into practical challenges and share insights, comparing practices from various countries, including England, France, Germany, Poland, Switzerland and USA.

Presentations will be conducted in English, in German or in French.

For further information, please contact: marie-laure.lauria@isdc-dfjp.unil.ch

The program for the workshop is available below or can be accessed here.

 

INDIVIDUAL EXPERTS

9.30-11.00

Chair: Dr. Lukas Heckendorn, Deputy Director, Swiss Institute of Comparative Law

• Experiences in Poland and Germany compared

Prof. Arkadiusz Wudarski, European University Viadrina Frankfurt

• A Common Law Experience

Prof. Franz Werro, University of Fribourg and Georgetown University

• French Experiences

Prof. Gustavo Cerqueira, Université Côte d’Azur

Discussion

11.00-11.30: Coffee break

 

INSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS

11.30-12.30

Chair: Dr. Ilaria Pretelli, Legal Adviser, Swiss Institute of Comparative Law

• The German Approach: The Max Planck Guidelines

Jan Peter Schmidt, Priv.-Doz., Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg

• The Swiss Approach: experience of SICL

Lukas Heckendorn Urscheler, Deputy Director, Swiss Institute of Comparative Law

Discussion

12.30-13-30 : Lunch

BARCAMP

13.30-16.00

Moderator: Prof. Nadjma Yassari, Director, Swiss Institute of Comparative Law

A Barcamp session is an open and interactive format that encourages collaboration and idea-sharing. Since all participants join every session, the process is highly collaborative, ensuring focused, inclusive, and enriching discussions for everyone involved.

• Proposing Topics: Any participant can suggest a topic, which will be guided by a moderator.
• Moderated Discussions: A designated moderator ensures the session stays focused and that everyone has the chance to contribute.
• Flexible Structure: Sessions can take the form of a short presentation, group discussion, or collaborative brainstorming.
• Open Exchange: Everyone is encouraged to actively contribute their ideas, perspectives, and questions.
• Shared Learning: The goal is to exchange knowledge, explore new approaches, and learn from each other.

16.00: closure of event

Issue 4 of Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2024 was just published. It contains the following articles, case notes, and book review:

Katherine Reece-Thomas,  “State Immunity and Sunken Treasure: Finders will not Always be Keepers”

Anthony Kennedy, “Unanswered Questions”

Michael F Sturley†, “The Centenary of the Hague Rules: Celebrating a Century of International Conventions Overmining the Carriage of Goods by Sea”

2024 marks the centenary of the Hague Rules, which still play a central role in allocating the risk of cargo loss or damage. To celebrate that milestone, it is valuable to review the history, beginning with the pre-existing risk allocation. When maritime nations applied widely accepted principles differently, efforts began in the late nineteenth century to achieve uniformity by international agreement. Those efforts failed until domestic legislation exacerbated the problem and created greater pressure for a solution. Even after agreement was reached in 1924, however, another fourteen years passed before the Convention was widely in force. Since then, international uniformity has been challenged in multiple ways, and the story continues to this day.

 

Marcus Teo, “Foreign Law as Fact”

In English law, “foreign law”, as applied under choice-of-law rules, is a question of fact. This “fact doctrine”, however, faces scepticism for three reasons: it remains unclear whether foreign law is truly treated as a question of fact, why it is so treated, and what the precise fact-in-issue is. This article addresses these concerns. It demonstrates that, today, foreign law is treated like any other question of fact. It then argues that foreign law should be classified as a question of fact, and should refer to foreign legal rulings, because this facilitates the accurate prediction of foreign decisions.

 

Adrian Briggs, “Book Review – Dicey+100. Albert Venn Dicey: A Centennial Commemoration”

 

 

The University of Luxembourg is proud to host a special event to present the newly released book, European Account Preservation Order – A Multi-jurisdictional Guide with Commentary, published by Bruylant/Larcier.

Co-edited by leading experts Dr. Nicolas Kyriakides (University of Nicosia), Dr. Heikki A. Huhtamäki (Huhtamäki Brothers Attorneys Ltd), and Dr. Nicholas Mouttotos (University of Bremen), this comprehensive guide offers a detailed analysis of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014, with contributions from 26 Member States.

The first panel will explore practical challenges in the use of EAPO in Luxembourg and France, moderated by Dr. Elena Alina On?anu (University of Tilburg) and featuring insights from Dr. Laurent Heisten (Moyse & Associates Law Firm, Luxembourg), Alexandra Thépaut (Étude Calvo & Associés, Luxembourg) and Lionel Decotte (SAS Huissiers Réunis, France). The second panel will examine future developments and reforms, moderated by Dr. Nicholas Mouttotos (University of Bremen), with contributions from Prof. Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg) Dr. Carlos Santaló Goris (University of Luxembourg) and Dr. Nicolas Kyriakides (University of Nicosia).

The event will take place on December 3rd, 2024 at Room A401, University of Luxembourg – Weicker Building, from 11:00 to 13:15 CET.

See more details and registration.

On Tuesday, December 3, 2024, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 2:45 p.m. – 4:15 p.m. (CET). Professor Stéphanie Francq (UCLouvain) will speak, in English, about the topic

“Overriding Mandatory Rules in Family Matters and Personal Status, Are Belgians the Only Ones?”

 

Are we really witnessing the occurrence of overriding mandatory rules in family matters and personal status? A new phenomenon seems indeed to surface in this area with examples of substantive rules or values, announced by the lawmaker, together with a clear intention to apply in identified international situations. Belgian law offers a series of examples. But are Belgian the only ones using this method? German law has also offered a better known and rather unfortunate illustration with the Act to prevent child marriage. These rules, their upsides and downsides, deserve close consideration. First and obviously for technical reasons: are we indeed facing overriding mandatory rules, similar to those concerning business transactions? Or is this some new form of public policy exception? Are these rules carefully designed legal objects or rather clumsy attempts to secure the application of the lex fori? Beyond the technicalities, the presentation will tend to investigate potential reasons behind this new phenomenon.

It turns out that these rules might have something to tell us about the current state of conflict of laws, its politics and its theories, and its need to look beyond its own borders.

 

The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.

If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.

Private International Law and Sustainable Development in Asia

Date: 23 November 2024
Venue: Wuhan University School of Law, Conference Hall 120

Zoom link: Meeting ID: 846 5342 1671 Passcode: 206716

22 November 2024

06:00 PM: Conference Dinner

23 November 2024

08:30 – 09:00 AM: Registration and Welcome Coffee

09:00 – 09:05 AM: Opening Remarks

• TANG Zheng, Associate Dean, Wuhan University Academy of International Law and Global Governance

09:05 – 9.15 AM: Welcome Remarks

• HUANG Jin, President, China Society of Private International Law

9:15- 9:35 AM: Keynote Address (Private International Law and Sustainable Development)

• Ralf Michaels, Director, Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law
• Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Professor, University of Edinburgh
• Hans van Loon, former Secretary General, HCCH

9:35–9:50 AM: Conference Photo and Coffee Break

9:50 – 10:50 AM: Panel 1: Family/Equality

• Chair: Ralf Michaels
• Panelists
  • CHEN, Rong-Chwan (National Taipei University)
    • Taiwan’s Path toward SDG 5 in Private International Law
  • JOLLY, Stellina; MALLA, Prakriti (South Asian University)
    • International Child Abduction Jurisprudence in India and Nepal: an Evaluation of Gender Consideration in the Attainment of SDG 5
• Discussant
  • NISHITANI, Yuko (Kyoto University)
  • GAN Yong (Wuhan University)
• Q & A

10:50 – 11:05 AM: Coffee Break

11:05-12:05 Panel 2: Migration

• Chair: Hans van Loon
• Panelists
  • NISHITANI, Yuko (Kyoto University)

• • • Migration and SDGs in Family Relationships

• • YANG, Zixuan (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law)
    • Sustain the Legal Identity for Intra-Regional Circular Migrants in Asia: From Private International Law towards Openness, Inclusiveness and Equity in the Greater Bay Area
• Discussant
  • Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm
  • CHEN Rong-Chwan
• Q & A

12:05 – 01:15 PM: Lunch Break

01:15 – 02:45 PM: Panel 3: The Role of the State

• Chair: Ignacio de la Rasilla, HAN Depei Chair, Wuhan University
• Panelists:
  • MU, Ke (Ocean University of China)
    • State-owned Enterprises’ Role in Marching towards the Sustainable Development Goals
  • FAN, Zihao (Peking University)
    • Cities’ Roles in Transnational Access to Justice and the Sustainable Value therein: An Observation on Jurisdictional Rules of Mainland China
  • ZHOU, Jiabao (University of Amsterdam)
    • Private International Law as Foreign Relations Law? Reorienting Chinese Private International Law towards Sustainable Development
• Discussant:
  • Ralf Michaels
  • HE Qisheng (Peking University)
• Q & A

2:45 – 3:00 PM: Coffee Break

3:00-4:30 Panel 4: Environment/Climate Change

• Chair: Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm
• Panelists:
  • CHONG, Adeline; SCHACHERER, Stefanie (Singapore Management University)
    • Extra-territorial Liability and Enforcement: Finding Ways to Tackle Haze Pollution in Southeast Asia
  • BÙI, Thi Quynh Tran (Thuongmai University); NGUYEN, Thi Hong Trinh (Hue University)
    • Exploring the Potential for Climate Change Litigation in Vietnam: A Forward-Looking Assessment
  • REYES, Anselmo (International Judge of the Singapore International Commercial Court, Arbitrator)
    • The Impartial Judge, Climate Change and the Conflict of Laws
• Discussant:
  • Hans van Loon
  • XU Qingkun (Wuhan University)
• Q & A

4:30-5:35 Presentations: The International Framework

• Chair: TANG Zheng
• Panelists:
  • GOH ESCOLAR, Gérardine (HCCH)
    • Private International Law Frameworks for the Digital and Green Economies: Crucial Tools for the Realisation of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
  • ZHAO, Ning (HCCH)
    • Navigating Transnational Litigation in Asia: The HCCH’s Contribution to Achieving SDGs through Effective Legal Frameworks
  • ZHU, Lei (Wuhan University)
    • Regulating Global Anti-Competitive Conduct and the Role of Private International Law: Lessons from China
• Discussant:
  • TU Guangjian (Macao University)
• Q & A

5:35-5:40 Closing Remarks

06:00 PM: Conference Dinner

 

 

Join us online tomorrow for a free seminar on the CISG in Australia, delivered by Dr Benjamin Hayward.

Abstract

Australia adopted the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) – a treaty intended to harmonise cross-border sale of goods law – in 1989. Australia gives the treaty local effect via a range of State, Territory, and Commonwealth Acts. A problem has arisen, however, with respect to the wording of that legislation. Some Australian courts consider that the treaty only applies, on a provision-by-provision basis, where it is inconsistent with local law. According to international understandings, however, the CISG is intended to displace local law to its subject-matter extent when it applies.

With reference to Australia’s statutory interpretation rules, and the legislative histories preceding the CISG’s adoption in Australia, this seminar identifies a parliamentary intention to apply the CISG in full in Australia. It therefore identifies that Australia intended to adopt the CISG in a manner consistent with its internationally understood effect. This seminar also examines the nature of Australia’s CISG cases to-date, and identifies how future courts can better engage with the treaty in order to realise its objectives of supporting international trade.

Presenter

Benjamin Hayward is an Associate Professor in the Department of Business Law at Monash University. He has published in Australia and internationally in private international law, international commercial arbitration, and the CISG. Ben currently teaches Australian contract law, consumer law and statutory interpretation (amongst other private law topics) at the Monash Business School.

Chair

Cara North is Special Counsel with Corrs Chambers Westgarth Melbourne, and Treasurer of AAPrIL. She practises in international litigation, arbitration and private international law. Cara has worked as a legal officer for the Hague Conference on Private International Law, and for five years as a consultant to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference.

Details

Date and Time: Tuesday 19 November 2024, 5:00pm to 6:00pm (AEDT: GMT+11)*

* ACT, NSW, Tas and Vic; NZ, 7:00pm-8:00pm; SA, 4:30pm-5:30pm; Qld, 4:00pm-5:00pm; NT, 3:30pm-4:30pm; WA, 2:00pm-3:00pm

Online only: Zoom Link

Zoom ID: 879 8362 4800

RSVP: by email to reid.mortensen@usq.edu.au

Anyone is welcome to attend this seminar. There is no cost.

About the Australasian Association of Private International Law

The Australasian Association of Private International Law (AAPrIL) is a group of people committed to furthering the understanding of private international law in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific region. To lean more, visit our website or follow us on LinkedIn.

The University of Geneva is organising the second edition of the Executive Training on Civil Aspects of International Child Protection (ICPT). For more information, click here.

The University of Geneva’s ICPT, offered by the Children’s Rights Academy, is designed to:

• Explore innovative approaches to uphold the fundamental rights of children in transnational situations
• Learn best practices for supporting unaccompanied minors and displaced children seeking asylum
• Collaborate with experts from various fields to create holistic and effective child protection strategies
• Understand the dynamics of how different organisations and stakeholders can work together to protect children

Programme of the 2nd Round 2024 – 2025:

Module 1: Children’s Individual Rights in Transnational Parental Relationships

28 November 2024, 14:15 – 18:15

Module 2: International and Comparative Family Law

19 December 2024, 14:15 – 18:15

Module 3: Vulnerable Migration

27 February 2025, 14:15 – 18:15

Module 4: Practice of Child Protection Stakeholders: Inter-agency Co-operation in Context

10 April 2025, 14:15 – 18:15

The Department ‘Law & Anthropology ’ of the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology in Halle, Germany, is offering positions in the Max Planck Research Group ‘Transformations in Private Law: Culture, Climate, and
Technology’ headed by Mareike Schmidt for two doctoral students with projects on Cultural Embeddedness of Private Law.

The full advertisement can be found here.

A new issue of ZEuP – Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht is now available and includes contributions on EU private law, comparative law and legal history, legal unification, private international law, and individual European private law regimes. The full table of content can be accessed here.

The following contributions might be of particular interest for the readers of this blog:

• Chancen und Risiken eines Virtual Registered Office (VRO)
  Stefanie Jung and Anne-Kathrin Haag on the virtualization of the registered office of a business: A virtualisation of the registered office and, possibly also the domestic business address would eliminate the need for a physical connection with the country of registration and thus save effort and costs relating to the establishment of a business. This article explores the opportunities as well as the risks of such a virtualisation. At the same time, the existing requirements for the registered office, the administrative office, the domestic business address, and the business premises will be reflected upon.
• Laloivit-elle? Erste Entwicklungen in der Rechtsprechung zum französischen Lieferkettengesetz
  Laura Nasse on the French Supply Chain Act: The French Supply Chain Act that entered into force on 27.3.2017 is a prime example for national and European legislation in the field of business and human rights. It has inspired the German Supply Chain Act and acted as a benchmark in negotiations on the European Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. Based on recent case law, this article analyses the impact of the French legislation in practice.
• ECJ on “Quasi-Anti-Suit Injunctions” – Old Wine in New Bottles? – Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 7 September 2023
  Madeleine Petersen Weiner comments on a decision by the ECJ on “Quasi-Anti-Suit Injunctions”.
• Konkretisierung des Orts des Schadenseintritts nach Art. 7 Nr. 2 Brüssel Ia-VO in den sogenannten „Dieselfällen“ – Urteil des EuGH (Neunte Kammer) vom 22.2.2024
  Marko Andjic discusses a decision by the ECJ on the interpretation of Article 7 of the Brussels Ibis regulation concerning the place where the harmful event occurred.

Written by Lena-Maria Möller,

College of Law, Qatar University

 

The recent introduction of a civil family law regime in the United Arab Emirates – the first of its kind in the region – has attracted considerable attention, both on this blog and beyond.[1] A key unresolved issue has been the law’s applicability in Abu Dhabi, particularly regarding access for Muslim foreigners to the emirate’s newly established Civil Family Court. Scholars and legal practitioners navigating this new framework have long observed a surprising discrepancy, if not an ideological tension, between the law’s drafters and those interpreting it, especially at the higher court level. Central to this divergence has been whether Abu Dhabi’s Law on Civil Marriage and Its Effects (Law No. 14/2021 of 7 November 2021, as subsequently amended) and its Procedural Regulation (Chairman Resolution No. 8/2022 of 1 February 2022) apply exclusively to non-Muslims or extend also to Muslim foreigners who are citizens of non-Muslim jurisdictions. A recent judgment by the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation in late October affirmed jurisdiction over Muslim foreigners with dual French-Moroccan nationality, marking a potential shift in personal jurisdiction. This ruling may expand access to a legal framework devoid of religious underpinnings for many Muslim expatriates in the UAE.

 

The Legal Framework

The civil family law regime in the UAE comprises three main legislative components. With the exception of Abu Dhabi, which pioneered a separate non-religious legal framework in late 2021, the Federal Civil Personal Status Code (Law No. 41/2022 of 3 October 2022) governs matters of marriage, divorce, child custody, and inheritance exclusively for non-Muslim citizens and non-Muslim foreigners. The law’s scope is explicitly outlined in Article 1, which clearly differentiates based on religious affiliation rather than nationality.

The earlier local legislation in Abu Dhabi, Law No. 14/2021 of 7 November 2021, initially applied only to non-Muslim foreigners but was soon amended, by Law No. 15/2021 of 15 December 2021, to significantly broaden its scope. Most notably, the terms ‘foreigner’ and ‘non-Muslim foreigner’ were replaced by ‘persons covered by the provisions of this law,’ a concept further clarified in Article 5 of the Procedural Regulations. Under these provisions, the law applies to civil marriage, its effects, and all civil family matters for:

1. Non-Muslim UAE citizens, and
2. Foreign nationals from countries ‘that do not primarily apply Islamic Sharia in personal status matters,’ as determined by the Instruction Guide issued by the Chairman of the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department. For dual citizens, the nationality associated with their UAE residency prevails.

Additionally, the law also applies to marriages concluded in countries that do not primarily apply Islamic Sharia in personal status matters, as outlined in the Instruction Guide (which has yet to be issued), as well as to all marriages conducted under the provisions on civil marriage.

The latter two cases are particularly broad, potentially also covering Muslim citizens who married abroad, yet they are rarely cited by the courts. Judicial discussions tend to focus on paragraph 2 of Article 5, which addresses foreigners from specific non-Muslim jurisdictions. The situation is further complicated by the fact that Law No. 14/2021 also includes jurisdictional provisions and scope-of-application rules, which remain equally ambiguous.[2]

Article 1 of Law No. 14/2021 defines ‘persons covered by the law’ as ‘the foreigner or non-Muslim citizen, whether male or female.’ Unfortunately, the Arabic version of this definition is open to multiple interpretations. This ambiguity arises because the adjective ‘non-Muslim,’ placed after the word ‘citizen’ and set off by commas, could be read as referring either solely to citizens or to both foreigners and citizens. As a result, debates over the phrasing of this definition are a frequent element in pleadings before the Abu Dhabi Civil Family Court.

Moreover, in its amended form, Article 3 of Law No. 14/2021 stipulates that if a marriage has been concluded in accordance with this law, it shall apply with respect to the effects of the marriage and its dissolution. A narrow interpretation of this clause would deny jurisdiction whenever the parties did not marry before the Abu Dhabi Civil Family Court, even if they are non-Muslim foreigners married in a civil ceremony elsewhere. However, it seems clear that the drafters did not intend to exclude this core target group from the law’s jurisdiction. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine that jurisdiction would be automatically assumed in cases involving Arab Muslims – even GCC citizens – who married in a civil ceremony in Abu Dhabi, where the Civil Family Court currently allows civil marriages for all but Muslim citizens of the UAE.

The ambiguity of these clauses grants considerable discretion to the courts, and current case law on personal jurisdiction for Muslim foreigners does not yet indicate a consistent approach or prevailing interpretation. For this reason, the recent judgment by the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation may indeed mark a turning point in the application of civil family law in Abu Dhabi.

 

Previous Case Law

To date, the most significant ruling by the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation regarding personal jurisdiction over Muslim foreigners was issued in late April 2024. As discussed on this blog, the judgment denied a French-Lebanese husband and his estranged Mexican-Egyptian wife access to the Abu Dhabi Civil Family Court due to their shared Muslim faith. Initially, the Civil Family Court accepted jurisdiction and, at the husband’s request, dissolved the couple’s brief marriage, a decision that was upheld on appeal. However, the Court of Cassation overturned this ruling, determining that the Civil Family Court lacked jurisdiction based on the parties’ religious affiliation.

This case also highlights the inconsistent, and at times contradictory, approach of the Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal on this issue. The same panel of judges has sometimes upheld jurisdiction in cases involving foreign Muslims, while in other instances, it has denied the application of Law No. 14/2021. The available case law suggests that factors such as whether the individuals are Muslim by birth or by conversion, hold dual citizenship – including that of an Arab country – or have disputed religious affiliations do not consistently influence the court’s jurisdictional decisions.

The Abu Dhabi Civil Family Court generally takes the broadest view of jurisdictional rules, generally affirming that Muslim foreigners may access the court. This stance persists despite frequent jurisdictional challenges by opposing parties in cases involving Muslims, who typically argue that the Muslim Personal Status Court is the proper forum for such disputes. Recently, such arguments have increasingly referenced the Federal Civil Personal Status Code and its exclusive jurisdiction over non-Muslims, a claim likely bolstered by the Court of Cassation’s April 2024 ruling, which disregarded the widely accepted view that the Federal Civil Personal Status Code does not apply in Abu Dhabi.

 

The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation Judgment of 30 October 2024

The case decided by the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation in late October involved a French-Moroccan Muslim couple who had married in a civil ceremony in France. Their marriage was dissolved by the Abu Dhabi Civil Family Court in June 2023 at the husband’s request. The wife contested this ruling, arguing that the court lacked both territorial jurisdiction – since their last shared residence was in Dubai – and personal jurisdiction, given their shared Muslim faith. She further contended that ongoing proceedings before the Dubai Personal Status Court, along with a pending divorce case in France, should have precluded the Abu Dhabi Civil Family Court from issuing a ruling. The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal upheld the divorce decision, leading her to appeal to the emirate’s highest court.

From a personal jurisdiction perspective, the Court of Cassation’s judgment is notable for its textbook-like analysis of what constitutes the effective citizenship of dual nationals. Unlike previous cases before both the Court of Cassation and the Court of Appeal, which largely overlooked this aspect of Article 5(2) of Law No. 14/2021, this ruling explicitly concludes that the parties’ French citizenship takes precedence, as it is the nationality tied to their residency in the UAE. The judgment also addresses the fact that the parties married in a civil ceremony in France, invoking Article 5(3) of Law No. 14/2021. The court explains that, since France does not ‘primarily apply Islamic Sharia in personal status matters,’ the conditions of Article 5(3) are also met.

By confirming personal jurisdiction over the parties based on both Article 5(2) and Article 5(3) of Law No. 14/2021, the judgment marks a turning point in two key respects. First, it establishes the requirement to determine the effective nationality of dual citizens, affirming that no nationality, including that of an Arab-Muslim country, takes precedence unless it is linked to UAE residency. Second, by considering the type and location of the marriage, the court asserts that, from the moment a marriage is concluded, couples effectively select a legal framework – religious or civil/secular – that will govern the marriage’s effects and potential dissolution, and that this choice must be honored in any subsequent legal proceedings. Although this perspective may be open to challenge, it provides greater clarity and legal certainty for foreigners of all faiths residing in the UAE.

 

Outlook

For the sake of legal certainty, it is to be hoped that the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation will maintain its newly established position. The latest interpretation appears the most plausible, particularly in light of Article 5(2) of the Procedural Regulations. Nevertheless, the current provisions on jurisdiction still leave room for ambiguity regarding the law’s exact scope of application, warranting clarification through reform, given the contradictory case law to date.

First, Article 5 should be revised, including paragraph (3), to specify the court’s jurisdiction over anyone who has entered into a civil marriage. For instance, a rule is needed for cases where a couple has married in both a religious and a civil ceremony. Additionally, the Chairman’s Instruction Guide, or at least a clear list of Muslim jurisdictions whose citizens are excluded from the law’s scope, is urgently needed. It is essential to clarify whether the provision applies equally to Arab Muslims or GCC nationals without dual citizenship who have concluded a civil marriage in a non-Muslim jurisdiction. Second, refining the Arabic versions of Law No. 14/2021 and the Procedural Regulations is crucial to avoid multiple interpretations, such as whether the law applies to ‘non-Muslim foreigners and citizens’ versus ‘foreigners and non-Muslim citizens.’ Finally, with recent legislative changes allowing foreign, non-Arabic-speaking lawyers to appear before the Abu Dhabi Civil Family Court, consistent and official English translations of all relevant statutes are absolutely necessary. Current translations available through various official channels are fragmented and occasionally ambiguous.

 

——————————————-

[1] See on this blog, Béligh Elbalti, Abu Dhabi Supreme Court on the Applicability of Law on Civil Marriage to Foreign Muslims, idem, The Abu Dhabi Civil Family Court on the Law on Civil Marriage – Applicability to Foreign Muslims and the Complex Issue of International Jurisdiction, and Lena-Maria Möller, Abu Dhabi Introduces Personal Status for non-Muslim Foreigners, Shakes up Domestic and International Family Law. See also, idem, One Year of Civil Family Law in the United Arab Emirates: A Preliminary Assessment, 38 Arab Law Quarterly (2024), 219-234.

[2] It should be noted here that with the introduction of Law No. 14/2021, a dedicated Civil Family Court was established in Abu Dhabi. Family matters falling within the scope of Law No. 14/2021 are exclusively adjudicated in this court, which applies only the civil family law statutes and no other domestic or foreign legislation. Consequently, questions of the court’s jurisdiction and the law’s scope of application are closely intertwined, if not mutually dependent.

(Written by E. Farnoux and S. Fulli-Lemaire, Professors at the University of Strasbourg)

Horatia Muir Watt (Sciences Po) hardly needs an introduction to the readers of this blog. The book published last year and reviewed here constitutes the latest installment in her critical epistemological exploration of the field of private international law. More specifically, the book builds upon previously published fundamental reflections on the methods of private international law already initiated (or developed) in her previous general course (in French) at the Hague Academy of International Law (Discours sur les méthodes du droit international privé (des formes juridiques de l’inter-altérité)), as well as on the contemporary relevance of private international law (“Private International Law Beyond the Schism”). Numerous other works, naturally, also come to mind when reading this book (see among many others, ed. with L. Bíziková, A. Brandão de Oliveira, D. Fernandez Arroyo, Global Private International Law : adjudication without frontiers; Private International Law and Public law).

The publication of a book on the field that this blog deals with would be enough to justify it being flagged for the readers’ attention. We feel, however, that its relevance to our academic pursuits warrants more than a mere heads-up and, while it would be unreasonable (and risky) to try to summarize the content of this engrossing and complex book in a blog friendly format, we would like to make a few remarks intended to encourage the readers of this blog to engage with this innovative and surprising work.

The book’s program

It should be made clear from the outset that, maybe contrary to what the title “Towards an Ecological Jurisprudence” may suggest prima facie, the book does not engage primarily with the emergence and evolution of positive environmental law, even in a private international law perspective (although the double-entendre may be deliberate, because, as we will see, the book is animated by a deeply-rooted, and understandable, environmental angst). First, because the book is not particularly concerned with positive law (what is also referred to as lex or “Law I” in the book) as such but, in a more theoretical thrust, with the idea of the law (our “normative universe”, nomos, also called ius or “Law II”). Second, because the word “ecological” is used here in a much deeper and broader sense, that immediately encapsulates the ambition of the book: it refers to the ability to make room and accept “alterity” in all its shapes: humanity, foreign cultures and other life (and non-life) forms or “ecosphere”, i.e. all the ecosystems and their interactions. It conveys a sense of connection of the self with others and its surroundings, philosophically as well as environmentally. Consequently, the “Ecological Jurisprudence” that the author wishes to help bring about is not a particular development in environmental law but a much more thorough modification of our understanding of law and legality.

The book rests on the premise that European or Western modernity (in all its aspects, philosophical, social, and scientific) has created (or aggravated) a series of severances between humankind and the surrounding world (as well as, it seems, within humankind). Law (as all things cultural) has not been immune from this divorce (quite the contrary), and modern legality has shaped our relationship to alterity, both human and natural. In short, Law has become an exercise in alienation (alienation from the self to the other, from the self to nature or Gaia, the earth itself). The book constitutes an attempt to propose (more precisely, uncover) an alternative conception of legality, one that connects (with the other(s): human beings among themselves as well as with their environment) rather than alienates (an “Ecological Jurisprudence”).

The phrase “The Ultimate Frontier” is also a (multiple) play on words. To the readers of this blog, versed as they are in conflict of laws, it will evoke the outer limit of a given legal system, the line that marks where it ends (where its laws cease to be applicable) but also where it comes into contact with other legal systems. In a sense, this is the traditional object of private international law (which, as the author point out performs a type of “boundary labour”) but, again, the ambition of the book is much greater: the “Ultimate Frontier” at stake is that of modern legality, where it comes into contact with, and maybe gives way to, non-modern types of normativity. The book thus presents itself as a quest for the (re)discovery of such an alternative normativity. There seems to be, however, a darker meaning of the “Ultimate Frontier”, which refers to the end of human time or a “horizon of extinction”, alluding, among other jeopardies, to climate and environmental distress and giving a sense of urgency to the book. The question at its core is not only that of “law’s own survival” but also of finding a way for humans to (co-)exist on the planet in a less catastrophic way. The author’s strongly held belief is that law has a role to play in this endeavor, provided that a fundamental reconfiguration is allowed to take place. The general idea is that while alterity in the legal world usually takes the form of a foreign norm or an alien cultural practice, the attitude of a legal tradition towards alterity is usually coherent irrespective of whether that alterity comes in legal form or in the form of nature or of other life forms. At the risk of oversimplification, it could be said that while, looking back, law is part of the problem, it could also become, looking forward, part of the solution.

The subtitle of the book, “A Global Horizon in Private International Law”, emphasizes that its objective is to outline this reconfiguration in the particular field of private international law, or rather by building on some of the less obvious insights offered by private international law. This inquiry takes place at the “Global Turn”, that is at a moment when Western legality has spread far and wide while at the same time losing the stato-centric quality that underpinned it. Why private international law? The reason is twofold. First of all, private international law, like comparative law or public international law, is well-suited to dealing with alterity, in the legal form. By contrast with these other areas of the law, however, the majoritarian (Savignian) approach to private international law is very much inscribed at the heart of modern legal thought. Methodologically, its engagement with alterity is asymmetrical: the forum (the self) and the foreign norm (the other) are not placed on an equal footing; the forum, while purporting to make room for foreign norms, actually very carefully selects and reshapes those of them that can be accepted. In terms of epistemology, the fundamental involvement of private international law (its complicity?) with byproducts of Modernity, notably capitalism (or neoliberalism) and coloniality, reveals this modern bias. Here, readers familiar with H. Muir Watt’s previous works (see for instance “Private International Law Beyond the Schism”) will recognize a familiar theme, that of private international law’s (voluntary ?) obliviousness to the many challenges facing humanity, and consequently to its own role in enabling some of them (PIL disembedded). This obliviousness is so deeply rooted that it has had the incidental advantage of sheltering the discipline from the critical contemporary approaches (decoloniality for instance) that have flourished in public international law and comparative law, stigmatizing the biases at play. In this perspective, private international law is very much (the best?) representative of the broader category of private law, self-perceived and described as too technical or formal to be political, even as it plays a crucial role in the fundamental separation within the Oiko (the separation of the economy from the ecology).

The quest for an Ecological Jurisprudence hence implies an awareness to both the challenges of the era, as well as un understanding of the role of private international law in paving the road to today’s (dire) state of affairs. Such an awareness makes it possible to take a hard, critical look at the methods and shortcomings of contemporary private international law. This is not, however, the only or even the main reason why the book is grounded in private international law.

That second reason for this choice lies in the dual nature (or dual scenography) of private international law, which the book seeks to reveal. Behind or underneath the technical, “modern” and capitalism-enabling private international law, a “minor jurisprudence or shadow avatar” can be observed, that is committed to a truly pluralist approach, making room for alterity. Interestingly, according to the author, such a shadow account can be found in the (pre-modern) statutist and neo-statutist theories, supposedly made redundant by the Savignian, multilateralist approach. It is by highlighting the flickering, intermittent yet enduring influence of this secondary view of the field that Horatia Muir Watt sketches the outline of a private international law truly pluralist and open to alterity, a private international law that belongs to the world and from which, perhaps, our understanding of ius stands to profit.

The book’s outline

The book is structured in three main parts. The first is dedicated to an exploration of private international law’s methodological and epistemological duality. The two competing schemes (the classic, dominant, Savignian multilateralist approach and the minority statutist approach) each provide a set of tools (methods) by which law organizes its own interaction with “exogenous forms of legality”. To quote a particularly telling sentence : “this duality [between the two modes of reasoning in respect to foreign law] can be correlated to two underlying models of legality: a modern, or monist, scheme, embodied during the nineteenth century, that seeks closure, order, decisiveness, objectivity and predictability from a purportedly neutral (Archimedean) standpoint; and a further pluralist version, geared to diplomatic negotiation, reflexivity, the perpetual oscillation between poles and the refusal of separation between the observer and the observed, or between application and interpretation”.

This part starts with a refreshing preliminary section presenting the core concepts of the discipline, ostensibly for the benefit of non-specialists but specialists will find the presentation to be quite creative. Horatia Muir Watt then offers, in a first chapter, a “story of origin” in which she revisits the traditional historical account of the advent of multilateralism, insisting on tensions and inconsistencies. Indeed, since the reception of foreign law generally comes at the price of a denial of difference, the suppressed otherness makes itself felt down the line, causing all kinds of trouble with which multilateralism deals in a piecemeal way.

The second chapter is dedicated to picking up those traces of alternative pluralist methodology, where alterity takes place on the terms of the other, thus forming a “shadow account”. By the end of the first part, private international law has served its purpose as a revealer of two different ways of dealing with alterity, one of which, in the eyes of the author, may be “harnessed to the ecological needs of our planet”. This part is particularly interesting to readers with past experience of private international law, as it provides an innovative and critical approach to the field, one that often challenges their assumptions and may renew the way they think about it and, maybe, teach it.

The second part may prove to be a more challenging read for (private international) lawyers because it presents a perspective on the law seen here mainly through the works and thoughts of non-lawyers. The idea here is to compare further (and more systematically) the two alternative conceptions of legality, with a focus on form and substance, or “aesthetics” and “ontology”. The legality produced by Modernity, called “jurisdictional jurisprudence”, systematically reduces alterity to a set of spare parts or raw material recognizable and useable. The form, the aesthetics, of Modern legality is a “rage for order”, an all-encompassing love for division, classification, hierarchization and structuration, which singularly for (private) international law has taken the form of a particular insistence on the geographical division of space, and on the drawing of frontiers. To quote again a particularly telling sentence, “such a particular, obsessional form of legal ordering – in the name of science, nature or reason – reinforced the severance of humanity from its surrounding”. That is the ontology of Modern law: anthropocentric, “devastating life in its path and devouring the very resources it needs to survive”. Fortunately, this majoritarian destructive force is haunted by its shadow opposite, the “minor jurisprudence”, “made of (ontological) hybridity or interstitiality and (aesthetic) entwinement and oscillation”. This form of legality is willing and able to take up the “labour of connection” that is necessary to an ecological jurisprudence. Here, the analysis relies heavily on Bruno Latour’s work on the “passage of law” where law, by virtue of its operation, produces a connecting experience in a pluralist environment. Each time, conflict of laws acts as a revealer (“the heuristic”) to support the argument, following the overall program of the book. Each type of legality accounts for some (often contradictory) features or element of our paradoxical discipline.

Conflicts specialists may finish this part of book with some ruffled feathers: the indictment of the multilateralist method they practice and indeed sometimes advocate for is quite relentless, and the relief provided by the idea that their shadow statutism may eventually redeem them might not always feel entirely sufficient. However, they (at least the undersigned) will also be grateful to have been initiated to some fascinating anthropological insights (including Philippe Descola’s work), and generally for the benefits that such outside perspective inevitably provides.

In a somewhat more classical fashion, Part III explores the political-economic and ethical dimensions of the conflict of laws. With regards to economy, the contribution of private international law to what the author calls the neoliberal world order is not a surprise. Instrumental in this is the idea of individual autonomy, which provides a foundation for a market rationality seen as both unavoidable and inescapable. On the ethical plane, the book explores the possibility for conflict of laws methods to express radical hospitality in legal form. Taking seriously the teachings of phenomenology, it suggests transforming the separation between self and other into an understanding of the other as part of ourselves.

The last chapter, titled “An Ethic of Responsiveness: The Demands of Interalterity” will be particularly interesting for conflicts lawyers. It is not unusual for us, particularly when we teach the subject, to insist, often with some sense of pride, that private international law is a place of openness to otherness. The first two parts of the book have made quite plain that there are limits, at the very least, to the extent of that openness, but also maybe how hollow this claim may become if all we do is insert some element of a foreign legal system into our own. This last chapter explores what it actually means to take alterity seriously. Some pages, again, may be unsettling to read because making room for the Other is a radical experience for the Self, one in which the difference between the two disappears. In the course of the chapter, Horatia Muir Watt distinguishes value pluralism, an equivalent to political liberalism where a rights-based approach (privacy, freedom of expression) provides some space for diversity within a unitary form and source of legality, from a proper legal pluralism that accepts multiple legal norms which coexist on an equal footing. In conflicts terms, value pluralism coincides with multilateralism (the forum controls the reception of foreign law) while legal pluralism requires changing the location of legal authority (something the alternative method does willingly).

Highlights

The book’s general orientation (its driving force perhaps) owes a lot to recent or contemporary developments in human sciences outside of the law, notably in sociology, anthropology and history of sciences. The influence of the late Bruno Latour, inclassable philosopher, anthropologist, sociologist and science epistemologist runs particularly strong in the book, as well as that of philosophers Emmanuel Levinas and Jacques Derrida, or anthropologist Levi-Strauss. More generally the references, within or without the law, are innumerable and very diverse. In this sense, the book stands out as a rare example of a truly transdisciplinary attempt at relocating (private international) law within the human sciences (and their contemporary debates and concerns), as well as an equally important effort to force the discipline to face up to the pressing challenges of our times (climate change, collapse in biodiversity, extreme inequalities, crises of late capitalism. As a result, the depth and expressiveness of the book (but also, it should be acknowledged, its density) are somewhat unusual for an academic work in the otherwise often technical field of private international law. It is also a testament to its author’s commitment to openness to alterity (here in scientific fields and concepts). Also very striking is the avowed freedom of discourse that the author grants herself, not only in the interdisciplinary approach (which the author describes as bricolage, to make apparent the choices and selection that she has had to make) but also, more generally, in the construction of the discourse itself which sometimes verges on free association, giving the book a palimpsestic quality, not unsuited for its stated purpose: the forecasting of an ecological jurisprudence.

The regular readers of Conflict of Laws.net may not have been Horatia Muir Watt’s target audience, or at least her primary target audience, when writing this book. In itself, this willingness to engage with readers beyond the admittedly small circle of private international lawyers should be applauded, because few among them have managed, or even attempted, to offer (useable) insights to the legal community at large. This, however, should absolutely not be taken to mean that private international lawyers will gain nothing from The Law’s Ultimate Frontier; quite the opposite, in fact. This book challenges one’s understanding of private international law, and is an invitation to rethink the purpose of our involvement in its practice or scholarship. Many a time, the critique of a foundational myth – internationality, extraterritoriality, party autonomy, even tolerance…  – or a novel way of (re)framing well-known doctrinal debate or case, hallowed or recent – Caraslanis, Chevron, Vedanta… – produces a jolt, a “I did find it strange when first reading about it, but I could not quite put my finger on it” moment of illumination. This is no small feat.

Yesterday, the ICLQ published an article by Dr Maria Hook titled, “The Purpose of the Gateways for Service out of the Jurisdiction.” It is open access and it’s abstract reads as follows:

This article argues that the purpose of the English gateways for service out of the jurisdiction is to identify a presumptive meaningful connection; that courts have used different mechanisms to rebut the presumption of a meaningful connection established by the gateways; and that there are lessons to be learnt from a clearer, more explicit understanding of this presumptive purpose of the gateways. The article uses Brownlie (I and II) and Fong v Ascentic Ltd to support and illustrate these arguments.