Feed aggregator

In Owen v Galgey & Ors [2020] EWHC 3546 (QB), Linden J yesterday dealt with the application of Rome II’s common habitual residence exception to A4(1) lex loci damni rule, and with the general escape clause of A4(3).

These cases often involve tragic accidents and injuries and the sec conflict of laws analysis below in no way of course mean any disrespect to claimant and his loved ones.

Claimant is a British citizen who is domiciled and habitually resident in England. He brings a claim for damages for personal injury sustained by him as result of an accident in France (3 April 2018), when he fell into an empty swimming pool which was undergoing works at a villa in France, a holiday home owned by the First Defendant, whose wife is the Second Defendant. They are also British citizens who are domiciled and habitually resident in England, Third Defendant is a company domiciled in France, and the public liability insurer of the First and Second Defendants. Fourth Defendant is a contractor which was carrying out renovation works on the swimming pool at the time of the accident. Fifth Defendant is the public liability insurer of the Fourth Defendant. Fourth and Fifth Defendants are both companies which are domiciled in France.

That French law applies to the claims against Fourth and Fifth Defendant is undisputed. There is however a dispute as to the applicable law in relation to his claims against the First to Third Defendants. These Defendants contend that, by operation of A4(2) Rome II, English law applies because the Claimant and the First and Second Defendants are habitually resident in England. Claimant contends that French law applies by operation of A4(3) Rome II: the ‘manifestly more closely connected’ rule.

Textual argument suggest that on the basis of the text of Recital 18 and A4(2) itself, A4(2) only applies to two party cases and does not apply in multi-party cases. Linden J at 29 notes that this would also correspond with the narrow reading required of A4(2). However he follows of course the authority of Marshall, which I approved of at the time (if only because, if multi-party claims were outside the scope of A42(), it would suffice for either claimant artificially to add a defendant to the claim, or for a defendant similarly to manoeuvre in a second defendant, for A4(2) to become inoperable). A4(2) also applies if more than one party is involved.

On A4(3), then, Marshall, too, is authority and Winrow v Hemphill another rare case that seriously engaged with the issue. In the latter case, Slade J held that the balance was in favour of not applying the escape clause, particularly in view of the period of time of habitual residence in Germany, and subsequent continuing residence in that country (inter alia for follow-up treatment). In the former, Dingemans J did reach a conclusion of applying A4(3) hence lex causae being French law on the grounds I discuss in my post on the case. Here, Linden J discusses the various factors at issue in Winrow v Hemphill and in Marhsall and reaches a conclusion of French law:

In my view it is clear that the tort/delict in the present case is manifestly more closely connected with France. France is where the centre of gravity of the situation is located and the preponderance of factors clearly points to this conclusion. This conclusion also accords with the legitimate expectations of the parties.

The reasons for that are essentially listed at (75  ff)

The tort/delict occurred in France, as I have noted. This is also where the injury or direct damage occurred. The dispute centres on a property in France and it concerns structural features of that property and how the First, Second and Fourth Defendants dealt with works on a swimming pool there. Although these defendants deny that there was fault on the part of any of them, the First and Second Defendants say that the Fourth Defendant was responsible if the pool presented a danger and the Fourth Defendant says that they were. The allegations of contributory negligence/fault also centre on the Claimant’s conduct whilst at the Villa in France.

The First and Second Defendants also had a significant and long-standing connection to France, the accident occurred on their property and the works were carried out by a French company pursuant to a contract with them which is governed by French law. Their insurer, the Third Defendant, is a French company and they are insured under a contract which is governed by French law. The contract was to insure a property in France albeit one which, I accept, applied to claims under English and French law. It is also common ground that the claim against the Fourth Defendant, and therefore against the Fifth Defendant, also a French company, is entirely governed by French law and will require the court to decide whether the Fourth Defendant or, at least by implication, the First and Second Defendants were “custodians” of the property for the purposes of French law.

Whilst it cannot be said at this stage that, by analogy with Marshall, the accident was entirely caused by the Fourth Defendant in particular, the situation in relation to the swimming pool which is said to have been the cause of the accident was firmly rooted in France and it resulted from works which were being carried out by the Fourth Defendant as a result of it being contracted to do so by the First and Second Defendants. The liability of the First and Second Defendants, if any, will be affected by how they dealt with that situation, including by evidence about their dealings with the Fourth Defendant. That situation had no significant connections with England other than the nationality and habitual place of residence of the First and Second Defendants.

The core counterarguments which were dismissed, are (78 ff)

I take the point that the Claimant and the First and Second Defendants were habitually resident in England at the relevant time, that there was a pre-existing relationship between them, and that the Claimant and his family came to be at the Villa as a result of an agreement which was made in England. But, applying an objective test (see Chitty on Contract Volume 1 at paragraph 2-171 in particular), I am not satisfied that this agreement, on the information available at this stage, was contractual in nature. Part of the difficulty in relation to this aspect of the First to Third Defendants’ argument is that there is very little information before the court as to what precisely happened. Looking at the agreed facts in the context of the statements of case and the other materials which I have been shown, however, it appears that the agreement resulted from a casual conversation between social acquaintances in the context of mutual favours having been done in the past. It was informal in nature and it appears that the Claimant offered to do the work as a favour and the First and Second Defendant invited him and his family to the Villa to return that favour.

If I had found that there was a contract, I would also likely have found that it was governed by French law. Although it was entered into in England between British parties, it related entirely to a property in France. Performance of the contract on both sides could only be effected at a particular property in France and was very strongly connected to France in that it involved work on a villa there and a family holiday there. This and the other features of the case would have led me to conclude that [A4(3) Rome I] indicated that there was a manifestly closer connection between the contract and France, although I acknowledge that there is a degree of circularity in this approach. ….

Mr Doherty understandably emphasised that, even if there was no contract with the Claimant, the relationship and the agreement which led to the Claimant and his family being in France were based and made in England. I was also initially attracted by his argument that in effect the Claimant’s complaint is about the way in which the First and Second Defendants fulfilled their side of that agreement. But that is not the claim which he makes, and, in any event, their performance of the agreement was in the form of allowing the Claimant and his family to occupy a villa in France. Nor is this a case in which, for example, the injury occurred whilst the Claimant was carrying out work on the Villa and potential tortious and contractual duties (if the relationship was contractual) therefore arose directly out of the relationship between the parties.

To my mind the tort/delict in this case is much more closely connected to the state of the swimming pool which, as I have said, was part of a property in France and resulted from the French law contract between the First and Second Defendants and the Fourth Defendant. If any of the Defendants is liable, that liability will be closely connected with this contract. This point, taken in combination with the other points to which I have referred, in my view clearly outweighs the existence of any contract with the Claimant relating to the Villa, even if I had found there to be a contractual relationship and even if it was governed by English law.

Similarly, although I have taken into account the nationality and habitual place of residence of the Claimant and the First and Second Defendants, these do not seem to me to alter the conclusion to which I have come. I have also taken into account the fact that the consequences of the accident have to a significant extent been suffered by the Claimant whilst he was in England, but in my view the other factors to which I have referred clearly outweigh this consideration.

Of particular note for future direction on Rome II, is the discussion on existing pre-contractual relations.

This is of course a fact-specific and to a certain extent, discretionary assessment. I also agree there is no limit to the kinds and amount of factors which a judge may take into account when applying the A4(3) exception.

I am minded to disagree with the conclusion reached here, however.  The judge’s assessment is one that echoes a proper law of the tort approach, starting from scratch. But that is not what A4(3) is about: it does not start from scratch; it starts from the clearly stated rule of A4(2), which requires a lot of heavy lifting to be dislodged. The arguments pro upholding the A4(2) presumption listed in 78ff in my view give the finding for sustaining its consequence and hence English law as lex causae, strong foundations indeed which I believe, respectfully of course, the judge did not show enough deference to.

Geert.

European Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 4.5.

Article 4(2) and (3) Rome II Regulation, applicable law for tort. https://t.co/cYGtr7m0jx

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 21, 2020

Marta Pertegás (Maastricht University) has posted The 2019 Judgments Convention: the Road Ahead on SSRN.

The abstract reads:

In The Hague and far beyond, the conclusion of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (hereafter, “the Hague Judgments Convention”) in July 2019 was welcomed with a long deep sigh of satisfaction. The successful conclusion of this Convention under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (hereafter, “the HCCH”) undoubtedly marks a crucial milestone in the area of international dispute settlement in civil and commercial matters. In this contribution, the author describes the circumstances leading up to the conclusion of the Hague Judgments Convention, as well as the Convention´s most salient features. The author also recommends some actions for the Convention to become truly effective. Indeed, the “road ahead” towards an operational international standard of practical relevance is the next challenge for the private international law global community.

Today, the English High Court in Owen v Galgey [2020] EHWC 3546 (QB) delivered a thorough and interesting decision on Article 4(3) of Rome II Regulation, which is the general escape clause for Rome II. For a complete reading of the decision see here

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel d'Aix-En-Provence, 24 septembre 2020

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Papeete, 29 septembre 2020

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, 9 juin 2020

Pourvoi c/ Chambre de l'instruction de Lyon, 15 octobre 2020

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, 12 juin 2020

The European Commission on 3 December presented the European Democracy Action Plan. The Press Release explains that: “Standing up to challenges to our democratic systems from rising extremism and perceived distance between people and politicians, the Action Plan sets out measures to promote free and fair elections, strengthen media freedom and counter disinformation.”

With regard to the aim of strengthening media freedom, the Commission “will propose in 2021 a recommendation on the safety of journalists, drawing particular attention to threats against women journalists, and an initiative to curb the abusive use of lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs).”

The Commission is seeking to establish an Expert Group against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). The Call defines SLAPP as “groundless or exaggerated lawsuits, initiated by state organs, business corporations or powerful individuals against weaker parties who express, on a matter of public interest, criticism or communicate messages which are uncomfortable to the litigants.”

The Call further explains: “Whilst most SLAPP appear to be national lawsuits, they can be made more complex, thus more costly to defend, when they are deliberately brought in another jurisdiction and enforced across borders, or when they exploit other aspects of national procedural and private international law. Most SLAPP suits are based on defamation claims, but there are cases based on other grounds, including data protection, blasphemy, tax laws, copyright, trade secret breaches, and similar concepts.”

Interested persons can find the call in the Register of Commission Expert Groups.

When I flagged the Dutch SC reference to the CJEU in C‑709/19 Vereniging van Effectenbezitters, asking for clarification of the Universal Music case-law on purely economic damage, I signalled the specificities of this case:  the case concerns a class action, not that of an individual shareholder; no prospectus was specifically addressed at Dutch investors, who instead feel they received incomplete and misleading information that was made public through press releases, websites and public statements by directors; finally the Dutch Supreme Court questions the CJEU on an e-Date accessibility type jurisdictional basis.

BP plc, defendant, is domiciled in the UK.

Sanchez-Bordona AG Opined last Thursday (apologies I did not make the Twitter-promised Friday review). He kicks off  his Opinion with calling into question the very premise of the Universal Music case-law: at 24

the fact that the applicant’s account is located in that Member State is a relevant consideration in any non-contractual action for damage suffered by investments as a result of defective information, even when supplemented by other factors. While noting that the Court of Justice has inclined towards that view, in my opinion it is an open question.

That is a bold proposition not borne out by either CJEU or national case-law. Arguably better formulated is the position at 28 that the interest of the location of the bank account ‘should not be overstated’.

At 32 ff the AG repeats his call (joining a list of AG’s) to abandon the Bier Handlungsort Erfolgort distinction which he also expressed in his Opinion in Volkswagen. He emphasises again that in cases like these, the procedural decision on jurisdiction requires the judge too intensive an engagement with the substance of the case, consequently (at 36) ‘the very nature of the criterion may well create uncertainty among legal practitioners and encourage procedural delaying tactics, as well as divergent interpretations in Member States and further requests to the Court of Justice for preliminary rulings.’

At 37 (and with reference to national case-law) follows a repeat of the call to ‘ruling out the place where the investment account is located’. However the AG himself then acknowledges that call is likely to fall on deaf CJEU ears (at 39):

having regard to the wording of the questions referred, I shall answer them in accordance with their own premisses, that is to say, in the light of the existing case-law of the Court of Justice

hence he continues the Opinion taking Universal Music and its descendants into account:

at 46: ‘the fact that the financial damage took place in an investment account located in the Netherlands cannot be accepted as a ‘sufficient connecting factor for the international jurisdiction’ of the courts of that State.’ – I agree.

Again with reference to his Opinion in Volkswagen, and using the initial justification of the CJEU in Bier to put forward locus damni, the AG at 49-50 reiterates that

the ‘specific circumstances’ relevant to attributing jurisdiction are those which demonstrate the proximity between the action and the jurisdiction, and the foreseeability of that jurisdiction, .. Those circumstances must include: factors that facilitate the sound administration of justice and the smooth operation of proceedings; and factors that may have helped the parties to determine where they should institute proceedings or where they might be sued as a result of their actions.

He then rejects, for reasons succinctly explained in the Opinion, as being relevant: BP’s settlement with other shareholders; the status as consumer of some of the shareholders; BP’s information about its shares.

He concludes on this point at 60 ff that there simply is not a locus damni that meets with A7(2) Brussels Ia’s conditions. He refers as he did in Volkswagen pro inspiratio to the CJEU’s similar holding viz A7(1) forum contractus in C-56/00 Besix:  that we are dealing with an obligation which ‘is not capable of being identified with a specific place or linked to a court which would be particularly suited to hear and determine the dispute relating to that obligation’.

Finally the AG deals with the question whether the nature of the action brought by VEB (the fact that it is a collective action) and the fact that it is purely an action for a declaratory judgment, should have an impact. The referring court fears that extending the CJEU rule of CDC, that the transfer of claims by each original creditor to the applicant does not affect the determination of the court having jurisdiction under Article 7(2), would make collective action ineffective.

The AG points out first of all that following ia Folien Fischer, the courts of the Member State in which either the causal event took place or the harm occurred or may occur may lawfully accept jurisdiction by virtue of A7(2) in actions in which specific damages have not (yet) been sought.

He then suggests at 79 that he sees ‘no difficulty in applying [A7(2)] to declaratory actions such as that brought by VEB, in advance of subsequent actions for damages which may be brought only by the individual injured parties, whose identity and residence are unknown at the time of the (first) action.’ Here I do not quite follow. The questions asked by VEB are not merely provisional in an A35 sense (indeed that Article is not discussed). VEB are asking the court to hold

that the courts in the Netherlands have international jurisdiction to hear the claims for compensation brought by the BP shareholders; that the rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam) has territorial jurisdiction to hear those claims; that BP acted unlawfully towards its shareholders inasmuch as it made incorrect, incomplete and misleading statements about: (i) its safety and maintenance programmes prior to the oil spill on 20 April 2010; or (ii) the extent of the oil spill; or (iii) the role and responsibility of BP in regard to the oil spill; that, had it not been for the unlawful conduct on the part of BP, the purchase or sale of BP shares by the BP shareholders would have been effected at a more favourable market price, or not at all; that there is a conditio sine qua non link between BP’s unlawful conduct and the loss suffered by the BP shareholders due to the fall in the share price in the period between 16 January 2007 and 25 June 2010.

Surely these kinds of questions can only be entertained by court that has A7(2) jurisdiction which, the AG had just opined, is highly unlikely (although the referring court will have the last word on that).  That he sees ‘no difficulty in applying [A7(2)] to declaratory actions such as that brought by VEB’ either then contradicts what he just advised (unlikely) or reinforces it cynically (as in ‘no difficulty in applying it, meaning there is no such jurisdiction’) – also perhaps unlikely. Am I missing something?

Finally at 95 the AG (not further discussing Qs 3 and 4) concurs with Bobek AG in Schrems: on the issue of assignment, it is not up to the CJEU to write the law.

Most relevant.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.459.

Among flurry of #CJEU documents on this Super Thursday is SÁNCHEZ-BORDONA AG's Opinion in Vereniging van Effectenbezitters: location, for jurisdictional purposes, of purely financial damage, application of the Universal Music criteriahttps://t.co/xUwiMNYZFA
I shall review 2mrw.

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 17, 2020

This is a guest post by Katažyna Bogdzevič (Mikša), an associate professor of the Institute of International and European Union Law at the Law School of Mykolas Romeris University in Vilnius, Lithuania and an advisor to the Lithuanian Ministry of Justice. 

The CJEU’s judgement in the case of E.E. case (C-80/19) has already attracted scholars’ attention and it is not surprising (for posts on this blog see: here and here). For the first time, the CJEU had an opportunity to elaborate on the Succession Regulation with respect to so many important matters: the cross-border nature of the succession case, the notion of court, the scope of jurisdictional rules and authentic instruments and, finally, the choice of applicable law. The outcome of the case at the Supreme Court of Lithuania, after CJEU judgement, is presented below.

A deceased person was a Lithuanian national who married a German national and moved to Germany in 2013. The same year she made a will before a notary in Kaunas (Lithuania) and designated her son E.E. as the only heir. She passed away in 2017, and her son approached the notary in Kaunas to open the succession and issue a national succession certificate. However, his request was rejected, as the notary had no jurisdiction in accordance with the Succession Regulation. E.E. have appealed this decision to the court.

Lithuania did not notify the Commission pursuant to Article 79 of the Succession Regulation of the other authorities and other legal professionals (except for the courts), which exercise judicial functions or act pursuant to a delegation of power by a judicial authority or act under the control of a judicial authority. However, the CJEU ruled already in the WB case (C-658/17) that failure by a Member State to notify the Commission of the exercise of judicial functions by notaries, as required under that provision, is not decisive for their classification as a court. As a result, in the absence of a clear answer whether Lithuanian notaries are courts, they applied jurisdiction rules provided by the Succession Regulation for the purpose of issuing national succession certificates.

The Supreme Court of Lithuania, while dealing with cassation appeal, referred a preliminary questions to the CJEU regarding the cross-border nature of the case, the notion of the court and the legal nature of the national succession certificate issued by the Lithuanian notaries, both in case they can be considered courts and in case they cannot.

After the CJEU ruling, there are no doubts that the case at stake is of a cross-border character. Hence, this issue is left outside of this comment. The most interesting part is regarding the functions of the notaries and assessment of whether they exercise judicial powers or act pursuant to delegation of power by a judicial authority or act under the control of a judicial authority.  The CJEU reminded that Lithuanian notaries are not courts, unless they act pursuant to a delegation of power by a judicial authority or act under the control of a judicial authority. The CJEU did not use this opportunity to elaborate on these premises but left it for the national court to decide.

On 4 November 2020, the Supreme Court of Lithuania ruled in the resolution (No e3K-3-422-378/2020) that Lithuanian notaries are not courts within the meaning of the Succession Regulation.

The Supreme Court started its analysis by recalling Article 3(2) Succession Regulation. The further considerations were based mainly on the Law on Notaries. Article 1 of this law grants notaries with rights to legally establish uncontested rights and legal facts of natural and legal persons to ensure the protection of these persons and the state’s legitimate interests. A notary is required to act with greater diligence and caution and is obliged to comply with the law strictly and to refuse to perform notarial acts if they infringe the law or do not comply with it. Such an understanding of a notary’s functions presupposes that the notary does not solve disputes between the parties, does not establish disputable circumstances, and, in case of doubts or disagreements about the rights or legal facts of persons, shall refuse to certify such rights or facts.  A notary may certify certain rights or facts only if there are no doubts about their content and legality.

Pursuant to Article 26(1)(2) Law on Notaries, which defines notarial acts performed by notaries, notaries shall issue (national) succession certificates. The Supreme Court, in its previous case-law, provided that the facts contained in notarized documents are established and cannot be proved otherwise until these documents (or parts thereof) are declared invalid following the procedure established by law (Article 26(2) Law on Notaries).

In case of a dispute between the heirs in a succession case, such dispute shall be settled in a court in accordance with the rules established in Article 12 of the Law on Courts, which stipulate that the Supreme Court of Lithuania, regional and district courts are courts of general jurisdiction. Since Lithuanian notaries are not granted the right to rule on the issues which gave rise to the dispute between the parties and the right to establish facts which are not clear and obvious or to decide on the disputed facts, the Supreme Court concluded that the issuance of a national succession certificate does not imply the performance of judicial functions. Therefore, if the notaries are not considered courts within the meaning of the Succession Regulation, they are not bound by its jurisdictional rules. The Supreme Court pointed out that in order to establish a uniform solution in cross-border inheritance cases, the legislator could enact a provision obliging Lithuanian notaries to follow the rules of jurisdiction established in the Succession Regulation. However, in their absence, notaries in Lithuania must follow national law rules in cross-border succession cases.

The Supreme Court concluded that in the present case, having established that the succession was of a cross-border nature, a notary in Lithuania is competent to issue a national succession certificate without the need of analyzing jurisdictional rules of the Succession Regulation. To the contrary, in the event of a dispute, the court’s jurisdiction shall be determined based on the provisions of the Succession Regulation.