Feed aggregator

In Weco Projects APS v Piana & Ors [2020] EWHC 2150 (Comm),  Hancock J held on a case involving Brussel Ia’s consumer title, including the notion of contract of ‘transport’, Article 25’s choice of court regime, and anchor jurisdiction under Article 8(1) BIa.

The facts of the case are complex if not necessarily complicated. However the presence of a variety of parties in the chain of events led to litigation across the EU. Most suited therefore to be, as WordPress tell me, the 1000th post on the blog.

For the chain of events, reference is best made to the judgment itself. In short, a Yacht booking note, with choice of court and choice of law was made for the Yacht to be carried from Antigua to Genoa. Reference was also made to more or less identical standard terms of a relevant trade association. A clause was later agreed with the identity of the preferred Vessel to carry out the transfer, followed by subcontracting by way of a Waybill.

The Yacht was lost at sea. Various proceedings were started in Milan (seized first), Genoa and England.

At 21, Hancock J first holds obiter that express clauses in the contract have preference over incorporated ones (these referred to the trade association’s model contract), including for choice of court. Readers will probably be aware that  for choice of law, Rome I has a contested provision on ‘incorporation by reference’, although there is no such provision in BIa.

Next comes the issue of lis alibi pendens. Of particular note viz A31(2) [‘Without prejudice to Article 26, where a court of a Member State on which an agreement as referred to in Article 25 confers exclusive jurisdiction is seised, any court of another Member State shall stay the proceedings until such time as the court seised on the basis of the agreement declares that it has no jurisdiction under the agreement’] is the presence of two prima facie valid but competing exclusive choice of court agreements. Hancock J proceeds to discuss the validity of the English choice of court agreement in particular whether the businessman whose interest in sailing initiated the whole event, can be considered a consumer.

The judge begins by discussing whether the contract concerned is one of mere ‘transport’ which by virtue of A17(3) BIa rules out the consumer title all together. At 37 it is concluded that the contract is indeed one of transport and at 37(8) obiter that freight forwarding, too, is ‘transport’. Hancock J notes the limited use of CJEU authority, including Pammer /Alpenhof. In nearly all of the authority, the issue is whether the contracts at issue concerned more than just transport, ‘transport’ itself left largely undiscussed.

Obiter at 75, with reference to CJEU Gruber and Schrems, and also to Baker J in Ramona v Reliantco, Hancock J holds that Mr Piana had failed to show that the business use of the Yacht was merely negligible.

Following this conclusion the discussion turns to the impact of the UK’s implementation of the EU’s unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations, with counsel suggesting that the impact of these is debatable, in light of A25 BIa’s attempt at harmonising validity of choice of court. Readers will be aware that A25’s attempt at harmonisation is incomplete, given its deference to lex fori prorogati). Hancock J does not settle that issue, holding at 111 that in any event the clause is not unfair viz the UK rules.

Next follows the Article 8(1) discussion with reference to CJEU CDC and to the High Court in Media Saturn. Hancock J takes an unintensive approach to the various conditions: they need to be fulfilled without the court at the jurisdictional stage getting too intensively caught up in discussing the merits. At 139 he justifiably dismisses the suggestion that there is a separate criterion of foreseeability in A8(1). On whether the various claims for negative declaratory relief are ‘so closely connected’, he holds they are on the basis of the factuality of each being much the same and therefore best held by one court. Abuse of process, too, is ruled out per Kolomoisky and Vedanta: at 143: there is no abuse of process in bringing proceedings which are arguable for the purposes of founding jurisdiction over other parties.

(The judgment continues with extensive contractual review of parties hoping to rely on various choice of court provisions in the chain).

Quite an interesting set of Brussels Ia issues.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, big chunks of Chapter 2.

On 10 August 2020, the European Commission launched a public consultation on Regulation 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (“the EEO Regulation”).

The consultation is carried out in the framework of an ongoing evaluation of the EEO Regulation.

In this context, the European Commission “seeks opinions on how the Regulation is working, also with regard to the revised Brussels I Regulation (Regulation 1215/2012). It also aims to collect practical experiences with the EEO Regulation, and attitudes towards its use in the future”.

The consultation is open until 20 November 2020 (midnight Brussels time) and can be found here.

Applications are now open for three- to six-month legal internships at the HCCH Permanent Bureau in The Hague, for the period from January to June 2021.

Interns work with our legal teams in the areas of family & child protection law, legal cooperation, dispute resolution, commercial & financial law. It’s a great way to gain practical experience, deepen your knowledge of private international law, and to understand how the HCCH functions.

Due to the current global situation and the associated travel limitations and restrictions, the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH may consider the possibility that internships be carried out remotely. Interns may also be eligible for a monthly stipend.

We encourage you to share this opportunity with law students and graduates within your networks.

Applications close on 30 September 2020. For more information, please visit the Internships page of the HCCH website.

This post is published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference of Private International Law (HCCH). 

Elections

As reported in this blog, the CJEU gave on 9 July 2020 its long-awaited judgment in VKI v Volkswagen (Case C-343/19). It ruled that the buyers of VW cars equipped with emissions test defeat devices can sue the manufacturer at the place where they had purchased the cars.

This result, which is broadly in line with the conclusions of the Advocate General, was hardly surprising. Nevertheless, a number of questions remain.

The first and most urgent of these is what the CJEU means by the “place of purchase”. The Austrian court that submitted the reference for a preliminary ruling had identified three different places that could meet this description: (1) the place where the contract to purchase  the cars had been concluded, (2) the place where the purchase price had been paid, and (3) the place where the transfer or delivery of the vehicles had taken place (see para 10 of the judgment). In the dispute at hand, all three places happened to be located in the same district, but this will not be the case universally. In cases where they are different, which of these three places is the CJEU referring to?

The second question relates to the extent to which competent court will be foreseeable. The CJEU reasoned that the manufacturer must have anticipated that damage will occur at the place of purchase, as it knowingly contravened the statutory requirements imposed on it at this location (para 37). But this place of damage is foreseeable only on the assumption that VW will always market the vehicles in the country of purchase. That the place of acquisition and the place of marketing can differ is illustrated by Article 5(1)(b) Rome II Regulation.

Third, one may harbour doubts about the CJEU’s argument that the tribunal at the place of purchase is best placed to carry out the assessment of damage (para 38). Proximity and the sound administration of justice would rather have suggested concentrating all cases in the court of the place of the manufacturer. The Court passed in silence over the main justification for locating jurisdiction over the tort in Austria; namely, the advantage to the tort victims in sparing them and their assignee the need to bring their claims in the home jurisdiction of the manufacturer, i.e. in Germany.

Fourth, it is unclear why the CJEU spent so much effort diffusing the referring court’s idea that the damage was “purely financial”. The Court of Justice was at great pains to make clear that the present case concerns material damage because the buyers received a vehicle with a defect (paras 32-35). Yet it did not draw any conclusions from this characterisation; in particular, it did not locate the damage at the place where the car had been used or registered. Instead, the Court abstracted from the vehicles and referred to the place of purchase, where the only loss incurred was…ehm…financial.

Fifth, it is a mystery why the CJEU – in holding that the damage occurred at the place of purchase for the purposes of Article 7 no 2 Brussels I bis Regulation – drew an analogy to the rules on unfair competition in Article 6(1) Rome II Regulation (para 39). The present case was not about unfair competition. Instead, the claimant brought a number of damages claims for defective vehicles.

Similarly, the situation was also quite different from the case of VKI v Amazon to which the Court of Justice referred. In that case, VKI had claimed in its own right when it applied for an injunction to restrain the use of unfair contract terms under the national law transposing Directive 2009/22/EC; whereas in the present case, it now brought a number of individual claims that had been assigned to it. It is true that the CJEU had ruled in VKI v Amazon that collective and individual claims must be treated under the same law. Yet this statement was made in the context of the validity of standard contract terms; it does not nearly have the same force with regard to damages claims. Even under the Court of Justice’s own standard in the new VW case, the latter will be judged under different laws and by different courts, depending on the country in which the vehicles were purchased.

The place of purchase that the CJEU identifies as the place where the damage occurred may be fortuitous, is subject to possible manipulation, and can hardly be determined in the case of e-commerce. It would have been more convincing to take into account other circumstances, such as the place of habitual residence of the purchasers, the place where they used the vehicle, and the place of marketing, as already suggested in this blog. Advocate General Sánchez Bordona had also suggested a combination of the place of purchase and the place of marketing. Only a holistic approach can properly balance the interests of the claimant and the defendant.

Trevor Hartley (London School of Economics) has published the 3rd edition of his textbook on International Commercial Litigation.

The book combines extensive texts presenting the topics discussed and extracts from cases and legislative materials (European regulations, international conventions, national acts). It is a mix of a textbook and a casebook.

As its title suggests, the focus of the book is on international civil procedure. It presents in depth issues of jurisdiction and foreign jugdments, but also freezing assets and the taking of evidence abroad. As its title does not suggest, the last part of the book also covers choice of law, and offers an in depth treatment of choice of law in contracts, torts and property.

The book is remarkable by the comparative stance that it takes on all the topics that the covers. It systematically presents the position in the EU, in England and in the U.S. It also sometimes includes cases and materials from other common law jurisdictions such as Canada.

Taking a fresh and modern approach to the subject, this fully revised and restructured textbook provides everything necessary to gain a good understanding of international commercial litigation. Adopting a comparative stance, it provides extensive coverage of US and Commonwealth law, in addition to the core areas of English and EU law. Extracts from key cases and legislative acts are designed to meet the practical requirements of litigators as well as explaining the ideas behind legal provisions. Significant updates include coverage of new case-law from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Of particular importance has been a set of judgments on jurisdiction in tort for pure financial loss, many of which have involved investment loss. New case law from the English courts, including the Supreme Court, and from the Supreme Court of the United States, is also covered.

Early July the Dutch Supreme Court followed-up on CJEU C–535/17 NK v BNP Paribas Fortis re the Peeters /Gatzen suit – a judgment I covered here. Roel Verheyden has additional analysis of the SC ruling, in Dutch, here. The SC held that the Dutch courts do not have jurisdiction, identifying Belgium as the Erfolgort per CJEU Marinari and Kolassa. As Roel notes, the SC (other than its AG) attention to potential ‘specific factors’ suggesting The Netherlands as an Erfolgort, is underwhelming and may lead to a general conclusion that Dutch Insolvency practitioners applying the Peeters /Gatzen suit to foreign parties while have to sue these abroad – leading to potential issues in the governing law itself and a disappearance of Peeters /Gatzen altogether.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 5, Heading 5.4.1, Heading 5.7.

Erfolgsort bij Peeters/Gatzen-vordering

Mark C. Weidemaier (University of North Carolina School Law) and G. Mitu Gulati (Duke Law School) have posted Unlawfully-Issued Sovereign Debt on SSRN.

The abstract reads:

In 2016, its economy in shambles and looking to defer payment on its debts, the Venezuelan government of Nicolás Maduro proposed a multi-billion dollar debt swap to holders of bonds issued by the government’s crown jewel, state-owned oil company Petroleós de Venezuela S.A. (“PDVSA”). A new government now challenges that bond issuance, arguing it was unlawful under Venezuelan law. Bondholders counter that this does not matter—that PDVSA freed itself of any borrowing limits by agreeing to a choice-of-law clause designating New York law.

The dispute over the PDVSA 2020 bonds implicates a common problem. Sovereign nations borrow under constraints imposed by their own laws. Loans that violate these constraints may be deemed invalid. Does an international bond—i.e., one expressly made subject to the law of a different jurisdiction—protect investors against that risk? The answer depends on the text of the loan’s choice-of-law clause, as interpreted against the backdrop of the forum’s rules for resolving conflict of laws problems.

We show that the choice-of-law clauses in many international sovereign bonds—especially when issued under New York law—use language that may expose investors to greater risk. We document the frequent use of “carve outs” that could be interpreted to require the application of the sovereign’s local law to a wide range of issues. If interpreted in this way, these clauses materially reduce the protection ostensibly offered by an international bond. We explain why we think a narrower interpretation is more appropriate.

Contrôle judiciaire

Détention provisoire - Covid -19