Feed aggregator

Ekaterina Aristova, a PhD in Law Candidate at the University of Cambridge, has made available on SSRN her article “Tort Litigation against TNCs in the English Courts: The Challenge of Jurisdiction”. Published earlier this month in the Utrecht Law Review the article discusses a recent trend of private claims alleging direct liability of parent companies for overseas human rights abuses (‘Tort Liability Claims’) focusing on the rules of civil jurisdiction applied by the English courts. It demonstrates how jurisdictional issues arising in Tort Liability Claims challenge the traditional value-neutralism paradigm of private international law as an abstract and technical disciplineby necessitating increasing involvement of domestic courts in the regulation of transnational corporations (‘TNCs’).

The author has kindly provided us with a brief summary of her key findings:

1) Tort Liability Claims are typically initiated in England by private partiesaffected by the activities of TNCs in the host (foreign) state.These arecivil liability cases in which the cause of actionagainst English-domiciled parent companiesis framed through the tort law concept of duty of carerather than the corporate law doctrine of piercing the corporate veil or customary international law on human rights. The allegations are based on the common law principles which provide that in certain circumstances the parent company may be found to have assumed a duty of care, owed to the claimants, to ensure their safety.The article explainsthat duty of care is invoked by the claimants in order to: (1) attribute liability for the overseas abuse to the parent company; (2) establish the necessaryterritorialconnection between the alleged tort and England; and (3) weaken the extraterritoriality concerns raised by the judgment of the English courtswith respect to the events occurred on the territory of the host(foreign)state.

2) To date, the application of Brussels I and English common law by English courts to Tort Liability Claims has resulted in the development of a jurisdictional solution for claims brought against English-domiciled parent companies and their foreign subsidiaries as co-defendants. The concept of duty of care allows claimants to bring claims against English-domiciled parent companies as anchor defendants so as to allow the joinder of the foreign subsidiary as a necessary or proper party under common law. Following the CJEU’s decision in Owusu, the general rule of domicile under Article 4 of Brussels I has a mandatory effect in the proceedings against English-domiciled parent company and claimants cannot rely onthe doctrine of forum non conveniens under English traditional rules. As a result, claims brought against foreign subsidiaries are also likely to survive the forum convenienscontrol. The overall analysis of the rules of jurisdiction in this article suggests that: (1) claims against the English-domiciled parent company in relation to the overseas operations of its foreign subsidiary can be heard in the English courts; and (2) the existence of an arguable claim against an English-domiciled parent company also establishes jurisdiction of the English courts over the connected claims against the subsidiary even if the factual basis of the case occur almost exclusively in the foreign state.

3) One of the most recent successful attempts of foreign citizens to establish English jurisdiction over legal entities of TNC is litigation against English-based mining corporation Vedanta Resources Plc (‘Vedanta’) and its Zambian subsidiary Konkola Copper Mines (‘KCM’) in relation to the environmental pollution in Zambia resulting from the KCM’s operations. Both the High Court (discussed by the author earlier on this blog) and the Court of Appeal (also refer to author’s earlier post) confirmed that Zambian citizens can pursue in England claims against Vedanta and KCM. Decisions of the English courts inVedanta allow making few important observations. Firstly, if the parent company merely held shares in the capital of a foreign subsidiary this would not lead to the establishment of a duty of care and additional circumstances are required to conclude whether the parent company could be held responsible. Second, the parent’s direct and substantial oversight of the subsidiary’s operations in question, including specific environmental and technical deficiencies of the infrastructure in the host state, is likely to give rise to the duty of care. Third, engagement in a mini-trial on the substantive liability issues is not appropriate at the early jurisdictional stage of proceedings, before full disclosure of the relevant documents. Fourth, in the context of applying the ‘necessary or proper party’ gateway, the practical objectives of avoiding two trials on similar facts and events in different parts of the world outweigh the need for the existence of a territorial connection between England and the claim against a foreign subsidiary of the English-domiciled parent company.

4) Unlike in Vedanta, the foreign claimants in Okpabi v Shellfailed to establish jurisdiction of the English courts over claims against Royal Dutch Shell, an English-domiciled parent company (‘RDS’), and its Nigerian operating subsidiary Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd (‘SPDC’) for the ongoing pollution and environmental damage caused by the oil spills in Nigeria. In 2018, the Court of Appeal in a split decision concluded that the claimants had not established an arguable duty of care assumed by RDS in relation to SPDC’s operations and that, hence, there was no real issue to be tried by RDS and the claimants. As a result, claims against RDS and SPDC were dismissed. The article criticises the Court of Appeal decision for two major shortcomings. First of all, it is submitted that the court took a highly restrictive approach for the imposition of the duty of care on English-domiciled parent companies in relation to the overseas activities of their subsidiaries. The second serious shortcoming of the Court of Appeal’s majority decision in Okpabiis an unreasonably high burden on the claimants to establish an arguable case on the duty of care at the jurisdictional stage of proceedings. Arguably, such approach blurs the boundary between jurisdictional inquiry and resolution of the case on the merits.

5) Finally, the article also discusses the Anglo American Group litigation, where the South African claimants contended that they had suffered from silicosis and silico-tuberculosis in the course of their employment by AASA, the South African company. The claimants argued that the central administration of AASA was in London, since this was the location of Anglo American plc, its English-based parent company, and that it followed that AASA was domiciled in England under the meaning of Brussels I. The Court of Appeal, who defined ‘central administration’ as the place ‘where the company concerned, through its relevant organs according to its own constitutional provisions, takes the decisions that are essential for that company’s operations’, declined to find that decisions of the English-domiciled parent company with respect to the operations of the group had any relevance in determining the domicile of the foreign subsidiary. As a result, it is challenging for the claimants in the Tort Liability Claims, if not impossible, to assert jurisdiction over a foreign subsidiary directly without also commencing proceedings against an English-domiciled parent company. The article further criticised Court of Appeal decision for the lack of jurisdictional analysis of the integrated nature of TNCs and their managerial organisation.

6) The overall conclusion of the article is that Tort Liability Claims offer the discipline an opportunity to reconsider its role of the neutral mediator in international litigation and contribute to the debate on international corporate accountability. Itis notargued that private international law should close the gap in group liability through unilateral transformation of judges into agents of justice by substituting the norms of public international law and substantive domestic law governing overseas operations of business actors. Rather,the disciplinemay engage where appropriate and the uniform rules of jurisdiction are capable of balancing the regulatory impact of these jurisdictional rules with its potential to cause inter-state jurisdictional conflicts.

Value of award

100% of UK/EU tuition fees for 3 years and an annual stipend at the UKRI postgraduate rate, currently £14,777.

Start date and duration

1 September 2018 for 3 years.

Application closing date

12 July 2018.

Overview

Applications are invited from candidates with an interest in pursuing a PhD in any area of Law in which the School offers supervision. See our list of staff members to find an appropriate supervisor for your research topic.

Eligibility Criteria

Candidates are expected to hold at a minimum either a first class, or a very good upper second class undergraduate degree in Law.

Applications will be considered on their merits, including further education at Masters level, a publication record, professional qualifications, or relevant work experience.

The successful candidate must take up their scholarship at the commencement of the 2018/19 academic year, studying full-time.

It is a condition of the award that the successful candidate undertake some undergraduate teaching and academic support activities within the Law School, normally from the second year of their PhD studies, to a maximum not normally exceeding an average of 6 hours per week during semester 1 and 2 of the academic year.

How to apply

You must apply through the University’s online postgraduate application system. To do this please ‘Create a new account’.

All relevant fields should be completed, but fields marked with a red asterisk must to be completed. The following information will help us to process your application. You will need to:

• insert the programme code 8230F in the programme of study section;
• select ‘PhD Newcastle Law School (full-time)’ as the programme of study;
• insert the studentship code LAW007 in the studentship/partnership reference field;
• attach a covering letter and  CV. The covering letter must state the title of the studentship, quote reference code LAW007, and state how your interests and experience relate to the project;
• attach degree transcripts* and certificates and, if English is not your first language, a copy of your English language qualification.

*You will not be able to submit your application until you have submitted your degree transcript/s.

Candidates who have already applied for a place on the Law PhD programme from September 2018 will be considered and need not reapply.

Contact

Professor Sophia Tang

L’acquittement par la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) de l’ancien vice-président de la République démocratique du Congo (RDC) Jean-Pierre Bemba, le 8 juin 2018, a declenché une avalanche d’analyses et de commentaires. Retour sur une décision qui n’a pas fini de faire parler d’elle.

en lire plus

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris - chambre 5-12, 15 mai 2018

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris - pôle 2, chambre 1, 20 décembre 2017

Pourvoi c/ Chambre de l'instruction de la cour d'appel de Riom, 05 décembre 2017

Construction immobilière

Sécurité sociale, contentieux

Outre-Mer

Construction immobilière

Société civile immobilière

Whether the Singapore court has the jurisdiction or power to grant a Mareva injunction in aid of foreign court proceedings was recently considered by the Singapore High Court in PT Gunung Madu Plantations v Muhammad Jimmy Goh Mashun [2018] SGHC 64. Both plaintiff and defendant were Indonesian and the claim related to alleged breaches of duties which the defendant owed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had obtained leave to serve the writ in Indonesia on the defendant. The defendant thereupon applied, inter alia, to set aside service of the writ and for a declaration that the court has no jurisdiction over him. In response, the plaintiff applied for a Mareva injunction against the defendant in respect of the defendant’s assets in Singapore. The plaintiff had, after the Singapore action was filed, commenced actions in Malaysia and Indonesia covering much the same allegations against the defendant.

Under Singapore law (excluding actions commenced in the Singapore International Commercial Court where different rules apply), leave to serve the writ on the defendant abroad may be granted at the court’s discretion if the plaintiff is able to show: (i) a good arguable case that the claim falls within one of the heads of Order 11 of the Rules of court; (ii) a serious issue to be tried on the merits; and (iii) Singapore is forum conveniens. On the facts, the parties were Indonesian and the alleged misconduct occurred in Indonesia. As the plaintiff was unable to satisfy the third requirement, the court discharged the order for service out the writ out of the jurisdiction. Other orders made in pursuant of the order for service out were also set aside.

On the Mareva injunction, the Singapore High Court adopted the majority approach in the Privy Council decision of Mercedes Benz v Leiduck [1996] 1 AC 284. Lord Mustill had distinguished between two questions, to be approached sequentially: first, the question of whether the court has in personam jurisdiction over the defendant; secondly, the question of whether the court has a power to grant a Mareva injunction to restrain the defendant from disposing of his local assets pending the conclusion of foreign court proceedings. Valid service is required to found in personam jurisdiction under Singapore law. In PT Gunung Madu Plantations, as in Mercedes Benz itself, as the answer to the first question was in the negative, the second question did not arise.

Justice Woo was cognisant of the difficulties caused by hewing to the traditional approach of viewing Mareva relief as strictly ancillary to local proceedings but stated ‘that is a matter that has to be left to a higher court or to the legislature’ (para 54). His Honour referenced developments in the UK and Australia, where freestanding asset freezing orders in aid of foreign proceedings are permitted. Further, the Singapore International Arbitration Act was amended in 2010 to give the court the power to grant an interim injunction in aid of a foreign arbitration. It is likely that legislative intervention will be required to develop Singapore law on this issue.

The judgment may be found here: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/free-law/high-court-judgments/23135-pt-gunung-madu-plantations-v-muhammad-jimmy-goh-mashun

Commission / Malte
Environnement et consommateurs
En ayant adopté un certain régime dérogatoire permettant la capture de sept espèces d’oiseaux sauvages, Malte a manqué aux obligations qui lui incombent en vertu du droit de l’Union

M
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Selon l’avocat général Wathelet, les dispositions de la directive sur les réfugiés permettant à un État membre de refuser ou de révoquer le statut de réfugié sont compatibles avec le droit de l'UE

借金問題は、一般にみられる法律問題の中でも、特に多い存在といえるでしょう。借金と聞くと抵抗の感じられる方法に感じられるかもしれませんが、近年はキャッシングやカードローンと名前を変え、身近で手軽なサービスとして展開されています。それだけに、安易に利用し過ぎて身を滅ぼしてしまうような人が少なくないのです。

また、スマートフォンが普及したこともそうした一因になっているかもしれません。スマートフォンの割賦払いを延滞してしまうと、信用情報がマイナス評価されていまい、ブラック登録される可能性が出てきます。そうなると、気付かないうちに融資の受けられない状態となってしまいます。ブラック登録されており、なおかつどうしてもお金が必要となると、闇金に行き着いてしまう可能性も出てくるでしょう。事実、債務整理を扱う法律事務所では、闇金相談も少なくないようです。

こうした理由から、借金問題に対応する法律事務所は広く増えてきています。法的なサポートのもと債務整理をおこなえば、こうした負担も軽減できるかもしれません。軽減どころか、お金が返ってくるケースも存在するようです。借金に悩んだら、まずは法律のプロフェッショナルである法律事務所に相談してみてはいかがでしょう。

L’article 1er in fine du protocole n° 7 sur les privilèges et immunités de l’Union européenne doit être interprété en ce sens que l’autorisation préalable de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne n’est pas nécessaire lorsqu’un tiers engage une procédure de saisie-arrêt d’une créance auprès d’un organisme relevant d’un État membre et ayant une dette correspondante envers le débiteur du tiers, bénéficiaire de fonds octroyés aux fins de l’exécution de projets cofinancés par le Fonds social européen.

en lire plus