Flux des sites DIP

[If you do use the blog for research, practice submission or database purposes, citation would be appreciated, to the blog as a whole and /or to specific blog posts. Many have suggested I should turn the blog into a paid for, subscription service however I have resisted doing so. Proper reference to how the blog is useful to its readers, will help keeping this so.]

DHV v Motor Insurers’ Bureau (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 2002 (KB) is an interesting case to discuss statutory construction of EU law, specifically (and this is mostly how it ended up on the blog) with respect to Rome II’s ‘evidence and procedure’ carve-out and the impact of its recital 33 on same.

Those interested in the use of experts in proceedings generally, may want to read the first 80 or so paras of the judgment as well, for the account by Dias J of the various experts and their credibility is most informative, as is [45]

Two accident reconstruction experts gave live evidence: …..The factual conclusions the court reaches must be based on the totality of evidence, combining expert and all other relevant evidence. The court is not bound by the conclusions of any expert if it offends logic and common sense. We do not have trial by experts. This principle applies with equal force to the other pairs of experts, on Spanish law, actuarial evidence and medico-legal matters. I will not repeat that important warning and qualification. (emphasis added)

Now, to the conflict of laws issues at hand:

The judgment on this issue kicks off with general observations on determining applicable law, and the precise implications of ‘foreign law as fact’ with [82] reference ia to Lambert v MIB as well [83 ff] as how exactly that foreign law needs to be applied: entirely as it has been done by the relevant foreign courts (possibly all the way up to their supreme court), or, if their is evidence (provided by the experts) that these foreign courts have not actually properly applied their own laws, by the English court’s ‘proper’ reading of those laws.

[85] ff then discuss Rome II’s ‘evidence and procedure’ carve-out, which I review in the handbook with reference to all authorities reviewed in current case. Pro memoria, relevant statutory provisions are

Article 1(3)

This Regulation shall not apply to evidence and procedure,
without prejudice to Articles 21 and 22.

Note ! this is a proper and entire carve-out altogether from the scope of the Regulation, different from Article 1(2) which excludes certain issues which as a result of Article 1(1) are within its scope, but are then excepted.

(Articles 21 and 22 are of no relevance to the case at issue; see on those Articles eg Quilombola, X v Y (parental responsibility) or X v Y ( monies viz real estate transaction).

Article 15 ‘Scope of the law applicable’

Article 15
Scope of the law applicable
The law applicable to non-contractual obligations under this Regulation shall govern in particular:
(a) the basis and extent of liability, including the determination of persons who may be held liable for acts performed by them;
(b) the grounds for exemption from liability, any limitation of liability and any division of liability c) the existence, the nature and the assessment of damage or the remedy claimed;
(d) within the limits of powers conferred on the court by its procedural law, the measures which a court may take to prevent or terminate injury or damage or to ensure the provision of compensation;
(e) the question whether a right to claim damages or a remedy may be transferred, including by inheritance;
(f) persons entitled to compensation for damage sustained personally;
(g) liability for the acts of another person;
(h) the manner in which an obligation may be extinguished and rules of prescription and limitation, including rules relating to the commencement, interruption and suspension of a period of prescription or limitation.

Of further relevance is recital 33

According to the current national rules on compensation awarded to victims of road traffic accidents, when quantifying damages for personal injury in cases in which the accident takes place in a State other than that of the habitual residence of the victim, the court seised should take into account all the relevant actual circumstances of the specific victim, including in particular the actual losses and costs of after-care and medical attention.

Wall v Mutuelle of course is the core reference employed although as I have said before, it is wrong to suggest such as the judge does here [87] that “While [the evidence and procedure carve-out] is a derogation from article 15, it must be narrowly construed”.

A first bone of contention is whether Rome II applies at all to the case. It’s probably me who does not quite see how that argument is made. The question in the end is not all that relevant given the answer to the second issue: whether recital 33 has a substantive impact on the case. The judge held it does not.

I have not recently looked at Recital 33, nor done a detailed study of its travaux. That word in fact gives the recital too much credit: a recital can be part of the travaux of a statutory provision. It does not have its own travaux, given that recitals plainly are not EU statutory law. In the case of current recital, it was a plaster to sooth the European Parliament’s failure to introduce what would have been in effect a harmonisation of substantive law on full compensation (the restitutio in integrum principle; the judge here refers ia to prof Dickinson’s discussion of the recital).

Dias J also discusses Halsbury on EU statutory law as a general background to the application of EU law. He is wrong in my opinion to [114] suggest that “the current national rules on compensation” as used in recital 33, are a reference to the applicable lex causae (which he incompletely refers to as the ‘lex loci’: ‘damni’ should be added to that). ‘The current national rules’ refers to ius commune as eg the French version shows: ‘En vertu des règles nationales existantes en matière d’indemnisation des victimes d’accidents de la circulation routière.’

Conclusion [127]: recital 33 is not a legal rule. At the most it may be of relevance in an A4(3) ‘more closely connected’ scenario – which is not the case here.

A case of interest for Rome II. Another example, too, of where continental courts in all likelihood would not have allowed the arguments to run quite to the intensity they were argued here (contributing of course to the costs of proceedings in English courts).

Geert.

On 21 August 2025, the UNSW School of Private and Commercial Law, the Journal of Equity and Allens jointly hosted the 2025 Journal of Equity Conference. This year’s one-day Conference focused on important questions at the intersection of equity, trusts and private international law. It featured four papers delivered by judges and scholars, each of which was followed by ample time for insightful questions and discussion among over 30 judges, lawyers and scholars attending the office of Allens in (rainy) Sydney.

After the Acknowledgement of Country and welcoming address by Professor Ying Khai Liew (University of Melbourne), The Honourable Andrew Bell (Chief Justice of New South Wales) delivered opening remarks, emphasising the importance of private international law and the application of its rules in equity and trusts in the modern global economy. Drawing references from old and new cases and academic materials, the Chief Justice discussed the tensions among various potential choices of law for equity and trusts, and highlighted the increasingly important role of the question of characterisation when analysing equitable doctrines and remedies.

The first paper by Professor Richard Garnett (University of Melbourne) and The Honourable Andrew Bell focused on the enforcement of trusts in international litigation. Professor Garnett considered private international law principles applied by common law courts to disputes specifically involving trusts with connections to civil law jurisdictions. Drawing from a wealth of judicial decisions, Professor Garnett examined the approaches taken by common law jurisdictions to issues of jurisdiction and applicable law in relation to both express and constructive trusts. The Chief Justice further considered the question of jurisdiction clauses (particularly in Crociani v Crociani [2014] UKPC 40, [2015] WTLR 975) and arbitrability in the enforcement of trusts in private international law. It was noted that there is fertile ground for future cases to develop more sophisticated rules.

The second paper by Professor Tiong Min Yeo (Singapore Management University) considered the problems and approaches in the characterisation of equitable doctrines. Starting with the traditional choice-of-law methodology, Professor Yeo discussed several difficulties when characterising equitable doctrines, most notably that these equitable doctrines often cross doctrinal categories in domestic law and functional categories in choice of law. Taking a functional characterisation perspective of private international law, Professor Yeo suggested looking at how the case is argued and the functions of the doctrine being pleaded. This was illustrated by reference to constructive and resulting trusts, which can fall in either the category of property or the law of obligations, or both, depending on the issue before the court. Multiple cases showed that courts have yet to engage in detail with the question of characterisation.

The third paper by Professor Man Yip (Singapore Management University) looked at the equitable origins and private international law developments of the anti-suit injunction. Professor Yip emphasised the in personam, discretionary nature of the injunction, involving considerations of comity and unconscionability. Professor Yip revealed and discussed various themes of equity within the modern framework of the anti-suit relief, including the different conceptions of comity, the recourse to equitable ideas such as ‘conscience’ (in ‘unconscionable conduct’), and the different bases for the grant of anti-suit relief (equitable jurisdiction vs inherent jurisdiction). The close relationship between equity and comity was further demonstrated by anti-suit injunctions granted in support of foreign litigation or arbitration.

The fourth paper by Associate Professor Adeline Chong (Singapore Management University) investigated the extent of the role of the lex situs in trusts claims. After explaining the rationales for applying the lex situs to questions of property generally, Professor Chong provided an in-depth account of the choice-of-law approach under the Hague Trusts Convention (the HCCH Convention of 1 July 1985 on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition) for express trusts, including the situs as a factor in identifying the applicable law of the trust, and the relevance of the lex situs when the applicable law of the trust is not the lex situs, particularly if the lex situs does not recognise trusts or the proprietary aspects of trusts. Professor Chong then turned to common law rules on resulting and constructive trusts, pointing out tensions between applying the lex fori, the lex situs, and the law governing the cause of action, event or obligation. Among these approaches, it was suggested that the lex situs should be accorded a primary role in determining whether a trust can be created in the first place, before other laws – such as those governing the cause of action, event or obligation, or those governing the relationship between the parties – come into play.

Overall, the Conference has provided all attendees with much food for thought. It is evident that these issues have no clear and easy answers, and deserve further judicial and academic attention.

Readers who are interested in the topic may wish to consult, as a starting point, Professor Yeo’s monograph, Choice of Law for Equitable Doctrines (Oxford University Press 2004), as well as various judicial decisions which were frequently featured throughout the Conference, including (in chronological order, and certainly not being an exhaustive list):

• Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust plc (No 3) [1996] 1 WLR 387 (EWCA);
• Lightning v Lightning Electrical Contractors Ltd (unreported, 23 April 1998) (EWCA);
• Damberg v Damberg (2001) 52 NSWLR 492 (NSWCA);
• Rickshaw Investments Ltd v Nicolai Baron von Uexkull [2007] 1 SLR(R) 377 (SGCA);
• Murakami v Wiryadi (2010) 268 ALR 377 (NSWCA);
• First Laser Ltd v Fujian Enterprises (Holdings) Co Ltd (2012) 15 HKCFAR 569;
• Akers v Samba Financial Group [2017] UKSC 6, [2017] AC 424;
• Trisuryo Garuda Nusa Pte Ltd v SKP Pradiksi (North) Sdn Bhd [2017] 2 SLR 814;
• Xiamen Xinjingdi Group Co Ltd v Eton Properties Ltd [2020] HKCFA 32, (2020) 23 HKCFAR 348; and
• Byers v Saudi National Bank [2023] UKSC 51, [2024] AC 1191.

Lilian Larribère (Université Paris Nanterre) and Étienne Nédellec (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) are the leaders of a project aimed at offering retrospective interviews (in French) of leading French scholars (En Chair(e)). The first interviewee is Paul Lagarde, who is Professor emeritus at the University Paris I and a leading French scholar of private international law […]

As the readers of this blog will recall, the Lindemann Fellowship for Private International Law was established in 2024 to provide early-career researchers with the opportunity to build a network with academics from all over Europe. Fellows are accepted for a three-year period, with new Fellows joining each year, as existing Fellows complete their tenure. […]

THE INDONESIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION REAFFIRMED PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE

By: Priskila Pratita Penasthika[1]

 

INTRODUCTION

The Indonesian Constitutional Court Decision Number 140/PUU-XXI/2023, issued on 3 September 2024, confirms that parental child abduction is a criminal offence under Article 330(1) of the Indonesian Criminal Code. Prior to this Decision, Article 330(1) of the Criminal Code was understood as a provision that could not criminalise someone for child abduction if the abduction was committed by one of the biological parents.

After 3 September 2024, through this Constitutional Court Decision, the abduction of a child by one of the biological parents, when the parent does not have custody based on a final court decision, is reaffirmed as a criminal offence.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION

Facts

On 15 November 2023, five single mothers (Petitioners) whose children have been abducted by their ex-husbands submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court on 11 October 2023, challenging Article 330 (1) of the Indonesian Criminal Code, which states, “Anyone who, with deliberate intent, removes a minor from the authority which in accordance with the laws is assigned to him, or from the supervision of a person authorised to do so, shall be punished by a maximum imprisonment of seven years.”

The Petitioners shared a common experience: after divorcing their husbands, they were granted custody of their children through a court ruling. However, they have been deprived of this right because their ex-husband abducted their child.

The Petitioners also asserted that they had reported the ex-husband’s actions to the police under Article 330 (1) of the Criminal Code. However, in practice, the report was either dismissed or considered invalid because the police were of the view that the person who abducted the child was the biological father himself and, therefore, could not be prosecuted.

Given this background, the Petitioners believe that the phrase “anyone” (“barang siapa” in Indonesian) in Article 330(1) of the Criminal Code could be interpreted to mean that the biological father or mother of a child cannot be held accountable for the accusation of abducting their own child. Therefore, they submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court requesting a judicial review of Article 330(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Petitioners argue that the phrase “anyone” in Article 330(1) of the Criminal Code should encompass all individuals, including the child’s biological father or mother, as a legal subject. There should be no exceptions that grant absolute authority to the father or mother and exclude him or her from any legal action if he or she violates the child’s rights. Protecting children’s rights is a fundamental aspect of human rights, and the state has a responsibility to provide protection, oversight, and law enforcement to promote children’s welfare. Consequently, the state has the authority to act against parents who violate children’s rights.

Furthermore, the Petitioners request the Constitutional Court to declare that the phrase “anyone” in Article 330(1) of the Criminal Code, which was derived from the Wetboek van Strafrecht voor Nederlandsch-Indië (Staatsblad 1915 Number 732), and later enacted under Law Number 1 of 1946 on the Criminal Code in conjunction with Law Number 73 of 1958 on the Entry into Force of Law No. 1 of 1946 on the Criminal Code for the Entire Territory of the Republic of Indonesia, is unconstitutional, insofar as it is not interpreted to mean “anyone, without exception the biological father or mother of the child.”

The Decision

The Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 140/PUU-XXI/2023, which consists of nine Constitutional Judges, rejected the Petitioners’ request in its entirety.

The Constitutional Court Judges believe that Article 330(1) of the Criminal Code is an explicit and well-defined provision (expressive verbis), so there is no need to interpret it or add any supplementary meaning to it. The Judges asserted that the phrase “anyone” encompasses every individual without exception, including the biological father or mother of the child. The Court also noted that adding a new meaning to Article 330(1) of the Criminal Code, as requested by the Petitioners, could potentially restrict the scope of the legal subjects covered by that provision and other provisions in the Criminal Code that use the phrase “anyone”. This could result in legal uncertainty, according to the Judges.

In its legal deliberation, the Constitutional Court Judges referred to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), to which Indonesia is a state party, and its provisions are incorporated into Law Number 23 of 2002 on Child Protection, as amended by Law Number 35 of 2014 (Law on Child Protection). Furthermore, the Law on Child Protection recognises that the best interests of the child, as stipulated in the UNCRC, are a fundamental principle for child protection. According to the Official Elucidation of Law on Child Protection, the best interests of the child mean that, in all actions concerning children undertaken by the government, society, legislative bodies, and judiciary, the child’s best interest must be the primary consideration.

In cases of parental child abduction, aside from the child being the victim, the Constitutional Court recognises that the parent, who is forcibly separated from their child by the other parent, can also become a victim, particularly on a psychological level. This indicates that the psychological bond between parents and their biological children should not be severed, emphasising that the child’s best interests must take precedence. In this context, the Constitutional Court Judges emphasise that criminalising one of the child’s biological parents who breaches the provisions of Article 330(1) of the Criminal Code should only be considered as a last resort (ultimum remedium).

In another part of its Decision, the Constitutional Court addressed the issue of the Petitioners whose reports were rejected by the police. The Constitutional Court Judges stated that they had no authority to assess this matter. However, they affirmed in the Decision that law enforcement officers, especially police investigators, should have no hesitation in accepting any report concerning the application of Article 330(1) of the Criminal Code, even if it involves the child’s biological parents. This is because the term “anyone” includes every individual without exception, including, in this case, the child’s biological father and mother.

The Constitutional Court concluded that Article 330(1) of the Criminal Code provides legal protection for children and ensures fair legal certainty as outlined in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Therefore, the Court states that the Petitioners’ request is rejected in its entirety.

Dissenting Opinion

The nine Constitutional Judges did not reach a unanimous decision. Judge Guntur Hamzah expressed his dissenting opinion, arguing that the Constitutional Court should have partially granted the Petitioners’ request.

Judge Hamzah views the Petitioners’ case as also involving the enforcement of a norm that breaches the principles of justice, the constitution, and human rights. Due to numerous cases of parental child abduction, often committed by biological fathers, Judge Hamzah believes it is appropriate for the Constitutional Court to act as the defender of citizens’ constitutional rights in this matter. This aims to safeguard the constitutional rights of biological mothers who hold custody, whether naturally or legally granted by the court, from acts of child abduction or forced removal by biological fathers. It not only ensures legal certainty but also offers reassurance to both the child and the parent who holds the legal custody rights.

Judge Hamzah is of the opinion that the Constitutional Court should have partially granted the Petitioners’ request by inserting the phrase “including the biological father/mother” into Article 330(1) of the Criminal Code. This would have made Article 330(1) of the Criminal Code to read, “Anyone who, with deliberate intent, removes a minor from the authority which in accordance with the laws is assigned to him, including his biological father/mother, or from the supervision of a person authorised to do so, shall be punished by a maximum imprisonment of seven years.”

REMARKS

It is worth noting that Law Number 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (New Criminal Code) was approved by the Indonesian House of Representatives on 2 January 2023. The New Criminal Code will come into effect on 2 January 2026. There are no significant changes regarding the concept of child abduction in the New Criminal Code. Article 452(1) of the New Criminal Code is equivalent to Article 330(1) of the current Criminal Code. Article 452(1) of the New Criminal Code states: “Every person who removes a Child from the authority which in accordance with the statutory regulations is assigned to him or from the supervision of a person authorised to do so, shall be punished by a maximum imprisonment of 6 (six) years or a maximum fine of category IV.”

It is quite unfortunate that there has been no shift in the perspective towards parental child abduction cases in Indonesia. In early 2023, Indonesian lawmakers, as indicated in Article 452(1) of the New Criminal Code, still regard parental child abduction cases primarily from a criminal perspective. This stance is later reaffirmed in 2024 by the Court, as stated in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 140/PUU-XXI/2023.

Although the Constitutional Court Judges, in their Decision, recognise the psychological bond between parents and the child as part of the child’s best interests and acknowledge that criminalising a parent over child abduction is a last resort, parental child abduction is still viewed from a criminal perspective. Consequently, this Constitutional Court Decision does not provide an effective solution. The five petitioners remain unable to access their abducted children because they do not know their children’s whereabouts or how to contact them.

The Constitutional Court Judges also hold conflicting views in their deliberations. On one hand, they acknowledge that the psychological bond between parents and a child must be prioritised as part of the child’s best interests. On the other hand, they affirm the provision of Article 330(1) of the Criminal Code, which permits the criminalisation and imprisonment of the parent who commits child abduction, albeit as a last resort. It seems that the judges overlooked the possibility that criminalising and imprisoning the parent involved in child abduction could also harm the child’s best interests, as it would deprive the child of access to that parent.

It is also regrettable that none of the Judges or the expert witnesses involved in the proceedings mentioned the HCCH 1980 Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention), which provides a perspective on parental child abduction from its civil aspects. Consequently, the procedures for returning the wrongfully removed child to their habitual residence—while safeguarding access rights and prioritising the child’s best interests as stipulated by the Convention—remain unfamiliar and unexplored in Indonesia.

The Constitutional Court Decision Number 140/PUU-XXI/2023, which considers parental child abduction from its criminal aspect, reveals a legal gap in Indonesian law that can only be filled in by the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention. The Convention could serve as an instrument providing civil measures in cases of parental child abduction in Indonesia and promote a more effective resolution by ensuring the child’s prompt return without depriving access to either parent. In other words, Indonesia’s accession to the Convention has become more urgent to ensure that the child’s best interests, as recognised by Indonesian Law on Child Protection, are adequately protected.

Recognising that many adjustments within Indonesian laws and regulations will still be necessary, the Author of this article has long hoped that Indonesia will eventually accede to the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention, hopefully sooner rather than later.

 

[1] Assistant professor in private international law at the Faculty of Law, Universitas Indonesia.

On 18 September 2025, the Faculty of Law of the University of Ljubljana will be hosting a conference on the occasion of the annual meeting of GEDIP, the European Group of Private International Law, due to take place in the following days (the latter meeting is only open the Group’s members). The event consists of […]

We are delighted to announce another addition to our Editorial Board: Elsabe Schoeman.

Elsabe has long been one of the leading scholars of private international law in South Africa, having authored countless publications in the areas of jurisdiction in cross-border commercial litigation and choice of law in contract, delict/tort and selected areas of family law, with a recent focus on access to justice for victims of human rights infringements and environmental torts. She has also advised a variety of law commissions and private law firms on these topics.

Elsabe has just left the office of Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Pretoria and will be focusing her work for the blog on legal developments in South Africa.

[If you do use the blog for research, practice submission or database purposes, citation would be appreciated, to the blog as a whole and /or to specific blog posts. Many have suggested I should turn the blog into a paid for, subscription service however I have resisted doing so. Proper reference to how the blog is useful to its readers, will help keeping this so.]

In  SC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky & Ors [2025] EWHC 1987 (Ch), Trower J covers a lot of ground (2025 paras of ground).

At the time of the events with which these proceedings are concerned, claimant Privatbank (‘the Bank’) was Ukraine’s largest bank.  It was declared insolvent by the National Bank of Ukraine on 18 December 2016 and was nationalised over the course of the following days.  These proceedings have been brought by the Bank against two of its founding shareholders, first defendant Igor Kolomoisky and second defendant Gennadiy Bogolyubov (the ‘individual defendants’) and six companies (‘the corporate defendants) said to be owned or controlled by them seeking compensation for harm caused by what the Bank alleges to have been their participation in a fraudulent scheme carried out prior to nationalisation. The Bank also claims in unjust enrichment against a number of defendants.

Of relevance to the blog is the discussion of Article 10 (assimilated) Rome II on unjust enrichment, viz a number of restitution claims, and application of Article 26 Rome II on limitation periods and public policy.

Firstly, on Article 10 Rome II: the law applicable to the claim in unjust enrichment.

The Bank contends that its claims against the Corporate Defendants in unjust enrichment are governed by Ukrainian law per A10(2) and (4) Rome II. The Corporate Defendants contend that any claims against them in unjust enrichment are governed by Cypriot law and they rely on A10(2) Rome II.

For ease of digesting this post: Article 10 Rome II reads

1. If a non-contractual obligation arising out of unjust enrichment, including payment of amounts wrongly received, concerns a relationship existing between the parties, such as one arising out of a contract or a tort/delict, that is closely connected with that unjust enrichment, it shall be governed by the law that governs that relationship.

2. Where the law applicable cannot be determined on the basis of paragraph 1 and the parties have their habitual residence in the same country when the event giving rise to unjust enrichment occurs, the law of that country shall apply.

3. Where the law applicable cannot be determined on the basis of paragraphs 1 or 2, it shall be the law of the country in which the unjust enrichment took place.

4. Where it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that the non-contractual obligation arising out of unjust enrichment is manifestly more closely connected with a country other than that indicated in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, the law of that other country shall apply.

[1581] The language of A10 requires the court first to consider whether the non-contractual obligation concerns a relationship existing between the Bank and the Corporate Defendants, which is closely connected with the unjust  enrichment.  If it does, the law that governs that relationship must be applied unless A10(4) is engaged.  The Bank submitted that its restitutionary claim against the Corporate Defendants engaged A10(1) because it concerned the relationship arising out of its tortious claim under Ukrainian law against the Corporate Defendants.

[1583] Trower J follows Tear J in Banque Cantonale de Geneve v. Polevent:  it is insufficient that, after the tort had been committed, there was a relationship between victim and tortfeasor “with legal consequences”, to engage A10(1).

Pro memoria: Article 10(1) reads

“If a non-contractual obligation arising out of unjust enrichment, including payment of amounts wrongly received, concerns a relationship existing between the parties, such as one arising out of a contract or a tort/delict, that is closely connected with that unjust enrichment, it shall be governed by the law that governs that relationship”

A relationship “existing” between the parties, it is held, must be one that existed prior to the events giving rise to the claim.

A10(2) was not argued by the parties, nor in fact was A4. This leaves the question, first, of the identification of the country in which enrichment took place, and second, whether by application of A10(4), the laws of that country might be displaced by the laws of another country that is manifestly more closely connected to the non-contractual obligation.

On the first issue [1585]: the locus of the enrichment:

… the country in which the unjust enrichment took place for the purpose of determining the effect of Article 10(3).  There is no real dispute about this. The relevant country is Cyprus, because the Bank’s allegation is that the Corporate Defendants were enriched by acquiring property in the form of prepayments under the RSAs in circumstances in which they have never complied with their purported obligations under the RSAs or returned the Unreturned Prepayments.  It is therefore the Bank’s case that the enrichment comes from the acquisition of property in the form of money which occurred with the crediting of the Corporate Defendants’ accounts at the Cyprus branch of the Bank.

Here Trower J [1593] sides with the bank, not readily it seems but firmly nevertheless.

[1586-1587] the Bank’s arguments are outlined (these have a strong Universal Music echo – of course that case was jurisdictional, not applicable law):

[the Bank argues] the only relevant factor which connects the claim in unjust enrichment to Cyprus is the location of the Corporate Defendants’ bank accounts, which adds nothing because that is no more than the justification for applying Article 10(3) in the first place.  The Bank also submitted that Cyprus as a location was of no particular significance, because the Corporate Defendants could equally have had their accounts with another non-Ukrainian subsidiary of the Bank (e.g., in Latvia).  The only point which mattered was that the destination of the funds should be outside Ukraine.

More positively, Ukraine was said to be manifestly more closely connected to the restitutionary obligation than Cyprus, because the Corporate Defendants received the Unreturned Prepayments as part of a fraudulent scheme controlled by two Ukrainian oligarchs with the purpose and effect of misappropriating funds from a Ukrainian Bank.  The Bank also relied on the fact that the scheme was actually implemented by and with the involvement of a number of individuals, including people said to be the UBOs of the Corporate Defendants, who were based in Ukraine (…).  It also relied on the fact that the Corporate Defendants knew that the Unreturned Prepayments were funded by fraudulent loans from the Bank in Ukraine and the whole structure was designed to conceal breaches of Ukrainian currency control regulations.

[1588] are the defendants’ arguments:

it  could not possibly be said that the connections to Cyprus were not real and substantial.  The Corporate Defendants were not themselves Ukrainian (they were incorporated in England and the BVI) and they were managed by Cypriot professional directors; indeed it was the Bank’s own case that the Individual Defendants’ control of and influence over the Corporate Defendants was through Primecap, a Cypriot corporate services provider established by Cypriot lawyers.  [It was also argued] that Cyprus was the country in which the money which was the subject of the Bank’s claim continued to be located when it was transferred on by the Corporate Defendants.  Another factor which counted against a manifestly closer connection to Ukraine was that the prepayments were received by the Corporate Defendants in US$ rather than UAH.

Of note in the judge’s analysis (which of course kicks off [1589] with the observation that ‘all circumstances’ and ‘manifestly’ mandate a high bar for A10(4)) are

• [1589] the comparison is between countries, not laws: “the court’s task is to ascertain whether there is a country, which has a manifestly closer connection to the restitutionary obligation – i.e., the focus is on the country not the law.  In the present case, the exercise required by Article 10(4) is a comparison of the connection between the restitutionary obligation and Cyprus on the one hand and between the restitutionary obligation and Ukraine on the other.”
• [1590] “The comparison is between connections to Cyprus and connections to Ukraine.  Connections to third countries may go to show that not every factor apart from the place of receipt points inexorably to Ukraine, but if they do not point to Cyprus, their usefulness is limited”. (Unless of course, one assumes, if they were to point to a third country hence also its applicable law altogether, but that does not seem to be the case here).

I do not think this is correct. Those wishing to show that A10(3) is to be dislodged by application of A10(4), need to show that that the obligation in unjust enrichment, is manifestly more closely connected to another country, following from all circumstances of the case. Arguably the connections to third countries undermine the A10(4) analysis and therefore are most useful: even if they do not point to the A10(3) country. Of note in this context is that A10(3) is not the result of a most closely connected analysis: it is simply a vector introduced for predictability and certainty. I imagine this may have featured in permission to appeal.

• [1591]: control over Primecap’s activities was exercised by individuals in Ukraine, both generally and for the specific transactions concerned. “The connection to Cyprus is in fact and substance more limited than the place of its establishment and operations might otherwise indicate.  The enrichment occurred in Cyprus (a factor which will always of course be present where it said that Article 10(4) should displace the prima facie rule in Article 10(3)), but the expense was sustained by the Bank in the Ukraine.  I also think that, because steps which gave rise to an unjust enrichment were component parts of a fraud practised on a Ukrainian bank, structured in the way that it was to avoid Ukrainian currency control obligations, and closely interrelated to torts governed by Ukrainian law in which the loss was sustained in Ukraine, points to a very close connection to Ukraine.”

The finding in favour of engaging A10(4) comes despite what the judge [1592] called an argument “with real substance”: the DNA of the whole scheme:

“a transfer out of Ukraine, and (more importantly for the claim in unjust enrichment) a receipt by a recipient outside Ukraine, was an essential element of what all parties accept (for different reasons) was a loan recycling scheme intended to avoid Ukraine’s currency control regulations.  I agree that the fact that it was necessary for any enrichment to occur outside Ukraine, detracts from any connection between the restitutionary obligation and Ukraine, and makes it more difficult for the Bank to say that the connection to Ukraine is manifestly closer than Cyprus.”

All in all it is the ‘control’ element it seems which swayed the judge. If that finding stands, it would be useful eg in the Dyson claims.

Next, on the application of Article 26 Rome II on limitation periods and public policy.

The findings on A26 were made obiter [1995] ff, and with reference ia to the Court of Appeal in Begum v Maran: in essence, Trower J notes the very high bar for Article 26 and would have held that that bar has not been reached in casu.

If and when I hear of an appeal, I shall update.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed, 2024, Chapter 4.

Consideration ia of A10 Rome II: law applicable to unjust enrichmentSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky & Ors [2025] EWHC 1987 (Ch) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWH…

— Geert Van Calster (@gavclaw.bsky.social) 2025-08-06T10:16:52.929Z

Vesna Lazic (Asser Institute, Utrecht University) has published an interesting case note on the complex case of CJEU Judgment C-394/22 Oilchart International NV v O.W. Bunker Nederland BV, ING Bank NV in Revue de Droit Commercial Belge. This case dealt with the interaction between the Brussels I-bis Regulation and the Insolvency Regulation. You can read it here: 2025 Note rdc_tbh2025_2p308 .

In this case, the Court held that:

Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be interpreted as not applying to an action brought in a Member State against a company seeking payment for goods delivered which does not mention either the insolvency proceedings opened previously against that company in another Member State or the fact that the claim was already declared in the insolvency estate.

 

The Law Commission of England and Wales is reviewing how private international law operates in the context of electronic trade documents and digital assets. As previously reported on this blog, on 5 June 2025 the Law Commission published a consultation paper (paper; summary) proposing reform to certain rules of private international law that apply in the context […]

Annoucement prepared by Eduardo Silva de Freitas (Asser Institute and Erasmus University Rotterdam)

The T.M.C. Asser Institute is organising the conference “Adapting Private International Law in an Era of Uncertainty” as part of its 60 Years Series. The event will take place in The Hague (The Netherlands) on Friday, 24 October 2025, and will gather academics, practitioners, and early career researchers who will address current topics in Private International Law, including developments in the digital age and the protection of weaker parties.

The programme is available by clicking here: asser-institute-60-years-series_final.pdf

To register for the conference, please visit: T.M.C. Asser Instituut Registration Form

For more information you can contact the organisers at: E.Silva.de.Freitas@asser.nl or V.Lazic@asser.nl

In June the volume “Sustaining Access to Justice: New Avenues for Costs and Funding” was published in the Civil Justice Systems series of Hart Publishing (2025).  The book is edited by Xandra Kramer, Masood Ahmed, Adriani Dori and Maria Carlota Ucín. This edited volume results from a conference held at Erasmus University Rotterdam, as part of the Vici project on Affordable Access to Justice funded by the Dutch Research Council (NWO).  It contains contributions on access to justice themes, in particular costs and funding of litigation, by key experts across Europe, Latin America and Asia. More information, including the table of contents is available at the Bloomsbury website here.

The book explores the dynamic landscape of legal costs and financing from three perspectives: regulatory frameworks in public and private funding; new trends and challenges in contemporary legal financing; and the transformative potential of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and online dispute resolution (ODR) procedures to streamline civil justice processes and expand access to justice.

By addressing the intersectionality of legal, economic, political, market and social dynamics, the book aims to provide an encompassing understanding of the inherent complexity of costs and funding of litigation, and their implications for access to justice.

A seminar on the ocassion of launching the book will take place on 5 September 2025, from 10-12.15 CET.

Program

10.00 Introduction Xandra Kramer, Masood Ahmed, Carlota Ucin, Adriani Dori

10.15 Jacek Garstka (European Commission) – EC perspective on the access to justice and the role of litigation funding

10.25 Maria Jose Azar-Baud – Trends in Funding of Collective Litigation

10.35 Alexandre Biard – Enforcing Consumer Rights: Costs and Funding

10.50 Discussion

11.10 Eduardo Silva de Freitas – Justice for a Price: Funders, Fees and the RAD

11.20 Marcel Wegmüller – ESG and Litigation Funding: A Practitioner’s View

11.35 Adrian Cordina – Regulating Litigation Funding: A Law and Economics View

11.45 Stefaan Voet/Masood Ahmed – Beyond Litigation: Cost-Effective Strategies for ADR and ODR

12.00 Discussion and Conclusion

More information and (free) registration here.

The Aberdeen Centre for Private International Law & Transnational Governance (CPILTG) will be hosting a webinar by Professor Caroline Rapatz (University of Kiel, Germany) on 20 August 2025, 11am – 12pm noon.

More information is available here.

 

On 20 August 2025, from 11 to 12 am UK time, the Aberdeen Centre for Private International Law and Transnational Governance will host a webinar featuring Caroline Rapatz (Kiel University) on Beyond State Borders, Beyond the Situs Rule? Private International Law Issues of Resource Extraction in Antarctica, the Deep Seabed, and Outer Space. The webinar […]

The first issue of the Revue critique de droit international privé for 2025 has been published. It features the proceedings of the international conference held in honour of the distinguished Austrian-American conflicts scholar Albert A. Ehrenzweig, which took place in Vienna in June 2024 under the scientific coordination of Matthias Lehmann and Florian Heindler. In addition, this […]

“The 2025 International Arbitration Survey: The Path Forward”

Luke Nottage (University of Sydney)

The 14th Queen Mary University of London Survey, again in collaboration with international law firm White & Case, was dissected at an Australian launch seminar (expertly moderated by partner Lee Carroll) at their Melbourne office on 22 July 2025. Some “early insights” had been provided during Paris Arbitration Weeks, when the Survey report was not yet public. This analysis delves deeper into the report and key findings, drawing also on the discussion with our co-panellists, including some suggestions for future research.

Survey Methodology

This latest Survey shows how the responses have become more expansive and therefore reliable over time. Although not a random survey, 2402 responses were received for the written questionnaire (the response rate is unspecified). This is significantly greater than “more than 900” respondents for the 2022 Survey focused on energy disputes, 1218 for the general 2021 Survey, and just 103 for the inaugural Survey in 2006. This study was again mixed-method, adding qualitative research through 117 follow-up interviews.

This increase in Survey participation arguably indicates the growing awareness of the research and interest in its results, as well as the proliferation and diversification of international arbitration (IA) over the last two decades. Overall respondents in 2025 (Chart 26) primarily practiced or operated in the Asia-Pacific (47%), illustrating arbitration’s shift (along with economic activity) into Asia; separately in North America (a further 10% of respondents), Central and Latin America (7%); plus Europe (10%) and Africa (6%).

Respondents’ primary roles (Chart 23) were counsel (35%), arbitrators (17%), both (14%), arbitral institution staff (9%), academics (8%) and tribunal secretaries (2%). Surprisingly, there were few in-house counsel (3%), who historically and anecdotally tend to be more concerned eg about costs and delays. Few respondents were primarily experts (1%), which may reflect the declining professional diversity within IA.

Arbitration with or without ADR

The 2025 Survey asked again about respondents’ preferred method of resolving cross-border disputes (Chart 1). IA together with ADR was most popular (48%), compared to standalone IA (39%). The Survey contrasts this with 59% versus 31% in 2021 (p5). That shift could indicate that IA has been working effectively to address eg persistent complaints about its costs and delays.

However, more work needs to be done by IA stakeholders, as in the 2015 Survey only 34% of respondents had preferred IA with ADR, versus 56% preferring just IA. This indicates that the trend over the last decade remains towards combining IA with ADR. Additionally, future research could usefully ask what is meant by IA “together with ADR”. As co-panellist Leah Ratcliff remarked from her experience (now as in-house counsel in Australia), parties are more comfortable with clauses providing for (structured) negotiations rather than (potentially still quite expensive) mediation before IA. It would also be interesting to check respondents’ preferences regarding Arb-Med (arbitrators actively promoting settlement, or engaging an Arb-Med-Arb process as in Singapore – arguably showing up in the 2022 SIDRA Survey, Exhibit 8.1).

The 2025 Survey commentary also suggests that ADR preference may be partly “influenced by cultural factors” (p6), noting European respondents favoured more standalone IA (51%) compared Asia-Pacific respondents (37%). However, recall that overall 39% favoured IA anyway.

There also remains great diversity within Asia regarding legal culture – let alone general culture. For example, first there are common law jurisdictions (eg Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia) with strong traditions now of domestic mediation for commercial disputes, due to high costs and delays in litigation initially (and sometimes still). This carries over into more willingness to agree to multi-tiered clauses mandating even mediation before arbitration. Secondly, however, there are some common law jurisdictions in Asia (notably India, despite extensive court delays) with no such tradition of privately-supplied mediation services. Relatedly, their legal advisors and parties are more reluctant to propose Med-Arb clauses in international contracts (although they may agree to them if proposed, if obtaining other benefits through negotiations). Thirdly, civil law jurisdictions (like Japan, with more efficient courts plus some Court-annexed mediation, but also mainland China) also seem less amenable to Med-Arb clauses, although long comfortable with clauses providing for good faith negotiations prior to IA. In addition, there is even greater diversity across Asia regarding Arb-Med (basically only practiced intensively in China, partly in Japan).

Preferred Seats and Rules

Earlier surveys had started to identify Singapore, Hong Kong and mainland Chinese cities within top preferred seats, along with traditional venues like London and Paris. Yet it was unclear whether this reflected the growing proportion of Asia-Pacific (essentially Asian) respondents. The 2025 Survey helpfully helps to address this question. Globally, ie among all respondents (Chart 3), the most preferred seat is London (chosen, among up to five seats, by 34%), then Singapore and Hong Kong (31% each), then Beijing and Paris (19% each). However, London and Singapore were ranked in the top four for all regional respondents, and Paris too except for Asia-Pacific respondents (Chart 2). Otherwise, the European and Asia-Pacific respondents “show strong preferences for seats in their respective regions” (2025 Survey, p7).

Quite similarly, LCIA Rules (nominated globally by 25% of all respondents, again with up to five preferences) were preferred in all regions except the Asia-Pacific, while SIAC Rules (chosen by 25%) and UNCITRAL Rules (15%) were preferred for all regions except Central and Latin America (Charts 4 and 5). By contrast, HKIAC Rules (25%) were most preferred by Asia-Pacific respondents (36%), but not selected among top 5 preferences from respondents from other regions. As co-panelist (and experienced arbitrator) Michael Pryles noted at the launch seminar, Hong Kong and HKIAC Rules still benefit as a compromise for transactions and disputes involving mainland China. He also rightly suggested, as did an audience member, that asking about “preferences” may not give the full picture. This could be usefully compared with evolving actual practice, including arbitration case filings. Over 2024, for example, HKIAC handled 352 new arbitration cases (77% international) whereas SIAC handled 625 (91% international).

Co-panellist Diana Bowman, new Secretary-General of the ACICA, remarked that the ACICA Rules did not quite make Chart 5, despite the Australian Centre’s increased case filings in recent years. As a former Rules committee member (2004-2024), I added that arbitral institutions should not just be judged by case filing statistics. Those depend for example on geography, although there may be scope for Australia to focus on niches, such as the South America – Southeast Asia or South Asia trades, or (as Pryles also observed) specialist fields such as disputes over resources. In addition, improving Rules (and seats more generally) can allow local parties more credibly to propose them but then compromise in negotiations to obtain other contractual benefits.

Pryles also shared experiences and views about the growing impact on IA from  sanctions on parties or participants. Notably, 30% of respondents noted that sanctions led to a different seat being chosen (Chart 6).

The 2025 Survey also found that 39% thought awards set aside at the seat should be enforceable in other jurisdictions (Chart 8), whereas 61% thought not. The 39% proportion is surprisingly high, as only French courts uniformly adopt this approach. Courts elsewhere will usually not enforce, unless there is some particularly egregious flaw regarding the seat court (such as proven corruption) or seat jurisdiction (such as legislation retrospectively impacting arbitration agreements or awards). Perhaps the 39% of respondents agreed with enforcement but only in such exceptional circumstances, which might then be separated out as a third possibility in future research. Meanwhile, this trend (and growing deference towards decision of seat courts instead upholding challenged awards) should reinforce the importance of carefully choosing the seat.

IA Enforcement and Efficiency

Past Surveys (and other research) typically identified enforceability of IA awards (and agreements), neutrality and expertise of arbitrators, flexibility in procedures, then privacy and confidentiality, as major advantages over cross-border litigation. The 2025 Survey innovated by focusing on the growing awareness and engagement in various public interest elements (eg environmental) even in commercial IA, including its perceived advantages instead of litigation. Arbitrator expertise (47%), avoiding local courts and laws (42%) and (broader?) neutrality (28%) were often chosen from among three options (Chart 15). Confidentiality was selected by 34% of respondents, which seems understandable given these are still commercial disputes (not ISDS arbitrations involving greater public interests and so already associated with more transparency). Enforceability of awards was only chosen by 32%, but this may reflect greater actual or anticipated problems with public policy or arbitrability exceptions to enforcement.

Then 2025 Survey also usefully drilled down into another commonly posed question: voluntary compliance with IA awards (Chart 7). Interestingly respondents said this happened similarly, almost always or often, for non-ICSID awards against states (33%) as for ICSID awards (34%), despite most of the latter involving the more delocalised ICSID Convention enforcement regime. Also surprisingly, good compliance for non-ICSID private awards was only reported by 40% of respondents. This may also indicate persistent question around “formalisation” and over-lawyering in IA, discussed more broadly under “efficiency and effectiveness” in the 2025 Survey (pp15-19).

Notably, respondents were asked to chose up to three options for processes that would most improve efficiency in IA (Chart 10). The most popular were expedited arbitration (50%, generating further questions) and early determination of unmeritorious claims or defences (49%). But there was also interest in non-binding pre-arbitral assessments by an expert (13%), mandatory settlement discussions (12%) or mediation (11%) in procedural timetables, and even “baseball arbitration” (11%). Interestingly, as this remains a hot topic for multi-tiered clauses, 7% chose “limiting grounds to challenge pre-arbitration ADR outcomes in arbitration proceedings” (rather than in court). Less surprisingly, as these impact on fees earned by counsel (the largest respondent group) and are rarely mentioned in arbitral Rules, only 1% picked “sealed offers” as a mechanism to improve efficiency.

The survey found “perhaps most surprisingly, given the respondents’ generally favourable view of combining arbitration with ADR, the option of multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses with mandatory ADR processes was included by fewer than 1% of respondents as one of their three picks. To some interviewees, ADR adds an unnecessary procedural layer. Others question the utility …” (p16). However, this low response rate arguably is due to the question’s phrasing, which asked about measures to improve efficiency in arbitration (not the overall dispute resolution process).

A final hot topic canvassed in the 2025 Survey concerns AI in IA (pp27-33). Pryles was skeptical about arbitrators delegating too much to Artificial Intelligence for their reasoning. Surprisingly, however, although 71% of respondents had never used AI for “evaluating legal arguments” in the past 5 years, for the next 5 years this was expected to drop to 31% (Chart 18). Admittedly, some of this may be done by lawyers and so less problematic than for arbitrators.

Less controversial is the existing use of AI for “document review” (never used so far by only 41%, expected to drop to 10%). However, that raises the question of whether an even more efficient approach would be for arbitrators to more pro-actively help identify the issues to be determined, and hence relevant evidence. The 2012 Survey (Chart 9) had found that to be the best means experienced to expedite arbitral proceedings, even when phrased as arbitrators doing this “as soon as possible after constitution” of the tribunal (which is more controversial than as the arbitration progresses, eg under the JCAA Interactive Arbitration Rules).

Conclusion

The 2025 Survey, especially combined with the earlier ones, provides a rich resource to understand current practices and concerns in IA. It also helps identify future opportunities and challenges, as well as promising ongoing research into this always-evolving field.

 

 

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

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

• Pacta Sunt Servanda’s Soliloquy Amidst Sanctions: The Impact of EU Sanctions on Contractual Performance in Arbitration Proceedings
  Helmut Ortner, Veronika Korom and Marion on the Impact of EU Sanctions on Contractual Performance in Arbitration Proceedings: EU sanctions against Russia and Russia’s countermeasures have significantly disrupted trade, supply chains, and contractual relations, sparking disputes frequently resolved through arbitration. European legal systems provide a range of mechanisms—including force majeure, impossibility, frustration, and hardship—to address sanctions-related performance impediments. Despite doctrinal divergences, these frameworks tend to converge on practical outcomes. To mitigate risks and increase legal certainty, parties are well-advised to incorporate tailored clauses in their contracts.
• Eigentumsvorbehalte in grenzüberschreitenden Warenkaufverträgen mit englischen Käufern
  Insa Stephanie Jarass on retention of title clauses in contracts with English buyers: In PST Energy 7 Shipping LLC v OW Bunker Malta Ltd (The Res Cogitans) [2016] UKSC 23, the Supreme Court held that the Sale of Goods Act 1979 no longer applies to certain con-tracts containing retention of title clauses which had previously always been categorised as contracts for the sale of goods. This article analyses the legal implications of this decision for contracts for the supply of goods to Eng-land. In addition to the legal uncertainties that have always surrounded the validity in rem of retention of title clauses under English law, the decision adds a new level of complex-ity at the contractual level that requires par-ticular attention when drafting international contracts.
• Die europäische vis attractiva concursus – Altbekanntes, Neues und Ungeklärtes zu Reichweite, Kompetenzkonflikten und materieller Sperrwirkung
  Fabian Kratzlmeier comments on the decision by the ECJ in C-394/22, addressing the law applicable in the context of insolvency proceedings.

 

by Patrick Ostendorf (HTW Berlin)

In the recent and interesting case of LLC Eurochem v Société Generale S.A. et al [2025] EWHC 1938 (Comm), the English High Court (Commercial Court) considered the extent to which economic sanctions enacted by a foreign jurisdiction (EU law in this instance) can impact the enforcement of contractual payment claims (governed by English law) in English courts. More broadly, the decision also highlights the somewhat diminishing role of the Rome I Regulation (and its interpretation by the European Court of Justice) in the English legal system, and probably that of conflict of laws rules in general.

The underlying facts

A Russian company, respectively its Swiss parent (the assignee of the claimed proceeds of the drawdown), both of which are ultimately controlled by a Russian oligarch, claimed €212 million from two banks (one French and one Dutch, the latter operating through its Italian branch) out of six on-demand bonds governed by English law, based on corresponding exclusive jurisdiction agreements in favour of English courts. The performance bonds had been issued by the defendant banks to secure the proper performance of a contract for the construction of a fertiliser plant in Russia, which was terminated as a consequence of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. When the Russian company called on the bonds to recover advance payments made under the construction contract, the banks refused to pay, arguing that doing so would violate applicable EU sanctions.

The Commercial Court agreed with the banks that payment under the bonds would indeed breach both Art. 2 of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 and Art. 11 of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014. However, even though the ultimate owner of the claimant was also subject to UK sanctions, UK sanctions did not apply in this case, as payment under the bonds would not have involved any acts in the UK or by UK companies or persons.

The key question

The key question was therefore this: Could the banks rely on the EU sanctions as a defence against the payment claim in an English court, given that their contractual performance would be illegal under foreign law? According to the Ralli Brothers principle (as established by the English Court of Appeal in Ralli Brothers v Companie Naviera Sota y Aznar [1920] 2 KB 287 and also serving as a blueprint for Art. 9(3) of the Rome I Regulation), the answer would be yes if the contractual performance required an act to be carried out in a place where it would be unlawful to do so. However, was the place of performance in the EU in this case, despite the fact that, under English common law, the place of payment is generally where the creditor (here, the claimant, as the beneficiary) is located, unless otherwise agreed by the parties?

The court’s resolution

The resolution was straightforward in relation to the defendant Italian branch, as the corresponding bond incorporated the ICC Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees (URDG) and Art. 20(c) of the URDG explicitly states that payment is to be made at the branch or office of the guarantor (para. 447). However, the Commercial Court also answered this question in the affirmative with regard to the payment claims against the French bank (the relevant five bonds had not incorporated the URDG). This was based on the general proposition that, in relation to on-demand instruments, the place of performance should generally be where the demand must be made — hence in this case in France rather than Russia or Switzerland (paras 449 ff.).

Public policy was the alternative reasoning offered by the Commercial Court

More interesting still is the alternative argument offered by the Commercial Court. The court explicitly agreed with the defendants that the bonds should not have been enforced, even if the place of performance were in Russia (in which case the Ralli Bros. principle could accordingly not apply). The court postulated that, even outside the Ralli Bros. rule, ‘a sufficiently serious breach of foreign law reflecting important policies of foreign states may be such that it would be contrary to public policy to enforce a contract’ (paras 466 et seq). According to the defendants (and as confirmed by the court), the principle of comity was engaged particularly strongly here, given that the defendants would have faced prosecution, significant fines and the risk of imprisonment for individuals acting on behalf of the banks in France and Italy if they had paid.

Comments

The alternative reasoning given by the Commercial Court for the unenforceability of the bonds based on public policy seems to have two flaws.

Firstly, the view that enforcing a contract may be contrary to public policy due to a sufficiently serious breach of foreign law even outside the Ralli Bros. rule cannot be based on a clear line of precedent. The Commercial Court only refers to two High Court decisions, the more recent of which is Haddad v Rostamani (2021) EWHC 1892, para. 88. These decisions are difficult to reconcile with the Court of Appeal’s finding in Celestial Aviation Services Limited v Unicredit Bank GmbH [2024] EWCA Civ 628, paras. 105 et seq and prior High Court precedents relied on in this judgment, in particular Banco San Juan Internacional Inc v Petróleos De Venezuela S.A. [2020] EWHC 2937 (Comm), para. 79, which states that, ‘the doctrine therefore offers a narrow gateway: the performance of the contract must necessarily involve the performance of an act illegal at the place of performance. Subject to the Foster v. Driscoll principle, […] it is no use if the illegal act has to be performed elsewhere’. In Banco San Juan, the High Court referred to the Foster v Driscoll principle as the only legitimate expansion of the Ralli Bros. rule. But this principle is not applicable in the present case: It is limited to contracts entered into by the parties with the intention of committing a criminal offence in a foreign state (Foster v Driscoll [1929] 1 KB 470, 519).

Secondly, it is somewhat ironic that, in order to give effect to EU sanctions law, the Commercial Court relies on English common law precedents that hardly align with Art. 9(3) of the Rome I Regulation. This is because the ECJ has expressly taken the view that Art. 9 contains an exhaustive list of situations in which a court may apply foreign overriding mandatory provisions not merely as a matter of fact (see ECJ, 18 Oct 2016, Case C-135/15, Nikiforidis: ‘Article 9 of the Rome I Regulation must therefore be interpreted as precluding the court of the forum from applying, as legal rules, overriding mandatory provisions other than those of the State of the forum or of the State where the obligations arising out of the contract have to be or have been performed’).

Although the Commercial Court does not mention the Rome I Regulation in this regard, it still forms part of English statutory law as ‘assimilated law’ (formerly ‘retained EU law’). The justification for ignoring the Regulation is probably the prevailing, though (against the background of the general function of private international law and the fact that Art. 9 of the Rome I Regulation explicitly and exhaustively deals with this very problem) unconvincing, view in England that the Ralli Bros principle, and consequently its potential expansion in the present case, is not a conflict of laws rule in the first place: Instead, it is considered a principle of domestic English contract law, therefore unaffected by the exhaustive nature of Art. 9(3) of the Rome I Regulation (in favour of this view, for example, Chitty on Contracts, Vol. I General Principles, 35th edition (2023), para. 34-290, Dicey, Morris & Collins, The Conflict of Laws, Vol. 2, 16th edition (2022), para. 32-257 with further references. Contrary, A. Briggs, Private International Law in English Courts (2014) para. 7.251, who rightly notes that such a characterisation ‘was only possible by being deaf to the language and tone in which the judgments were expressed, and it is a happy thing that the Rome I Regulation puts this seemly principle on a statutory footing’ and characterises the Ralli Bros principle accordingly as a ‘rule of common law conflict of laws’ (A. Briggs, The Conflict of Laws, 4th edition, 2019, p. 239). For a full discussion of the history and characterisation of the Ralli Bros rule, see W. Day (2020) 79 CLJ 64 ff.)

The need to rely both on a questionable characterisation and expansion of the Ralli Bros principle in this case may be due to English contract law (at least in its substantive core) being ill-equipped to address factual impediments caused by foreign illegality for the parties. Unlike civil law jurisdictions, which can rely on the doctrine of (temporary) impossibility to address such cases — the recent decision of the Court of Arbitration in CAS 2023/A/9669, West Ham United Football Club v PFC CSKA & FIFA (applying Swiss law), is a case in point — the doctrine of frustration is apparently too limited in scope to recognise factual impediments triggered by foreign illegality. Furthermore, the doctrine of frustration does not offer the necessary flexibility as it results in the termination of the contract rather than merely suspending it temporarily.

A recent judgment from the Swedish Supreme Court interprets the principle judgments from the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) holding arbitration in investment arbitration as incompatible with EU law as conservatively as possible by allowing for invalidation only for “EU internal” relations. Hence, the arbitral award is upheld in relation to a Swiss […]

[If you do use the blog for research, practice submission or database purposes, citation would be appreciated, to the blog as a whole and /or to specific blog posts. Many have suggested I should turn the blog into a paid for, subscription service however I have resisted doing so. Proper reference to how the blog is useful to its readers, will help keeping this so.]

Cathay Biotech Inc v Wegochem Europe BV ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:3091 is a judgment of relevance to the meaning of ‘arising from’, used frequently in Rome II, Regulation 864/2007; as well as a salutary lesson in how not to apply Article 4 Rome II.

First, on the issue of ‘arising from’ in Article 8.

An alternative to ‘arising from’ used in Rome II is ‘arising out’, for instance in Article 7’s environmental claims: see e.g. Begum v Maran and see my paper on A7 here.

In China, patent infringement judgments have been issued regarding the production of nylon. PRC infringement continues by other entities that have also been held to account by Chinese courts. In current proceedings the patent holder sues a Dutch buyer of the nylon for unlawful conduct, arguing it knew or consciously accepted the significant risk that it was trading in infringing products.

In determining applicable law under Rome II, Cathay Biotech argue A4 is engaged; Wego Europe suggests A8(1) applies:

Article 8
Infringement of intellectual property rights
1. The law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising from an infringement of an intellectual property right shall be the law of the country for which protection is claimed.
2. In the case of a non-contractual obligation arising from an infringement of a unitary Community intellectual property right, the law applicable shall, for any question that is not governed by the relevant Community instrument, be the law of the country in which the act of infringement was committed.
3. The law applicable under this Article may not be derogated from by an agreement pursuant to Article 14.

The court sides with Cathay Biotech: [5.6]:

The court agrees with Cathay Biotech that it bases its claim on unlawful conduct by Wego Europe… Although this alleged unlawful conduct by Wego Europe originates from the theft of trade secrets by third parties and (subsequent) patent infringements committed by third parties, this does not mean that there is an obligation between Wego Europe and Cathay Biotech ‘arising from’ an infringement of an intellectual property right as referred to in [A8(1) Rome II]. After all, the focus is on the unlawful conduct of Wego Europe described above, not on the question of whether Wego Europe (itself) infringes Cathay Biotech’s Chinese patents. The invocation of a patent right is therefore not the core of the dispute. The scope of the Rome II Regulation and Article 8 means that the aforementioned article only concerns claims relating to a non-contractual infringement of these (intellectual property) rights.

I disagree. Cathay’s claim as it is summarised in 4.4 walk and talks intellectual property rights infringement:

Cathay Biotech bases its claim, in summary, on the following. Wego Europe acts unlawfully towards Cathay Biotech by importing and distributing [long chain dicarboxylic acid] LCDA from the Facility in Europe, while knowing that the production of these LCDA by Hilead and the Users infringes Cathay Biotech’s Chinese patents and that many Chinese court rulings in this regard are being systematically ignored. Wego Europe facilitates the unlawful actions of Hilead and the Users by creating a market for these parties and knowingly profits from their unlawful conduct.

Patent infringement is not a context for Cathay’s claim against Wego: it is its roots and branch. The statutory construction of both ‘arising from’ and ‘out’ (similarly, see Lliuya v RWE where no time was wasted at all on whether climate claims ‘arise out’ of environmental damage) instruct a causal link at the lower level of causal intensity.  Cathay’s claim and its formulation approaches that of conspiracy to cause or at the very least purposedly profit from patent infringement. That in my view must fall within Article 8.

Once Article 8 so dismissed, the court then goes off the rails in its Article 4 locus damni analysis. [5.7 and 5.8]

• it links A4 Rome II squarely to A7(2) Brussels Ia, recalling that Article’s split between Handlungsort and Erfolgort.
• It then squarely suggests that within the A4 Rome II analysis, claimant may chose either Handlugsort or Erfolgort as determining the applicable law (plainly wrong);
• it identifies each distribution center within the EU as a Handlungsort. This is as such an interesting proposition, echoing my suggestions for competition law; yet it is completely out off place in the A4 Rome II analysis.
• it considers Chinese law as applicable law under the Handlungsort analysis (although this would require Cathay’s economic loss (its consolidated accounts are in China) to be considered as ‘direct’ damages per A4, instead of eg the place of the loss of market share in the EU Member States as places of direct damage);
• it finally ends up [5.10] in Dutch law as applying to the claim as a whole under A4(3)’s escape clause, in essence because The Netherlands is held to be the locus delicti commissi: Wego is held to have organised its nylon distribution entirely from The Netherlands.

The judgment amounts to very poor engagement with Rome II.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024. Chapter 4.

Applicable law, patent infringement claimInteresting judgment on (non)application of A8 Rome II viz EU-domiciled purchaser of product made following patent violationMeaning of 'arising from' IPR infringementCathay Biotech v Wegochem ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:3091 deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id…

— Geert Van Calster (@gavclaw.bsky.social) 2025-05-27T07:00:33.048Z