Feed aggregator

The University of Zurich, Switzerland, has asked CoL to publish the following:

The University of Zurich is seeking applications for a Professorship in private law (with a focus on the Code of Obligations) to take effect from the beginning of the Spring Semester 2022 (1 February 2022), or by arrangement. The level of employment is 50%. The professorship is to be occupied by an individual with a command of the Swiss Code of Obligations as a subject in its full breadth and in reference to comparative law. Proof of exceptional qualification in this subject is to be provided in the form of an outstanding dissertation and a completed or near-com-pleted habilitation thesis (or equivalent academic accomplishment). Also desirable is a willingness to use research and teaching to address current issues concerning the Code of Obligations that may arise in the course of digitalisation, for example, as well as other develop-ments. Depending on the applicant’s qualifications, the professorship will take the form of a full or associate professorship. A temporary tenure-track assistant professorship is possible if the applicant’s habilitation thesis is at an advanced stage but is not yet completed. The University of Zurich strives to increase the representation of women in research and teaching, and therefore specifically encourages qualified female academics to apply. Further information relating to this job profile can be found below. Please submit your application documents as specified in the job profile by 30 December 2020 via www.recruiting.ius.uzh.ch. You may be requested to submit hard-copy documents separately at a later point. The relevant member of the appointment committee, Professor Helmut Heiss (helmut.heiss@rwi.uzh.ch), is available to answer any questions and provide further information.

Further information is here.

The British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) (in consortium with Civic Consulting) has been selected by the European Commission to conduct a study supporting the preparation of a report on the application of the Rome II Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (JUST/2019/JCOO/FW/CIVI/0167).

The study assesses the 10-year application of the Rome II Regulation in the Member States and will support the Commission in the future review of the Regulation. It analyses all areas covered and looks into specific, cutting-edge questions, such as cross-border corporate violations of businesses against human rights and the potential impact of the development of artificial intelligence.

To gather views of practitioners and academics from all Member States, BIICL conducts a survey which is available here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JLWQ8XQ

Please contribute your experience to the study, if you have a particular expertise in the Rome II Regulation, or in one of the above-mentioned areas – namely cross-border torts related to artificial intelligence, corporate abuses against human rights, or defamation.
BIICL invites interested colleagues from all Member States to participate in the survey, but seeks in particular more contributions from: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Finland, Luxembourg, Romania and Slovenia.

Deadline: December 31st, 2020

More information about the Study is available on BIICL’s website (https://www.biicl.org/projects/com-study-on-the-rome-ii-regulation).

 

The author of this post is Caterina Benini, a Phd student at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan.

A Controversial but Topical Issue

In the credits market, the price of a contract (or that of the claims arising from a contract) is determined by the nominal value of the claims concerned and by the risks surrounding their enforcement, including the risks relating to the uncertainty that may exist as to the courts with jurisdiction to hear and enforce the contract or the claims concerned.

Ironically, uncertainty may be greater when the assigned contract includes a choice of court clause, as it is not clear whether, and subject to which conditions, such a clause may be binding upon the assignees.

The European Court of Justice considered the issue of the third-party effects of choice of court clauses in Tilly Russ, Coreck and Profit Investment.

However, it was only in Ryanair, a case decided on 18 November 2020, that the Court specifically analysed whether an assignee of a claim is bound by the choice of court clause included in the contract from which the assigned claim arose. The recent Court’s ruling raises a number of questions, some of which have already been pointed out by Matthias Lehmann in this blog.

One takeaway of Ryanair is that, in the absence of clear rules, the fate of choice of court agreements following the assignment of the contract which included them is a fertile ground for disputes. Instead of elaborating on the Court’s findings in Ryanair, I will focus on a recent ruling of the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione), which addressed the consequences of an assignment of claim for the enforceability of a choice of court clause (Judgment No 7736/2020).

The Ruling of the Corte di Cassazione

The facts underlying the case decided by the Italian Supreme Court may be summarised as follows.

An Italian company (hereinafter, the manufacturer) and a Finnish company (the distributor) entered into various contracts. Each contract included a choice of court clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon the Tribunal of Torino. The Italian manufacturer assigned part of its claims under the contracts to a factoring company seated in Italy. Following the assignment, a dispute arose between the manufacturer (the assignor creditor) and the distributor (the assigned debtor). Upon an application by the former, the Tribunal of Torino ordered the Finnish distributor to pay a certain amount of money. The latter lodged an opposition, arguing that, as a result of the assignment of the claims, the Italian company was prevented from relying on the choice of court clause featured in the contracts.

Both the Tribunal of Torino and the Court of Appeal of Torino dismissed the move. The Finnish distributor brought the case before the Corte di Cassazione, which dismissed the appeal, ultimately upholding that Italian courts had jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Cassazione reached that conclusion on the ground that the effectiveness of a choice of court clause between the original parties to a contract giving rise to claims subsequently assigned should not be doubted. The Cassazione referred for this purpose to the case-law of the Court of Justice, noting that, according to Dansommer and Profit Investment, a choice of court agreement may be binding also upon the third party, thus impliedly submitting that this the assignment results in an extension of the subjective scope of the clause rather than a transferral of the same from one assignor to the assignee.

The Court added that the assignee, having taken over the position of the assignor vis-à-vis the assigned debtor, is bound by the choice of court agreement included in the contract giving rise the claim. This is because the position of the assigned debtor should remain unaltered also with regard to jurisdiction, if not otherwise provided by the assigned party himself and the assignee.

This Author’s Submission

If party autonomy is to be taken seriously, choice of court clauses, it is submitted, should be deemed to be subject to an independent regime, different from that governing the contract where the clause is featured.

This implies that, for the purposes of determining the fate of a choice of court clause following the assignment of the legal relationship to which the clause refers, or belongs, reference ought to be had to the substantive law applicable to the dispute resolution clause itself. It is on the basis of the latter law that one should assess whether the rights and obligations provided for under the choice of court clause passed on to the assignee.

No other approach, it is contended, would be consistent with Article 25(5) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. This provides that “[a]n agreement conferring jurisdiction which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract”, adding, in a separate subparagraph, that “[a]n agreement conferring jurisdiction which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract”.

Separability only for the Purposes of Validity vs. Separability Also for the Purposes of Transferability

The issue of the fate of a dispute resolution agreement following the circulation of the legal position to which the clause relates has been mainly discussed with respect to arbitration agreements. Although choice of court agreements cannot be equated to arbitration agreements, the terms of the problem roughly coincide.

Essentially, the discussion revolves around two opposite conceptions of the principle of severability.

The first interpretation posits that, while the dispute resolution clause is severable from the main contract for validity purposes, it should be considered as an integral part of the contract for transferability purposes. Hence, when the assignee becomes the holder of the rights and obligations that arise from the contract which includes the dispute resolution agreement, it becomes automatically bound by the latter as well.

The second approach views the severability principle as a mere façade of a broader principle, which requires to consider a dispute resolution agreement as a contract in its own right, independent in all aspects from the contract to which it refers. This means that, unless the parties agree otherwise, the dispute resolution agreement will not automatically circulate together with the contract as a result of the assignment.

Independence of Choice of Court Agreements as the Key Principle

Article 25(5) of the Brussels I bis Regulation fosters the second approach described above.

Indeed, if the principle of separability were to operate for validity purposes only, the EU legislator would have limited Article 25(5) to the first subparagraph, which enshrines the principle in its traditional meaning. The inclusion of a separate subparagraph specifying that a choice of court agreement shall be considered independently from the other terms of the contract suggests that, in the view of the legislator, the principle involves more than merely prescribing the survival of the dispute resolution clause in the event that the main contract is invalid. Rather, it is submitted, the whole of para 5 indicates that a choice of court clause should be considered, in all respects, to be independent from the agreement where it is featured.

The question then is: what does the independence of a choice of court clause precisely stand for?

Independence should not be taken as meaning that the choice of court agreement should be treated as something that is materially separate from the main contract.

Arguably, the independence of the clause means that the issues surrounding the clause rules are not (necessarily) to be decided in accordance with the rules that one would resort to for the purposes of deciding the same issues in respect of the main contract.

Such normative independence of choice of court clauses has already been recognized with respect to the formal validity, which has been consistently evaluated on the basis of the uniform material rules provided for by the Brussels Regime and not on the basis of the formal requirements governing the main contract.

The same approach should then be followed also for the fate of choice of court agreements. This means that the court seised of the matter should assess whether the assignee of the contract (or of the claims arising thereform) is bound by the choice of court agreement, based on the rules governing the transferability of the dispute resolution agreement itself.

If such solution were to be followed, it would entail a significant alignment with Castelletti, where the Court ruled that “the national court seised should be able readily to decide whether it has jurisdiction on the basis of the rules of the Convention, without having to consider the substance of the case” (para. 48). Indeed, the seised court may rule on its own jurisdiction without dwelling into the merits of the case only if the enforceability of the choice of court clause is subject to a different and autonomous from the one applicable to the substantive issues.

The Tilly Russ Case

The above analysis on the principle of separability of choice of court clauses can turn useful when the interpreter (as the Corte di Cassazione did) investigates whether the CJEU’s case-law developed in relation to the third-party effects of choice of court agreements can provide an answer to the issue of the fate of choice of court clauses.

In Tilly Russ, the Court of Justice ruled that the third party is bound by the jurisdiction clause incorporated in the main contract (a bill of lading in that case), which is valid as between the original parties, “in so far as a third party, by acquiring the bill of lading, has succeeded to the shipper’s rights and obligations under the relevant national law” (para. 24).

The meaning of this crucial passage of the Court’s reasoning is unclear. One may wonder whether the shipper’s rights and obligations in which the third party succeeds are those provided for under the main contract or the dispute resolution clause. The aspect has since never been clarified by the Court, although the Court did rely on the said passage in Coreck and Profit Investment.

According to the majority of scholars, the rights and obligations to which the Court referred are those arising from the main contract. This entails that, if the third party succeeds to the assignor’s rights and obligations under the main contract in accordance with the law applicable to the assignment, the third party is automatically bound by the choice of court agreement included in the main contract.

This conclusion contradicts the independence of choice of court agreements.

Independence requires that issues relating to a choice of court clause be solved on the basis of the rules governing the dispute resolution agreement itself, regardless of the rules governing the main contract. The vicissitudes of the main contract, including the assignment of the claims arising thereform, are not relevant per se to the dispute resolution clause.

In light of this, the passage in Tilly Russ recalled above should be interpreted as requiring the seised court to determine whether the third party, simultaneously or after entering into the main contract, “has succeeded to the shipper [assignor]’s rights and obligations [provided for under the jurisdiction clause] under the relevant national law [applicable to the jurisdiction clause]”.

The Law Applicable to a Choice of Court Agreements under the Italian PIL Statute

Which law applies to a dispute resolution clause?

Courts sitting in a Member State cannot rely on the Rome I Regulation, given that choice of court agreements are excluded from the scope of application of the Regulation under Article 1(2)(e). Accordingly, regard should be had to domestic conflict of laws rules.

In a case such as the one discussed by the Corte di Cassazione in the ruling mentioned above, the relevant provision would arguably be Article 57 of the Italian Statute of Private International Law. The rule, drawn up in 1995 (and never amended since) extends the operation of the 1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations (the predecessor of the Rome I Regulation) to any contract, including those excluded from the scope of the Convention itself.

Assuming that the reference to the Convention should be read today as a reference to the Rome I Regulation, an Italian court would – in the absence of a choice of law – rely on Article 4(4) of the Rome I Regulation, and apply the law of the country with which the choice of court agreement is most closely connected.

Hongrie / Parlement et Conseil
Libre circulation des personnes
La Cour rejette les recours en annulation introduits par la Hongrie et la Pologne contre la directive renforçant les droits des travailleurs détachés

Staatsanwaltschaft Wien (Ordres de virement falsifiés)
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Contrairement à un mandat d’arrêt européen, une décision d’enquête européenne peut être adoptée par le parquet d’un État membre exposé au risque d’être soumis à des instructions individuelles provenant du pouvoir exécutif

The PAX Moot is a specialised moot court competition dedicated to students interested in Private International Law.

The 2021 Round of the competition is named after Arthur von Mehren, a renowned scholar of international procedure law across the Atlantic, for the 15th anniversary of his passing away.

This Round of the competition will focus on Transnational Law and Private International Law issues and will require participants to apply and handle the complexities and nuances of how international conventions and regulations interact with each other in the context of globalisation.

The case is grounded in the present challenging global events (COVID-19 virus) and involve the application of the new 2019 Hague Judgments Convention.

The competition comprises a written round and an oral round for the students. The teams will be required to address matters of jurisdiction, applicable law and parallel actions.

More information about the competition and its timetable are available here and here.

JK Fabrications Ltd v Fastfix Ltd & Anor [2020] NIQB 63 is a good illustration of how not to draft choice of court (and governing law, in fact) provisions generally, let alone in general terms and conditions – GTCs. Albeit with a shaky obiter suggestion on identifying a court.

Tobsteel GmbH domiciled in Őhringen, Germany seeks to set aside a third party notice served on it on the ground that the Northern Irish courts have no jurisdiction to determine the third party proceedings brought by Fastfix, domiciled in Ireland.  Fastfix is the defendant in proceedings brought by JK Fabrications, domiciled in Northern Ireland.  In separate proceedings JK Fabrications Limited is sued by SMBJV, an unincorporated joint venture in respect of a major sewerage project in London.  Bolts are the common element in dispute in both cases; the bolts supplied by Tobsteel to Fastfix who in turn supplied these bolts to JK Fabrications.

As justifiably held by Larkin J, the choice of court upon which Tobsteel bases its argument, itself was not properly bolted. The clause at issue is included in a  “General Terms of Supply and Payment for TOBSTEEL GmbH” document which  General Terms of Delivery and Payment document in which clause VIII reads

“VIII. Place of performance, choice of forum, applicable legislation. 

 1.        The place of performance and choice of forum for deliveries and payments (including complaints regarding cheques or bills) and for all disputes arising between us and the purchaser from the purchase contracts concluded between us and him or her shall be Öhringen.  However, we shall be entitled to file a complaint against the purchaser at his or her residence or registered business address.

2.         The legal relationship between us and our customers or between us and third parties shall be governed exclusively by the legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany”

The judgment shows that Tobsteel itself in fact did not initially see clear as to which GTCs applied. In earlier affidavits, two more, and different, versions of GTCs were said to apply.

The first level of discussion was whether there had at all been consent to the GTCs. The judge held there had not been. At 16:

The instrument on which Tobsteel relies as the vehicle of agreement is a combination of the words “Subject to our general terms of business if requested a print can be provided” and Mr Connolly’s [of Fastifx, GAVC] email containing the words “Alex, this is O.K.”. This combination is too fragile to bear that weight.

This was not so much (at 17) because it could not be established that the clause had actually been consulted by Mr Connolly. Larkin J, in line with the Report Jenard:

While it is often a commercially necessary fiction that a party has ‘agreed’ terms that he may not have seen in advance, far less read, based on his signature indicating his consent to be bound by such terms or some other manifestation of acceptance, …

Rather, it has to be clear which version of what is actually referred to: at 17:

..it is observable that in those cases in which this commercially necessary fiction operates, it will be clear what the applicable terms are.

At 19-20:

If Tobsteel wished, as I find it did, to secure agreement on Clause VIII.1 with Fastfix it needed an adequate mechanism or instrument for obtaining that agreement.  In the event, and taking the evidence for Tobsteel at its reasonable height, Tobsteel sought to bind Fastfix in the documents referred to above to Tobsteel’s “general terms of business”.  Clause VIII.1 of June 2014 is not contained in a document entitled “general terms of business” but in a document entitled “General Terms of Supply and Payment for TOBSTEEL GmbH”.  One might properly say, further, that in 2017  Herr Gebert, insofar as he thought specifically about the matter, meant to refer to the June 2004 text, but whether he meant to or not, he did not refer to it so as to permit the creation of an agreement between Tobsteel and Fastfix that Clause VIII.1 should apply.

In none of the cases on Article 25 or its antecedents is there an example of a term incorporating X by reference being held to incorporate Y by reference and thus satisfy the requirements of [A25].

In conclusion, consent had not been clearly and precisely demonstrated. Again, this is a clear emphasis on the need for proper GTC filekeeping.

At 21 ff the judge obiter but in this case in my view wrongly, holds that even if he had found there to have been consent to the clause, it did not meet with the requirements of A25 BIa. As a reminder, the clause reads

 1.        The place of performance and choice of forum for deliveries and payments (including complaints regarding cheques or bills) and for all disputes arising between us and the purchaser from the purchase contracts concluded between us and him or her shall be Öhringen.  However, we shall be entitled to file a complaint against the purchaser at his or her residence or registered business address.

2.         The legal relationship between us and our customers or between us and third parties shall be governed exclusively by the legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany”

The judge argues that the proviso at 1 does not identify a court at all and that the choice of law proviso in 2 cannot come to the rescue (it could conversely, under Rome I) for choice of court and law as recently emphasised in Enka Insaat are to be looked at differently.

I agree 1 is an odd mix of anchoring locus solutionis typically done under A7(1) BIa, with what seems to be a unilateral choice of court pro Tobsteel; and that on that basis it might be vulnerable as choice of court under A25 (but it could be rescued under A7(1). I disagree that the name of a town that has a court (let alone a court; which the judge agrees with) needs to be included for it to be proper choice of court: name any town and local civil procedure rules will tell you the relevant court.

‘(A)n agreement on ‘Derry Recorder’s Court’ would satisfy the requirement of Article 25 that a court be agreed but that an agreement on ‘Derry’ would not.’: I do not think that is correct.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. Feb 2021, 2.296, 2.315 ff

https://twitter.com/GAVClaw/status/1334893216211013632

Doit être cassé l’arrêt qui ne répond pas à une demande de huit clos. 

en lire plus

Rather like I note in my report on Highbury Poultry Farm,  Secretary of State for Health & Ors v Servier Laboratories Ltd & Ors [2020] UKSC is another example of why the UK Supreme Court and counsel to it will be missed post Brexit.

The case in essence queries whether a CJEU annulment (in General Court: Case T-691/14, currently subject to appeal with the CJEU) of a finding by the European Commission that companies breached Article 101 and 102 TFEU’s ban on anti-competitive practices, is binding in national proceedings that determine issues of causation, remoteness and mitigation of loss. The answer, in short: no, it does not.

The case essentially revolves around the difficulty of applying common law concepts of authority and precedent to the CJEU’s more civil law approach to court decisions. For those with an interest in comparative litigation therefore, it is a case of note.

The essence in the national proceedings is whether Claimants [who argue that Servier’s breaches of EU and UK competition law led to a delay in generic Perindopril entering the UK market, resulting in higher prices of Perindopril and financial loss to the NHS) failed to mitigate the loss they claim to have suffered as a result of Servier’s (the manufacturer of the drug) infringement of the competition rules. The Court of Appeal’s judgment is best read for the facts.

In T-691/14 Servier SAS v European Commission, the General Court of the EU had annulled only part of the European Commission’s decision by which it was found that the Appellants had infringed Article 102 TFEU. In the present proceedings, Servier seek to rely on a number of factual findings made by the
GCEU in the course of its judgment and argue that the English courts are bound by those findings. The High Court and the Court of Appeal have held that the propositions on which the Appellants seek to rely are not res judicata.

Core CJEU authority discussed is Joined Cases C-442/03P and C-471/03P P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA and Diputación Foral de Vizcaya v Commission.

Lord Lloyd-Jones reaches the crux of his reasoning, on the basis of CJEU authority, at 39:

The principle of absolute res judicata gives dispositive effect to the judgment itself. It is the usual practice of EU courts to express the outcome of the action in a brief final paragraph of the judgment referred to as the operative part. While this will have binding effect, it will be necessary to look within the judgment beyond the operative part in order to ascertain its basis, referred to as the ratio decidendi. (EU law has no system of stare decisis or binding precedent comparable to that in common law jurisdictions and this EU concept of ratio decidendi is, once again, distinct from the concept bearing the same name in the common law.) It will be essential to look beyond the operative part in this way in order to identify the reason for the decision and in order that the institution whose act has been annulled should know what steps it must take to remedy the situation. In a case where the principle of absolute res judicata applies, it will extend to findings that are the necessary support for the operative part of the annulling judgment.

The GC’s findings were based on a limited ground only, relating to too narrow a market definition under A102 TFEU. As presently constituted, the claim in the national proceedings is a claim for breach of statutory duty founded on alleged infringements of article 101 TFEU. No question arises in the proceedings before the national court as to the relevant product market for the purposes of A102 or the applicability of A102.

The national proceedings therefore concern causation, remoteness and mitigation of loss in the arena of article 101 TFEU. The narrow res judicata window, it was held, clearly does not apply to them and that is acte clair which needs no referral to Luxembourg.

Geert.

 

 

Binding scope of #CJEU annulment of EU measure
Viz Res judicata, issue estoppel and abuse of process as understood in common law jurisdictions
Whether annulment of EC 101 TFEU finding is binding in national proceedings re issues of causation, remoteness and mitigation of loss https://t.co/yrgyoosoVr

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 6, 2020

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel d'Angers, 6 mai 2020

The post below was written by Adrian Briggs QC, who is Professor of Private International Law at the University of Oxford. It is the second contribution to the EAPIL online symposium on the ruling of the Court of Justice in the case of Wikingerhof v. Booking (the first one, by Matthias Lehmann, appeared earlier today and can be found here).

Other contributions will follow in the coming days. Readers are encouraged to share their views by making comments to the posts. Those wishing to submit longer contributions for publication are invited to get in touch with the managing editor of the blog, Pietro Franzina, at pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.

The late, great, F A Mann was sometime heard to refer, in a wry way which one could never quite interpret, to ‘common law pragmatism’. It has served us well; and it provides a vantage point for an assessment of the decision in C-59/19 Wikingerhof GmbH & Co KG v Booking.com BV EU:C:2020:950. Those looking for theory will, no doubt, find it elsewhere. The observations sketched out below simply seek to explain why the decision of the Grand Chamber is, as a matter of practical law, a disaster.

Where a claim is raised between parties who have chosen to place themselves within the ties of a voluntary relationship, and something goes wrong, the claim which results may be seen as an incident of that relationship which should be subject to jurisdictional rules designed for disputes arising within that relationship. Though in the Brussels/Lugano context this is seen and understood most clearly in the context of insurance, and consumer and employment contracts, it was also understood, with brilliant clarity by Darmon A-G in 189/87 Kalfelis. Spurning his advice, the Court in that case preferred to describe a virtual line between claims treated as contractual and those allocated to the special jurisdiction for tort and delict. This might have meant that a non-contractual claim could, in principle at least, be raised between contracting parties; and the seeds of trouble were thereby sown. A narrow question mesmerised the English, argued endlessly about what to do about claims based on unjust enrichment; but the deeper question was when a claim based on an obligation owed by one contracting party to another might be held, for the purpose of special jurisdiction, not to be a matter relating to a contract. A serviceable answer, and perhaps the only sensible answer, was eventually given by the decision in C-548/12 Brogsitter, which in material part observed that

It is apparent from the order for reference that the parties to the main proceedings are bound by a contract. However, the mere fact that one contracting party brings a civil liability claim against the other is not sufficient to consider that the claim concerns ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001. That is the case only where the conduct complained of may be considered a breach of contract, which may be established by taking into account the purpose of the contract. That will a priori be the case where the interpretation of the contract which links the defendant to the applicant is indispensable to establish the lawful or, on the contrary, unlawful nature of the conduct complained of against the former by the latter. It is therefore for the referring court to determine whether the purpose of the claims brought by the applicant in the case in the main proceedings is to seek damages, the legal basis for which can reasonably be regarded as a breach of the rights and obligations set out in the contract which binds the parties in the main proceedings, which would make its taking into account indispensable in deciding the action. (italics added)

In other words, if the substance of the complaint could be said to have broken the contract to which the parties had bound themselves, special jurisdiction in the matter was contractual. It was a clear rule even though, as it now seems, the casual, justificatory, reference to the contract as indispensable gave dissenters something to make mischief with. In the meantime, the Court in C-47/14 Holterman simply copied this part of Brogsitter into a judgment principally concerned to maintain the integrity of Section 5 of Title/Chapter II. As well it might: the opportunity for an unscrupulous employer to strip the employee of the protection provided to him by accusing him of being a tortfeasor/thief rather than a contract-breaker, all the while denying that the employment contract needed to be referred to for anything other than data, was plain and obvious and quite, quite wrong. At this point we might have hoped for a period of stability; it was not to be. An unduly judgmental Opinion in C-603/17 Bosworth seemed unhappy with the idea that powerful office holders accused of fraud could derive any benefit from Section 5, but the idea that an employee might be deprived of his shield by a bare accusation of fraud was not underwritten by the Court which otherwise left the issue well alone.

But after another regrettable Opinion, and the calamitous judgment which this time swallowed it whole, the clear rule in Brogsitter, and the foundation of Kalfelis, has been stood on its head. It now appears to be the law that if the complaint may be framed or pleaded as a tort, it may by this means be excluded from the special jurisdiction rule for matters relating to a contract. According to the Court in C-59/19 Wickingerhof (and lightly editing the judgment for ease of reading):

Where the applicant relies on rules of liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict, namely breach of an obligation imposed by law, and where it does not appear indispensable to examine the content of the contract concluded with the defendant in order to assess whether the conduct of which the latter is accused is lawful or unlawful, since that obligation applies to the defendant independently of that contract, the cause of the action is a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict. Wikingerhof relies on an infringement of German competition law, which lays down a general prohibition of abuse of a dominant position, independently of any contract or other voluntary commitment. Specifically, Wikingerhof takes the view that it had no choice but to conclude the contract at issue and to suffer the effect of subsequent amendments to Booking.com’s general terms and conditions by reason of the latter’s strong position on the relevant market, even though certain of Booking.com’s practices are unfair. Thus, the legal issue at the heart of the case in the main proceedings is whether Booking.com committed an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of German competition law. As the Advocate General stated in points 122 and 123 of his Opinion, in order to determine whether the practices complained of against Booking.com are lawful or unlawful in the light of that law, it is not indispensable to interpret the contract between the parties to the main proceedings, such interpretation being necessary, at most, in order to establish that those practices actually occur.

Those who look to the jurisprudence of the Court for answers rather than distracted theorising will rightly despair at this bouleversement. Even if one leaves aside the damage which this new approach would do were it allowed to infect Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Title/Chapter II, how is it supposed to work in common or garden cases of civil liability in which – as in Brogsitter – the claim may plausibly be pleaded by reference to contractual as well as by other-than-contractual duties ? From an English perspective, a number of cases come quickly to mind. Consider (1) the electrician who rewires a piece of equipment consigned to him for repair so negligently that it electrocutes me when I plug it in; (2) the banker, who provides a credit reference on a party with whom I am proposing to deal, who has not checked his records and so gives me bad advice; (3) the consultant who works with me to develop a new commercial opportunity but who purloins my confidential information to exploit it on his own account and at my expense; (4) the solicitor who abstracts funds which he held on my account; (5) the Uber driver who injures his passenger when he jumps a red light; (6) the doctor in private practice who molests his patient when she is on the examination table; (7) the fraudster who by deceit induces another to enter into a contract and that other, rather than rescind, sues for damages which have the same economic effect as rescission would have; (8) the person who by negligent misrepresentation induces another to enter a contract, with the same consequences as in (7); (9) the individual who by duress, or the unconscionable exercise of undue influence, causes the victim to conclude a contract with him or with another; and (10) any defendant who pleads in defence to a claim framed in tort that the parties made a contractual promise that the claim would not be brought. How many of these complaints are matters not relating to a contract ?

It might be said that in each case the wrong done was committed by a person who, in doing what he did or failed to do, broke the contract to which he had bound himself. It may also be said that (1) if my son had been the first to use the equipment he would be entitled to complain of the electrician’s negligence; (2) that if the applicant had not paid for the credit reference he would still be entitled to sue the banker for breach of the duty of care; (3) the misuse of confidential information is an equitable wrong, no matter how one comes by it; (4) fraud is fraud and theft is theft and though employment is the context it is not the cause of action; cases (5) and (6) speak for themselves; as to (7) and (8), the synergy of contract, tort, and equity as a means of dealing with pre-contractual misrepresentation means that they cannot now be pulled apart; in (9) the contract will be voidable, with an alternative claim for compensation being only doubtful; and (10) would appear to be the tip of an iceberg, for it happens all over the place. Are we now supposed to say that none of these falls within the special jurisdiction for matters relating to a contract because the duties owed and broken by the defendant arise from the general law and the contractual setting is no more than that ? That the contract is the stage but not the play ? Or is the answer – surely worse – that some do, or – surely worst – that it all depends on how the self-serving claimant chooses to plead out his claim ? This last possibility would be surprising. The Court’s jurisprudence on the place where financial loss occurs (C-375/13 Kolassa, C-12/15 Universal Music, C-304/17 Löber, C-343/19 Volkswagen, among others) has been haunted by the fear, slightly unreal, that if it is routinely held to occur at the place of the bank account out of which payment is made, a claimant, possessed of several bank accounts and uncannily impressive foresight, might pave the way to a favourable special jurisdiction. It now seems that the Court has allowed itself to be lured into the very trap it had seemed to be so concerned to avoid, or – perhaps – into an even bigger one.

One turns to examine the proposition that it is different if it is ‘indispensable’ to look to the contract. It is hard to see that this has any sensible meaning. Contracts contain all sorts of things in addition to the express promises each side makes to the other. They may make provision for the implication of terms. They may try to prevent the implication of terms: entire agreement clauses, no oral modification clauses, and so on. They may define performance obligations directly, or by the subtle chiaroscuro of express promise and exclusion clause: if liability for X is wholly excluded, there can hardly be said to be a duty to do X in the first place. They may limit the liability which would otherwise arise, or restrict the circumstances in which, or grounds upon which, a complaint may be made. They may incorporate terms from another instrument, or exclude certain statutory effects which might otherwise apply. They may provide for acts to be permitted if payment is made, such as the early termination of an agency. They may provide that a claim will not be brought in tort but that, for example, a claimant will accept a payment by way of compensation or compromise: in short, they may do all manner of things. The answer to the question whether it is indispensable to look into the contract is, surely, that it is always necessary: the contract may not add to the facts and matters in dispute, but save in the cases in which it is admitted before the writ is served, this cannot be known until one has looked. Contracts, and their interpretation, can be very complex and it is absurd to say that there is no need to look into the contract before one has looked into it. Stand, if only for an unhappy moment, in the shoes of the lawyer who advised the client that she had a case in tort and who, when asked whether he had looked into the contract to see what it might have said, says that he didn’t think there was any need to.

Granted, in Wikingerhof, it would have been a surprise to find an express term excluding any liability for abuse by Booking.com of its dominant position in the market. It may have felt odd to suggest that it was advisable, still less indispensable, to read through the contract to check; but one never knows, and this provides no basis for sound conclusion; and in any event, abuse of a dominant position is only a particular version of economic duress or undue influence, both of which lie right in the middle of the contractual mainstream. If Wikingerhof GmbH had been asked whether it considered Booking.com to have or not to have broken the contract, or unlawfully coerced the surrender or contractual rights, it could only have answered in the affirmative, albeit that it may have preferred not to say so. The defendant had, by the very conduct complained of, broken or wrongfully interfered with its contract with the claimant, yet the matter was not one relating to a contract. No matter how hard one rubs one’s eyes, this still looks wrong.

It may be asked whether the unspoken aim of the judgment in Wikingerhof was to assist the German claimant by finding a way for it to sue in the place in which it felt most comfortable; to ‘protect’ the weaker party, the vulnerable victim of a dominant abuser, as it were. One hopes that no such thought was present in the curial mind, for accusations of abuse, of fraud, are only ever accusations, and findings of abuse were many months away. And there is no little irony in the fact that the decision actually improves the jurisdictional position of the company which is in a position to abuse its dominant position. When it gets wind of the fact that a victim is about to launch proceedings, the dominant abuser will be able to rely on Wikingerhof and on C-133/11 Folien Fischer to bring proceedings, in the place of the event giving rise to the alleged loss, for a declaration that it committed no wrong. Worse, unscrupulous employers (we have no need to name names), already immune to the discipline of anti-suit injunctions, will have a new spring in their step. It is not easy to understand why this should be the way the law works.

The question framed by the judgment in Brogsitter was easy to understand and to answer: has anyone teaching the subject ever found that his or her students struggled with it ? Has anyone advising a client needed to spend anxious hours in wrestling with it ? One hopes not. What is proposed to replace it – has replaced it, if we have to accept that the damage has been done – will require us to go back over the vast range of overlapping claims and unclaims, of complaints which are, as a matter of analysis, ‘not only a simple breach of contract, but also of another obligation’ cases, and develop the science which will tell is when reference to a contract is ‘indispensable’ in order to settle the question of special jurisdiction. Brexit, Covid, and now Wikingerhof. What a wretched year. We are only one horse short of an Apocalypse.

Tribunal de première instance de Papeete