Flux Belges et Lux

I tweeted the case on 4 May….slowly I am getting trough the backlog. In Otsuka v GW Pharma [2022] EWHC 1012 (Pat) Karet DJ upheld jurisdiction to hear a dispute about a patent licence in circumstances where the licensee has indicated it will challenge the validity of licensed patents granted outside the UK.

On 7 January 2022 GW commenced proceedings against Otsuka in a state court in New York. There is a significant overlap between the matters raised in the New York claim and the E&W claim (as GW have indicated they will defend it). GW seek a declaration that under the Agreement between the parties none of the relevant patents Covers Epidyolex, including because the patents are invalid. Epidyolex is a drug for the treatment of seizures associated with various conditions or epileptic syndromes. The active ingredient in Epidyolex is cannabidiol (“CBD”).

[47] ff the judge considers the Moçambique rule which means that an English court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim of title to foreign land. In Lucasfilm v Ainsworth the UKSC with some reference to the CJEU’s application of Brussels Ia’s Article 24, held that there is no jurisdiction in proceedings for infringement of rights in foreign land where the proceedings are “principally concerned with a question of the title, or the right to possession, of that property” (including intellectual property). [51] Reference is also made to Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v UCB Pharma SA and to Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd.

The judge [73] holds GW’s intended challenge to a foreign patent in this case is not direct in the sense suggested in Chugai and the rule in Moçambique is not engaged. Claim formulation in the US proceedings features as a strong argument in that conclusion. [81] ff a forum non challenge is rejected.

Geert.

EU private international law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.196 ff.

Jurisdiction upheld in #patent licence dispute with licensee indicating challenge to validity of patents granted outside UK
Moçambique rule applied to IPR
Foreign Act of State doctrine, forum non conveniens

Otsuka v GW Pharma [2022] EWHC 1012 (Pat) https://t.co/RLypWznwbQ

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) May 4, 2022

This post is one for the comparative binder. Fong Chak Kwan v Ascentic Limited and Others [2022] HKCFA 12 (many thanks to Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit for alerting me to the judgment) discusses a variety of issues, the one of interest to the blog is the tort gateway for a tort allegedly committed outside of Hong Kong. The ruling on that issue was delivered by Lord Collins, a former UKSC judge who continues to sit in the Hong Kong judicial system (unlike others who have withdrawn from the Hong Kong courts in light of the region’s rule of law issues).

[67] Direct damage was sustained on the Mainland, with indirect damage only in Hong Kong.

The First Instance judge [68] ‘in line with the majority judgments of Lady Hale and Lord Wilson in [UKSC Brownlie] .., and being unpersuaded by the minority view of Lord Sumption, decided that (a) the expression “damage” in Gateway F was not limited to damage which completed the cause of action; (b) the expression was not limited to direct damage as opposed to indirect/consequential damage; (c) where damage was felt in more than one jurisdiction, indirect/consequential damage qualified under Gateway F if it was of some significance; (d) the expression was to be given its ordinary and natural meaning, which embraced indirect/consequential damage; and (e) the consequences of a wide interpretation were sufficiently addressed by the discretion as to forum conveniens.’ 

The Court of Appeal [69] ‘like the judge, held that the reasoning of the majority in Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Inc was to be preferred to that of the minority. Damage included all of the heads of damage which might be suffered as a result of tortious conduct, including all the detriment, physical, financial and social which the plaintiff suffered as a result. The natural and ordinary meaning of Gateway F was clear, and there was no basis for drawing a distinction between direct and indirect damage. Nor was there any basis for applying the European jurisprudence on the Brussels Convention and Brussels I Regulations. Finally, the expression “the damage” in Gateway F did not mean that all the damage, or the damage which completed the cause of action, had to be sustained in Hong Kong.’

[74] ff Collins NPJ provides a historic and geographical comparative (Commonwealth) tour d’horizon, confirming the lower courts’ view.

[107]-[108] ‘(I)n the light of the legislative purpose, the natural and ordinary meaning of the word “damage” is just that, and the rule does not distinguish between the damage which completes a cause of action and that which does not, nor does it distinguish between direct or indirect damage, or between physical or financial damage. The question is whether there is a legislative purpose, or a public policy, or an absurd or undesirable result, which justifies a narrower construction, to encompass only direct damage as opposed to indirect damage.’: the judge finds there is no such purpose, policy or result.’

[109] he discusses 3 flows in the reasoning of the alternative reading, which are worth a read. [121] the same safety valve is emphasised as the UKSC did in the majority view in Brownlie: where the exercise of the locus damni gateway leads to unwarranted results, forum non conveniens can come to the rescue.

Geert.

Comparative conflicts
Note 64 ff Collins NPJ on jurisdiction in respect of tort allegedly committed outside of Hong Kong, with extensive reference to UKSC Brownlie https://t.co/Z0a0CPOowB and other jurisdictions https://t.co/oR1H7cR0Oe

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 22, 2022

In G I Globinvestment Ltd & Ors v VP Fund Solutions (Luxembourg) SA & Ors [2022] EWHC 1872 (Comm) wealthy Italian investors seek to recover losses which they suffered when investments they had made plummeted in value at the outset of the COVID pandemic. Defendants are in various jurisdictions. Most have accepted jurisdiction, two of them, one based in Luxembourg, the other in Liechtenstein, challenge jurisdiction.

The claim against the Liechtenstein defendant is subject to common law rules, the country not being a party to Lugano. I will leave that further undiscussed here, suffice to say the challenge was unsuccessful.

The claim against the Luxembourg based defendant was issued before Brexit implementation date and subject to Brussels Ia. It claims there is an A25 exclusive choice of court clause in the investment fund’s general subscription terms, and Vineall DJ discusses it with reference to the general A25 outline in PIFSS v Piqtet.

Parties are agreed [64] – wrongly, nota bene, that on formal validity, the question is whether there has been an actual consensus between the parties, clearly and precisely demonstrated, and on material validity, the question is whether the dispute between the parties arose or originated from the particular legal relationship in connection with which the clause was concluded. That is the kind of agreement which would see my students fail a Brussels Ia question.

[65] a further major error is made with the parties seemingly agreeing that ‘whether the claim falls within the scope of the [clause], that question is to be answered according to Luxembourg law’.

The conclusions are [88] that there is no [forum clause] in the in the Subscription Agreement, although there is choice of law clause; 88.2. There is no EJC in the Offering Document; The Offering Document wrongly asserts that there is a jurisdiction clause in the Subscription Agreement; That is insufficient to establish a clearly and precisely demonstrated consensus; no consensus as to jurisdiction is demonstrated: the result of the conflicting documents is a muddle; therefore there is no exclusive jurisdiction clause on which VP Lux can rely.

I have not got the kind of access to the file to say the outcome is factually wrong – the route to it certainly is and simply wrong in law.

The judge also [89] concludes that whether one of the claimants is a consumer who can sue in England and Wales need not be decided:  ‘That issue does not seem to me to be entirely straightforward and since it is not necessary to resolve it in the light of my conclusions about [choice of court] I prefer not to decide it’: why not?: VP Lux contest jurisdiction and it is the judge’s task under Brussels Ia to assess the existence of jurisdiction on any of the Brussels Ia grounds.

Had the judgment been issued in exam season it would have been obvious material for ‘spot the Brussels Ia errors’.

Geert.

Unsuccessful jurisdiction challenge which was based ia on Brussels Ia consumer, choice of court sections

G I Globinvestment Ltd & Ors v VP Fund Solutions (Luxembourg) SA & Ors [2022] EWHC 1872https://t.co/UfyToABXz6

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) July 21, 2022

In Athena Capital Fund SICAV-FIS SCA & Ors v Secretariat of State for the Holy See [2022] EWCA Civ 1051, the Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court’s judgment ordering a stay in a case involving alleged property fraud. I reviewed the first instance judgment here. The judge held the E&W courts did have jurisdiction over the claims but stayed them

because he took the view that the respondent had adopted a neutral position as to whether the appellants were under any liability and because the real dispute was not between the parties to this action but between the appellants and the prosecuting authorities responsible for the conduct of criminal proceedings against the fourth appellant in the Vatican City State.

(Males LJ [1]).

Many of the High Court judgment’s’ findings were not on appeal (such as the erroneous dropping of renvoi in the A25 BIa choice of court analysis).

The Court of Appeal spends a while summarising the earlier judgment, to arrive [54] at the crucial juncture between the Brussels Ia Regulation and case-management stays, with reference to its very recent decisions in Municipio and Nokia and to Article 6 ECHR right of access to courts [59]. Para 59 is crucial and I repeat it here in full

There is, as it seems to me, no reason to doubt that it is only in rare and compelling cases that it will be in the interests of justice to grant a stay on case management grounds in order to await the outcome of proceedings abroad. After all, the usual function of a court is to decide cases and not to decline to do so, and access to justice is a fundamental principle under both the common law and Article 6 ECHR. The court will therefore need a powerful reason to depart from its usual course and such cases will by their nature be exceptional. In my judgment all of the guidance in the cases which I have cited is valuable and instructive, but the single test remains whether in the particular circumstances it is in the interests of justice for a case management stay to be granted. There is not a separate test in “parallel proceedings” cases. Rather, considerations such as the existence of an exclusive English jurisdiction clause and the danger of circumventing a statutory scheme for the allocation of jurisdiction (such as the Judgments Regulation) will be weighty and often decisive factors pointing to where the interests of justice lie.

Males LJ therefore, like others before him, does not rule out a case-management stay even for proceedings covered by Brussels Ia yet puts (among others) that Regulation’s statutory purpose, and the need not to allow it to be circumvented, at the centre ground of the decision on a stay.

[60] ff a succinct background is given to the happiness, or not, of English courts entertaining negative declarations. [74] is the Court of Appeal’s core argument for lifting the stay:

I consider that the judge’s conclusion on what he described as the Secretariat’s “central argument” was mistaken. The Secretariat was not neutral. It follows that the basis on which the judge concluded that, at present, the grant of declarations would serve no useful purpose and therefore exercised his discretion to grant a case management stay was fundamentally flawed. Indeed the circumstances in which he envisaged that the declarations might serve a useful purpose and that the stay might be lifted, that is to say if the Secretariat adopted a partisan position in the criminal proceedings in the Vatican, already existed.

The judge had essentially decided that claimants, given the jurisdictional (for reasons of immunity) unavailability of the real defendants, had picked an ‘innocent bystander’ against whom to seek the negative declaration, the Secretariat, yet the Court of Appeal now finds that the Secretariat is not a neutral bystander at all. There is a real ‘dispute between the appellants and the Secretariat as to whether the appellants are under any civil liability to the Secretariat, for example to pay compensation, as a result of entering into the Transaction.’ [75]

[77] it is conceded that the lifting of the stay means there will be related proceedings going on in E&E, and the Vatican. But that is not found to be a reason to stay the English proceedings.

Geert.

For review of the first instance judgment see https://t.co/LcAvK1nua8 https://t.co/G1XIlQ2QlV

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) July 26, 2022

Another overdue post following up on earlier Twitter flag. In On the Beach Ltd v Ryanair UK Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 861 (Ch), a competition law ‘follow-on damages suit, Nugee LJ considered in particular whether in assessing the relatedness of proceedings, the judge can indeed may have to take into account what is likely to be pleaded by way of defence in both actions. He held [52] he can:

the better view is that where an application for a stay is made at a stage when the defence to an action has not yet been pleaded, the Court can have regard to the substance of a defence that it can confidently predict is likely to be pleaded.

However [53] ff on the facts he then held that the most likely outcome of that defence in the Irish proceedings is that these will be dismissed. This I believe is a form of judicial clairvoyance which goes too far, even in the wide remit which Article 30 gives to the judge assessing relatedness and the appropriateness of an Article 30 stay.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.521 ff.

Jurisdiction, competition law 'follow-on' damages
Stay on the basis of A30 Brussels Ia 'related actions' refused.
Re taking into account of possible defences in the Irish proceedings.

On the Beach Ltd v Ryanair UK Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 861 (Ch)https://t.co/SR85hPU1X9

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) April 19, 2022

Medina AG’s end June Opinion in C-238/21 Porr Bau GmbH v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Graz-Umgebung will delight waste lawyers for the case once again evolves around the definition of ‘waste’ as applied to excavated soil. Statute to be interpreted is the WFD or the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98. CJEU SAPPI is a recent judgment  often referred to by the AG.

Porr Bau, the applicant in the main proceedings, is a construction undertaking established in Austria. In July 2015, certain local farmers asked it to supply them, against payment, with excavated soil and to distribute it over their properties. The purpose of the farmers’ request was to level their agricultural land and improve their cultivation areas, thereby increasing yields. Porr Bau applied to the relevant authorities for a statement that the soil was not to be considered waste so as it could avoid a number of taxes. That authority disagreed and also held that the soil, which it considered to be waste, had not yet reached end-of-waste status.

The AG (36) opines that it should not be assumed that all excavated soil by a construction undertaking is by default to be discarded, and that it is difficult to conclude that, under circumstances such as those of the present case, the intention of a construction undertaking is to discard excavated soil that has been carefully selected, subjected to a quality control and supplied as uncontaminated top-quality material in order to attend to a specific request from local operators in need of that material. He also suggests, less convincingly in my view, (38 ff) that such soil may be considered a by-product of the construction sector. 

Should he not be followed on the waste definition issue, the AG suggests and he is right in my view that national law must not deny end-of-waste status until the holder fulfils certain formal requirements with no environmental relevance such as record-keeping and documentation obligations.

Geert.

EU Waste law, 2nd ed 2015, 1.20 ff.

Opinion Medina AG yday in a case involving uncontaminated excavated soil, supplied to farmers for land adaptation and development
National end of waste criteria, by-products as opposed to waste

C‑238/21 Porr Bau GmbH v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Graz-Umgebunghttps://t.co/Akl1PFYCrz

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 22, 2022

This one is overdue for review on the blog. In Van Heck v Giambrone & Partners Studio Legale Associato [2022] EWHC 1098 (QB) the High Court confirmed in appeal the refusal of a stay on Article 29 Brussels Ia lis pendens grounds in a case concerning a barrister’s claim for professional fees. The defendant in the English proceedings had initiated an Italian claim, prior to the English claim, in which it denied liability for the fees: a classic mirror claim. The court of first instance in Palermo had denied it had jurisdiction. That judgment went to appeal, where it is pending however the first instance, sole judge in England held that the jurisdictional issue had been conclusively dealt with and was not in appeal. Hence that no ‘lis’ was still pending for Article 29 to apply.

Soole J [75] held that the critical question for determination was whether the proceedings in the court first seised, i.e. the Palermo Claim, had been ‘finally determined in relation to its jurisdiction’. Whether or not that is the case, in the absence of a European harmonised approach to whether the national courts are still seized of the jurisdictional issue, is a matter of national procedural law [80]] which the E&W judge is to assess as a matter of foreign law hence fact, to be proven by the parties. That finding is a factual issue which the judge held upon with the help of relevant expert and  is not within the appeal.

Stay therefore dismissed.

Geert.

Appeal dismissed, confirmation of refusal to stay E&W proceedings on barrister's fee claim in favour of proceedings in Palermo (A29 BIa, lis pendens)

Van Heck v Giambrone & Partners Studio Legale Associato [2022] EWHC 1098 (QB)https://t.co/Ngi3aQX8lZ

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) May 13, 2022

In Deane v Barker & Ors [2022] EWHC 1523 (QB) concerns the frequent and upsetting scenario of falls in rented holiday accommodation. Claimant is habitually resident in England, proceedings were issued in December 2019, and subject therefore to Brussels Ia. Any jurisdictional challenge would have been tricky (but not impossible, seeing as 2 of the defendants are based in Spain; one of them one presumes is sued in E&W on the basis of BIa’s insurance title, the other (the Spanish company which manages the property) on the basis of the anchor mechanism or perhaps forum contractus). At any rate, there is no jurisdictional objection.

The owners of the villa, like the claimant, are domiciled in England and they are being sued on the tort of negligence which, per A4(2) Rome II, makes English law in principle the applicable law to most of the claim (there is also an additional contractual claim against the property manager, said to be subject to Spanish law per the cascade of A4 Rome I; and a claim in tort subject to Spanish law per A4(1) ).

Issues such as the standard of care and breach of duty viz the main claim will be informed by whether the staircase complied with Spanish law safety standards – CTE: that is the result of A17 Rome II. The issues for this preliminary discussion, are [21]

Issue 1 Whether the works conducted at the villa and/or on the staircase were refurbishment works (such as to trigger the application of the CTE) or merely maintenance works (such as not to trigger the application of the CTE)? Issue 2 Whether the villa (and the staircase within it) was for general or public use (such that the material provisions of the CTE would presumptively apply) or for restricted use (such that the same provisions would not apply)? Issue 3 Whether, if the material provisions of the CTE apply, this would in principle give rise to a breach of duty in English and Spanish law?

Issue 1 and 2 depend on the interpretation of foreign law which, in common law courts, is fact and must be proven. The discussion here seems to have turned on lengthy debate on the exact meaning of definitions. That this should be discussed so intensely does not surprise me (unlike the judge who suggested it was unusual): if a definition is of great relevance to the outcome of the case, why should it not be extensively discussed.  The debate also engages the methods of interpretation by the Spanish courts: this leads [38ff] to expert views and discussion that are  interesting with a view to comparative statutory interpretation, and will be of relevance to those with an interest in languages and law.

Geert.

An interesting case on proving foreign law
Context: definitions in Spanish building codes, applicable per EU law, Rome II

Deane v Barker & Ors [2022] EWHC 1523 (QB) (Richard Hermer QC sitting as HCJ)https://t.co/sk7hotoct8

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 20, 2022

Others will no doubt analyse Friends of the Earth Ltd & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2022] EWHC 1841 (Admin) at much more length. I just thought I would pen down my thoughts when reading the judgment.

The case is a further judgment holding Governments to account for not addressing climate change challenges properly. The United Kingdom being a dualist country (all the more so following Brexit), the arguments do not much feature the Paris Agreement directly. Rather, claimants aim to hold Government to how Parliament said it should act in addressing climate change  in the Climate Change Act 2008 – CCA 2008, and, additionally, through the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights, whether or not in combination with the UK Human Rights Act. The core of the exercise and judgment therefore is one of statutory interpretation.

Of note first of all is that most of the claimants’ arguments were rejected and one assumes therefore that they will be seeking permission to appeal (just as the Government will).

The judgment kicks off with the oblique reference to trias politica. Holgate J [22] cites R (Rights: Community: Action) v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government [2021] PTSR 553 at [6]: –

“It is important to emphasise at the outset what this case is and
is not about. Judicial review is the means of ensuring that public
bodies act within the limits of their legal powers and in
accordance with the relevant procedures and legal principles
governing the exercise of their decision-making functions. The
role of the court in judicial review is concerned with resolving
questions of law. The court is not responsible for making
political, social, or economic choices. Those decisions, and those
choices, are ones that Parliament has entrusted to ministers and
other public bodies. The choices may be matters of legitimate
public debate, but they are not matters for the court to determine.
The court is only concerned with the legal issues raised by the
claimant as to whether the defendant has acted unlawfully.”

And [194]: judicial review in this case must not be merits review and the judge must adopt a ‘light touch’.

Starting with the ECHR arguments, there were summarily dismissed [261] ff. They engaged with Article 2 ECHR’s right to life, Article 8’s right to family life (these two being the classic anchors for environmental rights in the ECHR) and Article 1 of the first protocol (‘A1P1′)’s right to [protection of property. Holgate J holds that the claimants’ argument on the ECHR ‘goes beyond permissible incremental development of clear and constant Strasbourg case law’ [275] and [269-270] that the Dutch Urgenda decision offers a narrow window of ECHR relevance to climate law which does not open in the current case (with [270] in fine an explicit warning that Dutch authority, it being a monist country, should not hold much sway in England and Wales).

A first ground discussed the role of quantitative v qualitative assessment and whether and the degree to which the Minister was to show the targets could be met quantitatively. The judge held that ‘the CCA 2008 does not require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the quantifiable effects of his proposals and policies will enable the whole of the emissions reductions required by the carbon budgets to be met. The [statutory] obligation …does not have to be satisfied by quantitative analysis alone.’ [193].

However one of the grounds on which the challenge did succeed is the quality of the input for the Minister’s decision: this overall briefing was held to have omitted data the minister was legally obliged to take into account, and which was not insignificant. As a result the Minister failed to take it into account as a material consideration, so that his decision was unlawful (compare [200]). [221] the briefing was held to have been wanting, in that it failed to identify under the quantitative analysis the contribution each quantifiable proposal or policy would make to meeting the UK’s carbon budgets; and it failed to identify under the qualitative analysis which proposals and policies would meet the 5% shortfall for one of the carbon budgets and how each would do so.

[246] ff (where Holgate J does refer, albeit with statutory distinguishing, to relevant Irish cases), another partial ground is upheld namely that of proper information given to Parliament (and therefore also the public; both a sore point in the current UK Government) on the data reached for the Ministerial conclusion and data on the pathways for delivery themselves. [257]: ‘contributions from individual policies which are properly quantifiable must be addressed in’ the report given to Parliament and hence the public.

The result therefore is important in terms of accountability and transparency (where unfortunately no mention was made of the Aarhus Convention which Continues to apply to the UK), with the latter element also being inspirational for other jurisdictions where Governments have been told to go back to the climate change drawing board.

Geert.

W Nagel (a firm) v Pluczenik& Ors [2022] EWHC 1714 (Comm) concerns litigation in the diamond sector. It is an appeal against permission for service out which triggers various jurisdictional considerations, including forum non, as well as disclosure and ‘clean hands’ concerns.

The judgment is a good illustration of claim and counterclaim serving jurisdictional purposes.

Defendants are a Belgium-domiciled diamond manufacturer (PDC) and its equally Belgium-based managing director Mr Pluczenik . Claimant Nagel is a UK based diamond broker. Nagel is defendant in Belgian proceedings brought in May 2015 by defendants in the E&W proceedings, who used a Belgian-based anchor defendant to sue the English claimant in Belgium (A8(1) Brussels Ia); Nagel are also defendant in a September 2015 Belgian claim brought by the same claimants and since consolidated by the Belgian courts. Nagel itself issued a claim against PDC in the English High Court in March 2015, did not serve it, but sent a letter before action which indicated that it intended to bring proceedings in England.

In June 2015, as direct reaction to the Belgian Claim, Nagel amended the English Claim to seek negative declaratory relief to the effect that it was not liable in respect of a number of contractual duties.

In July 2017 Popplewell J found for Nagel, including in respect of the negative declaratory relief: W Nagel (A Firm) v Pluczenik Diamond Company NV [2017] EWHC 1750 (Comm). His judgment was confirmed by the Court of Appeal: [2018] EWCA Civ 2640, payments were made and the E&W proceedings ended.

Come forward third defendant in the current E&W proceedings, Ms Shine, who was the CEO of a subsidiary of De Beers – De Beers Trading Company. She has never worked for either of the Claimant or the First or Second Defendants, but she gave a statement to the Belgian court in 2017, supporting PDC. Her statement was provoked it seems by the outcome of the E&W proceedings which did not match her recollection. Nagel originally objected to jurisdiction solely on the ground of lis pendens (A29-30 BIa).

In July 2020 (one can see that in this case the speed of Belgian proceedings is nothing like in the case I reported yesterday) the Belgian claimants put forward their arguments on jurisdiction based on Antwerp being forum contractus per A7(1) BIA (they argued centre of gravity or characteristic performance was in Antwerp) [20].

In an interim, February 2021 interim judgment the Belgian court held it had jurisdiction on the basis of A7 forum contractus. It considered the lis pendens issue noting that it could no longer apply now that the English Claim was concluded. It then concluded that it had jurisdiction to determine the dispute. The Court noted that “the defendants apparently do not (or no longer) dispute” that the services were performed in Antwerp. 

Nagel then dropped the jurisdictional arguments and at hearings 7 May 2021 onwards went for res judicata, arguing …the English judgment has the status of res judicata with regard to the present proceedings, so that the court on the basis of Article 23 and 25 Judicial Code [the Belgian CPR, GAVC] is currently prohibited from again deciding on the claim…” [30]. End of May 2021 Nagel then commenced the present claim in the Commercial Court. The claim alleges that the Belgian Claim constitutes a tortious abuse of process and forms part of an unlawful means conspiracy between the Defendants. Ms Shine is the Third Defendant. It is said that the provision of the Shine Statement and its (lack of) merits justify an inference that she was involved in the abuse of process and the conspiracy [31].

In September 2021 Moulder J gave permission for service out (required post Brexit) on the basis that the claim met limb (a) of the tort gateway viz “damage was sustained, or will be sustained, within the jurisdiction” (Nagel trades from England, paid sums to Belgian lawyers from a bank account in England and has consequently suffered loss here; she also UKSC Brownlie for the damage gateway). She refused permission on two other gateways – necessary and proper party and tort committed within the jurisdiction. It is alleged by defendants that Moulder J was not given any indication of the Belgian interim judgment.

The Belgian Claim is now scheduled for trial in January 2023.

[64] Cockerill J holds that the Belgian findings on jurisdiction and the existence of a judgment which dealt in terms with jurisdiction should on any view have been put before Moulder J and [65] that this breach of duty of disclosure was deliberate. She also holds [70] that the picture sketched of the Belgian proceedings being ‘in limbo’ was plainly wrong: they were definitely active, and that it had been wrongfully suggested that the Belgian judge was not going to deal with the res judicata issue. On that basis, she would have set aside permission for service out [75] however this point turns out to be obiter for the reason for reversal of the order is that E&W are not the appropriate forum [76] ff. Relevant factors being that (i) the jurisdiction of the Belgian Courts appears to have been established by PDC and accepted by Nagel (at least on a prima facie basis), (ii) the Belgian claim is progressing and (iii) there is scope for determination of a res judicata issue (which replicates the issues sought to be brought here) and (iv) a determination of the res judicata issue is (and was) likely to be determined relatively soon.

Moreover, Belgium clearly is an appropriate forum [79] the Belgian Claim is one brought by a Belgian company (PDC), arising out of services provided in Belgium (as the Belgian Court has held), alleging fraud on the Belgian Court. (The serious issue to be tried discussion leads to an analysis of Article 4 Rome II as retained EU law).

A good illustration as I mentioned of claim, counterclaim, and of course the clean hands principle.

Geert.

Res judicata issues and claims of abuse of process by launching Belgian proceedings under Brussels Ia

W Nagel (a firm) v Pluczenik& Ors [2022] EWHC 1714 (Comm)https://t.co/UKQi3rEer9

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) July 6, 2022

Simon v Tache & Ors [2022] EWHC 1674 (Comm) is an interesting judgment which one assumes is very appealable given the untested Withdrawal Agreement and other angles.

At issue is i.a. whether Article 67 Withdrawal Agreement requires both sets of proceedings which are a candidate for Brussels Ia’s Article 29-30 lis pendens /related cases provisions, to have been pending prior to Brexit Implementation Date and what date needs to be considered the date of seizing.

Claimants argue, that the Belgian Proceedings, which I outline below, could only have become related on 3 May 2021 by the lodging of the 3 May Submissions, and that the English Court only became seized of the English proceedings after 31 December 2020, either on the making of Service Out Application or on the subsequent issue of the English Proceedings. On this basis it would not be open to the Defendants in the English proceedings to rely upon Article 67 as applying Articles 29 and 30 of Brussels Recast to the English Proceedings.

Claimant is a French national living in London. She is a medical doctor who previously practiced. She now focuses on art and design. Defendants are Belgian nationals, contemporary art dealers with a gallery website in English. This element notably raises issues whether the contract could qualify as a consumer contract. Defendants deny this, citing the very example I often give in class when teaching the relevance of language in the context of the Pammer Alpenhof criteria: the very use of English on websites, particularly in the art, design or hospitality sector in cities like Brussels are hardly an indication of direction of activities outside the location. The contract being a consumer contract seemingly was not flagged in claim form or submissions, it only came up at hearing.

Claimant and defendants having met in Paris, various artworks were delivered to claimant’s Paris address. Lex contractus is disputed [20]. The relationship soured and Belgian libel proceedings by defendants in the E&W proceedings were initiated end of October 2020. End of March 2021 Dr Simon was given permission to serve out. Her application mentioned the Belgian proceedings but argued that these were unrelated, ia in light of the different (non)contractual basis of those proceedings [35]. A claim form was sent to defendants’ lawyers early April 2021 and the claim form was filed 10 May 2021. On 3 May the defendants in the E&W proceedings amended thier Belgian claim, adding a request for declaration of non-liability: in other words they requested the Belgian court to declare that there was no wrongdoing on their part in the contractual relationship.

End of October 2021 the first instance Belgian court held it does have jurisdiction, but that no damage was proven. That court however declined to rule on the claim for a negative declaration because the allegations were before the English court. The Belgian court’s dictum on that issue is very brief, declaring only ‘“Whereas the ensuing dispute was never resolved and is currently the subject of a lawsuit in London, such that this court will refrain from commenting on the merits of that case.” : it did not specify why which clearly is a failure on its part.

[50] it is the Defendants’ case that the Belgian court was first seized on 3 May 2021, before the E&W Court was first seized on 10 May 2021 on the issue of proceedings. On the other hand, it is Dr Simon’s case that the E&W Court was first seized on the making of the Service Out Application and/or the making of the Service Order on 30 March 2021, alternatively on the issue of the Claim Form on 10 May 2021, but that the Belgian court was only seized when the Defendants’ claim for a negative declaration was filed on 5 August 2021.

It is undisputed [52] that as a matter of Belgian procedural law, it would be open to Dr Simon to raise a counterclaim in respect of the causes of action that she seeks to pursue by the English Proceedings in the Belgian Proceedings, and to do so notwithstanding that they are now before the Belgian Appeal Court. Expectations of the Court of Appeal ruling varied between one and five years [54] however in the end that Court surprised all and held after the English judge’s draft judgment had been circulated.

In November 2021 Dr Simon at her turn added a claim to her English claim form, one in dishonesty.

The judge holds [74] that BIa continues to apply to new claims added to proceedings commenced prior to 31 December 2020 and claims against new defendants joined to such proceedings after that date. He refers to  On the Beach Ltd v Ryanair UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 861 (Ch) in support (acknowledging that that case is not authority to him and that the parties in that case were in agreement on the issue).

On the issue of seizure, the judge holds [92] that this must be linked to the formal lodging of a claim form in order to issue proceedings, rather than the taking of some preliminary step to obtain permission with regard to the service of proceedings which might never be issued. I have sympathy with the view [85] that this gives the other party a great opportunity to torpedo proceedings.

‘“the same cause of action, between the same parties” is judged, despite an acknowledgment of EU autonomous interpretation, with reference to Belgian procedural law and expert reports on same [103]. That must be a vulnerable position.

Conclusion on A29 is that a stay must be ordered [114] and obiter [120] that one would have been ordered on A30 grounds.

Service out is discussed [121] in a bit of a vacuum because of course is BIa applies then service out is not required. Here reference is made to Rome I’s applicable law as an element of the gateway requirements (contract governed by English law) (held: no: Belgian law is prima facie lex contractus [134], with discussion ia of the consumer title. As a pudding, forum non conveniens is considered and this is surely where the jurisdictional arguments become excessive per Lord Briggs’ speech in Vedanta.

Then comes the final pousse-café: the Belgian Court of Appeal, unexpectedly fast, found it had no jurisdiction (this may be appealable to the Belgian Supreme Court), leaving the possibility of a negative conflict of jurisdiction which the parties were invited to comment upon.

A case to watch.

Geert.

Application of Brussels Ia's lis pendens (As 29-30) rules re concurrent Belgian proceedings, with BE Court of Appeal eventually holding, like the E&W courts, that it has no jurisdiction
More soon

Simon v Tache & Ors [2022] EWHC 1674 (Comm)https://t.co/APyROT7Fi9

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) July 6, 2022

The Belgian Data Protection Controller (DPA)’s decision of March 2022 (thank you Peter Craddock for alerting me to it at the time) has been travelling with me since it was issued mid March 2022: a late posting, I realise. There is however follow-up because Google have appealed.

The case concerns a classic ‘right to be forgotten’ aka delisting request, which Google refused, made by a practising solicitor with a criminal conviction and disciplinary measures taken against him. Google was rebuked, but not fined, for not dealing with the request promptly. However in substance the DPA agreed with Google’s refusal to delist, citing the link of the convictions to the applicant’s current profession, the recent nature of the conviction, and the severity of the facts.

This post however wants to signal the issue for which Google have appealed: the territorial reach of the GDPR under Article 3(1) v 3(2) GDPR,  as also explained in the European Data Protection Board (EDPA) December 2019 guidelines on the territorial scope of the GDPR (and something which the Belgian Court of Appeal has grappled with before, albeit not in the 3(1) v 3(2) setting).

Article 3(1) of the GDPR applies to “the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or processor in the Union, regardless of whether processing takes place in the Union or not“. Article 3(2) applies the GDPR to “the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to (a) the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union, or (b) the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union“.

Google Ireland was fast out off the picture by consent among the parties and the DPA [39-40]: it had no role at all in any of the processing. Google LL.C. admitted [44] that Article 3(1) applies to it, while Google Belgium [53] posits that as a mere internal consultancy /lobbying outfit for the Google group, it, too, has no role in the processing of the data.

Citing earlier decisions and CJEU Google Spain, the DPA nevertheless takes a broad view of ‘data processing’, arguing [64] that Google Spain identifies an ‘inextricable link’ between the various units of a group as sufficient to trigger DPA jurisdiction, even if one of these units has no role in the data processing.  While this reasoning ([68] and [71] in particular) suggests the wide notion of inextricable link triggers Article 3(1), in subsequent paras ([69] in particular) suggest the opposite causality: suggesting that because Article 3(1) applies, the activities are inextricably linked. Clearly, as Peter Craddock had pointed out before (I read it at the time but cannot find the source anymore I fear) that is a case of circular reasoning.

For Google, application of the GDPR to the US based entity as opposed to the EU based ones clearly is of significant difference. Its appeal with the Court of Appeal will be heard in the autumn.

Geert.

EU private international law, 3rd. ed. 2021, 2.256 ff.

Early July the courts at Rotterdam held in ITWF, Nautilus International and FNV v Marlow Navigation Netherlands BV et al that the International Transport Workers Federation (IT(W)F) Non Seafarers’ Work Clause, also known as the Dockers’ Clause, falls within the CJEU ‘Albany’ exception of EU competition law. The case se was brought against a number of shipowners who disregarded the clause.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should note I acted as expert witness for the ITWF.

The dockers’ Clause, negotiated between trade unions and employers, forms an integral part of a set of agreements primarily entered into by ITF and the Joint Negotiation Group (JNG – represent maritime owners from across the world) . In short  the clause amounts to a ban on ships’ crews carrying out work relating to securing and releasing the load on a ship (often: containers), collectively known as ‘lashing’ /’unlashing’ work. Tiredness and fatigue are some of the biggest risks for seafarers, who are expected to rest in the ports, not carry out the specialised and dangerous work of dockers. 

The Dockers’ Clause, together with the other employment conditions, was the result of an intensive and multi-year period of negotiations between a large number of social partners. Exemptions are possible under conditions.

Collective agreements of course are prima facie suspect under EU competition rules. The Albany ‘exception’ of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerns the core criteria which the CJEU employs in its competition law assessment of the activities carried out by organisations that organise social protection for workers in a given sector. The Court held (at 60) that

It therefore follows from an interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty as a whole which is both effective and consistent that agreements concluded in the context of collective negotiations between management and labour in pursuit of such objectives must, by virtue of their nature and purpose, be regarded as falling outside the scope of Article 85(1) of the Treaty.

Article 85(1) is what is now Article 101 TFEU, and by ‘such objectives’ the Court (at 59) means ‘social policy objectives’.

Note, for conflicts lawyers, the application of Article 4-4 Rome I, and, viz some of the defendants, Article 4(1) Rome II, to conclude application of Dutch law.

The Court at Rotterdam held that the seafarers clause fits squarely within the Albany exception: it is ‘entered into in the framework of collective bargaining between employers and employees’, and it improves the employment and working conditions of workers’. Note at 4.38 the reference to these agreements necessarily involving a ‘package deal’ which implies that the interest of all involved will be weighed and that as a result of the collective bargaining, some of those concerned will get a better deal than others. However both the CJEU and the Court at Rotterdam leave that assessment to the negotiation process.

Further arguments based ia on free movement of workers, services, establishment  were rejected. (A narrow Covid19 exception was accepted for a narrow set of circumstances).

An important judgment for those interested in competition law and collective bargaining.

Geert.

Pleased to have contributed to this important finding on the collective agreements 'Albany' exception in EU competition law. https://t.co/MWaEiUfsUN

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) July 8, 2022

First Advocate-General Szpunar opined in C-265/21 AB, AB-CD v Z EF a few weeks back. The case-name is a victim of the anonymisation rules and I propose we name it ‘the São Paulo Panels’, this being its ultimate subject: 20 panels exhibited at the 1977 São Paulo Art Biennial (this much information one can read in the publicly available referral decision and the AG Opinion). Tobias Lutzi has summary of the most relevant sections in the Opinion here and in the interest of disclosure I should add I am instructed for Belgium in the case.

Early in the 1980s the original German artists handed over the panels to an art gallery in Belgium. The nature of the deposit (sale or deposit) is contested. The owner of the art gallery later sold the panels to her daughter and son-in-law, who requested Christie’s of London to sell the panels. That sale has been suspended since 2013 (hence the case is subject to Brussels I, not Brussels Ia however there is no material difference) in light of one of the original artists, the wife (her husband had passed away) claiming ownership; the wife in the meantime has passed away, too, and the proceedings are continued by their son. (The CJEU may find this of note, seeing as the original proceedings at the outset involved at least one of the original contracting parties).

Current proceedings result from the Belgian-domiciled claimants having requested the Belgian courts to confirm their ownership of the objects. The Belgian courts are asking the CJEU whether the case involves A7(1) special jurisdiction for contract and if so, where the forum contractus lies. Claimants argue the claim engages A7(1) on the basis of the original contract which they argue is one in sale, with performance in Belgium. The defendant argues the original contract was one of deposit, and that a declaratory claim such as the one at issue, with the parties to the proceedings not being parties to the original contract, does not engage A7(1) at all, instead only being subject to Article 4, domicile of the defendant.

Clearly the questions will enable the Court to clarify whether its Feniks, Flight Right etc case-law, with their extended notion of ‘contract’, applies across the board, without much need to take the specific context of those cases into account; or whether there ought to be some restraint on the reach of the forum contractus. One assumes it may seek some inspiration in its approach to distinguishing contracts and torts, eg in Wikingerhof (or Sharpston AG’s earlier ‘ancestry’ test for the Rome I and II distinction in Ergo). Without restraint, CJEU De Bloos’ great window of opportunity for claim formulation hence forum shopping is likely to be reinvigorated.

The AG (44) ff explains the initial restrictive approach to forum contractus per CJEU Handte, and (53) confesses not to be a fan of a restrictive interpretation of A7, arguing such interpretation would undermine the Regulation’s intention, in formulating the special jurisdictional rules, of ensuring that courts with a particular suitability to hear the case will have jurisdiction to do so. The alternative view is that too wide an interpretation undermines the Regulation’s DNA of predictability and the statutorily expressed view that A4 forum rei is the core principle of the Regulation, and the established case-law in support of this principle that exceptions to it need to be restrictively interpreted. The AG refers more than once in his Opinion to scholarship of one of my Doktorkinder, Dr Michiel Poesen, to substantiate the scholarly debate.

He subsequently discusses the later wider CJEU wider approach, starting with Engler and culminating in flight right, concludes that the current claim falls within that wider framework but does emphasise that the contract must lie at the foundation of the claim: ‘et sur laquelle se fonde l’action du demandeur’ (75).

(76) ff discusses the important question how far the judge, faced with opposition to her /his jurisdiction, must go in the consultation or interpretation of the contract, to establish whether or not the claim finds its foundation in contract. Per Kolassa and Universal Music, both the claimant’s and the defendant’s arguments to that effect are said by the AG to be of relevance. (83) Seeing as both parties argue their position with reference to a contract, the AG advises that on the facts of the case, the contractual foundation is clear; (84) that the contract which is the initial source of the rights and obligations (“la source originale des droits et obligations litigieux”) is the anchor point for the forum contractus, i.e. the disputed 1980s contract and not the later contract of sale; and (86) ff, that the judge will have to apply the classic A7(1) cascade: if the initial contract cannot be qualified as one for the sale of movable goods or a service, the CJEU Tessili Dunlop method of looking over the fence will have to be applied. (The referral decision is short on factual elements to help the AG opine on this point).

Fun with contracts…..

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.419 ff.

Opinion @maciejszpunar AG last week in C-265/21: yet more on 'contract' for jurisdictional purposes, A7(1) Brussels Ia. More later this week – I am a bit swamped.https://t.co/CPoq3x1PLS

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 20, 2022

In Case C-652/20 HW, ZF, MZ v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG, the CJEU held (no English version of the judgment is as yet available) end of June that A11(1)(b) Brussels Ia, determines jurisdiction not just of ‘the’ courts in a Member State (leaving territorial jurisdiction to be determined by national civil procedure rules) but rather of a specific court within that Member State. The judgment is a bit longer than might have been expected: that is because the referring judge did not qualify one or two elements which, particularly in an insurance context, can be quite convoluted. (Such as the nature and deliniation of ‘beneficiaries’, ‘insureds’, ‘victims’).

In accordance with the Article, ‘An insurer domiciled in a Member State may be sued: …(b) in another Member State, in the case of actions brought by the policyholder, the insured or a beneficiary, in the courts for the place where the claimant is domiciled’.

[35] The Court observes that in the Romanian (the language of the case) as well as the English and Finnish version of Brussels Ia use the plural ‘courts’ while in the other language versions, the singular is used. (Regular readers of the blog may be familiar with my earlier work on languages and interpretation). Coupled with the indications of territorial jurisdiction in the relevant section of the Report Jenard, and with the similar language in A7(1) and (2) and relevant case-law there (ex multi: Kareda, Volvo), the CJEU concludes that where A11(1)(b) and all its conditions apply, the Article identifies both national and territorial jurisdiction indeed.

Geert.

CJEU today in Allianz today. Brussels Ia insurance title determines national as well as territorial jurisdiction https://t.co/tnv51a8qWx

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 30, 2022

Municipio De Mariana & Ors v BHP Group (UK) Ltd & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 951 (background to the case here) is the appeal against the stay (and partial strike-out), on forum non conveniens, A33-34 Brussels Ia and case-management grounds ordered by Justice Turner. The Court of Appeal has overturned all three reasons for a stay. Bar appeal with the Supreme Court (which the defendants are likely to seek) the claimants may now bring their claim in the courts of England and Wales.

For the benefit of full disclosure I should add I am instructed for claimants in the case; this post however does not speak for claimants or co-counsel in the case and is merely my academic view on the judgment.

The judgment runs to 107 pages (not excessive given the issues and facts covered). There is little point in me rehashing it all (again, reference to my previous post may be useful). 40 pages are spent describing the applicable law in Brasil and the various proceedings underway there. This is of particular importance seeing as the crux of all three defences advanced is that the proceedings are already underway in Brasil and should not be duplicated by an English procedure.

In the main:

Abuse is dealt with [170] ff, with the key points for reversal listed [179] and the CA’s own analysis detailed thereafter, summarising in [234] ff.

Of particular note here is the rebuke of Justice Turner’s finding of ‘unmanageability’ of proceedings (which the CA as such does not believe will be the case) having dominated his subsequent findings on other elements of abuse, and the use of forum non conveniens criteria for the assessment of abuse.

[182] Consideration should have been made of the question of the availability of full redress in Brazil. To those following business and human rights litigation, this will be a welcome finding. [186] Support for manageability of proceedings not having a place in the abuse assessment (other than [187] if the claimant were to have vexatiously made the proceedings unmanageable himself), was found in Mastercard v Merricks [2020] UKSC 5.

[190] discussion of what Turner J at the abuse level,  saw as complications arising out of the existence of parallel proceedings in Brazil, already indicate the direction the Court took on the forum non and A34 issue: the many differences between the English and the Brazilian proceedings.

The Article 34 Brussels Ia application is discussed [237] ff and is of particular relevance to readers of the blog.

Firstly [256] the Court of Appeal settles for now the Privatbank /Euroeco discussion on ‘expediency’ (see also ia SCOR v Barclays) in favour of the former: What is required to fulfil A34(1)(a)’s condition is that it must be desirable for the two actions to be heard and determined together in order to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments, irrespective of whether that is a practical possibility. (Claimants have reserved the right to contest this should the matter go before the Supreme Court).

Further [257] the test of relatedness for the purposes of A34 is held by the CA to be a broad test: [243] per Tesauro AG in C-406/92 The Tatry, whenever the judge seized of the stay request considers that the reasoning adopted by the court hearing the earlier proceedings may concern issues likely to be relevant to its own decision, the cases can be said to be related. This is opposed to the narrow approach in the House of Lords Sarrio SA v Kuwait Investment Office [1991] AC 32: there the HoL held that for there to be a risk of irreconcilable judgments the inquiry is limited to “primary” issues which are those necessary to establish the cause of action, and does not include issues which the court might or might not decide and which would not be essential to its conclusion.

On the condition ‘that the court of the third State will give a judgment capable of recognition‘, at the hearing the question was asked whether a twofold condition exists, namely (i) that a judgment was expected as a matter of fact and (ii) that the expected judgment was one which was capable of recognition and, where applicable, enforcement. The Court [260] supports the view that only the second (ii) condition applies. I do not think that is correct and I am not convinced by the Court’s travaux analysis on this point [266] – I detail this in my forthcoming paper in the JPIL. As for that second condition, the CA holds [269] that ‘the exercise at this stage is a conceptual one, looking at the type of judgment to which the third state pending action may give rise, and evaluating whether it attracts recognition, or where applicable enforceability.’

‘Necessity for the proper administration of justice’ is dealt with [273] ff (although it confusingly includes discussion of more than just this ultimate A33-34 condition), starting with the discussion whether a stay was available or could be justified on a “consolidation” basis (effectively, an allocation of jurisdiction [275], or on a “wait and see” basis [temporary case-management: wait and see whether and to what extent the outcome of the case ex-EU affects the action in the member state]. [277] Underhill LJ takes a holistic approach: Does waiting for the outcome [of the Brazilian proceedings held to be related] give rise to advantages which sufficiently outweigh any disadvantages such that a stay is necessary? [279] The CA takes a broad approach to the issues that might be considered, including issues classic to a forum non conveniens analysis. I believe that is right, with the important caveat that A34 must not effectively be conflated with forum non (which is what the first instance judge had effectively done) (compare Ness).

[282] the Court takes a formalistic (and correct) view on the ‘related proceedings’ and their being ‘pending’:

for the purposes of the article 34 application, the nature and extent of overlap which falls to be considered when addressing whether and to what extent there is a risk of irreconcilable judgments, and in considering whether that risk weighs in favour of a stay being necessary for the proper administration of justice, is limited by reference to that which might be decided in the [pending Brazilian proceedings].

In particular, an advantage eg in winding-up proceedings viz the defendants or related undertakings, which could be obtained down the line from the outcome of the related proceedings, would not be caught by the comparative overlap and the likelihood of relatedness therefore is seriously reduced ([283] contrary to Turner J’s finding that that the list of areas in which potentially
irreconcilable judgments are liable to arise was “almost endless”).

[291] ff the CA makes its own assessment of the ‘proper administration of justice’ requirement given the judge’s core mistakes (particularly, his abuse conflation and the consideration given to future proceedings which are not pending).

[298] The CA holds that the continuation of the claim against BHP Australia (for which later in the judgment it finds that this is not barred on forum non grounds) in and of itself argues against an A34 stay (and that relevant parts of Lord Briggs’ speech in Vedanta do not change that).

Obiter [300] ff it lists other factors against a stay: [302] there is a real possibility that final resolution of the related BRA proceedings,  if they resume at all, is well over a decade away; [303] ‘For there to be a further delay of years, and quite possibly over a decade, before [E&W proceedings] could resume would cause very substantial prejudice to the claimants in obtaining relief, and would be inimical to the efficient administration of justice as a result of all the well-known problems which delay brings to the process’; [304] ff there are many disadvantages to the BRA proceedings including that these will not address the liability of the defendants in the E&W proceedings; [308] the degree of overlap between the proceedings is limited.

The forum non application is highly relevant given the English courts’ preponderant reliance on it, outside the BIa context, following UKSC Brownlie. Of note here is ia [345] the unrealistic prospect of the alternatives being suggested – I will leave the further forum non analysis to blogs less focused on European conflict of laws.

Rejection of a case-management stay is done succinctly, with Underhill LJ noting ia [374] that such stay would be incompatible with A34 and A4 BIa.

All in all I do not agree with each of the Court’s findings on tenets of A34, however in general the Court’s application reflects the correct approach to the Article, which very much makes a stay the exception.

Geert.

See also ‘Dude, where’s my EU court? On the application of Articles 33-34 Brussels Ia’s forum non conveniens- light rules’, Journal of Private International Law, forthcoming 2022.

Delighted to report we have won jurisdiction appeal in Mariana (background https://t.co/SiYFGAJEEM
Court of Appeal finds unanimously that forum non conveniens, A34 Brussels Ia and case-management stay applications all fail
Holds victims of 2015 Fundão Dam disaster may sue in E&W pic.twitter.com/qwZQZk7gwe

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) July 8, 2022

I discuss the background to Barings (UK) Ltd & Ors v Galapagos SA [2022] EWHC 1633 (Ch) here. At the end of August 2019 an opening of insolvency proceedings was requested by various Barings companies and Goldman Sachs, in respect of the Respondent, Galapagos S.A. – GSA.

While this request was pending before the English courts, a group of high yield noteholders (including Signal, the main opponent in the English proceedings) procured the replacement of GSA’s English directors with a German director, and the new German director and two creditors brought separate ex parte applications before the Düsseldorf Amtsgericht (District Court) for the opening of insolvency proceedings there. Following the opening of insolvency proceedings by the Düsseldorf court, the English proceedings were stayed. The German proceedings then led to a preliminary reference to the CJEU which resulted in a judgment on 24 March 2022, the judgment I discuss in my previous post.

[12] ff Bacon J summarises the procedural tussle (including the, I believe unreported August 2019 Norris J stay: [2019] EWHC 2355 (Ch)). Justice Norris had stayed the English proceedings believing inter alia that the German courts might dismiss the German proceedings once they had been properly told of the English action.

The dictum in C-723/20 was

Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the court of a Member State with which a request to open main insolvency proceedings has been lodged retains exclusive jurisdiction to open such proceedings where the centre of the debtor’s main interests is moved to another Member State after that request has been lodged, but before that court has delivered a decision on it. Consequently, in so far as that regulation is still applicable to that request, the court of another Member State with which another request is lodged subsequently for the same purpose cannot, in principle, declare that it has jurisdiction to open main insolvency proceedings until the first court has delivered its decision and declined jurisdiction.

The reference to ‘in so far as that regulation is still applicable’ refers to the Brexit element to the case which surprisingly perhaps was not included in the dictum: COMI presumptions ordinarily serve to protect the first court seized’ privilege to find, or reject, COMI in its jurisdiction however that privilege no longer applies vis-a-vis UK courts post Brexit.

As I note in my earlier review, the CJEU wrongly decided not to answer the German court’s question

Is Article 3(1) of [Regulation 2015/848] to be interpreted as meaning that:

(a)      the courts of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of the debtor’s main interests is situated at the time when the debtor lodges the request to have insolvency proceedings opened retain international jurisdiction to open those proceedings if the debtor moves the centre of its main interests to the territory of another Member State after lodging the request but before the decision opening insolvency proceedings is delivered, and

(b)      such continuing international jurisdiction of the courts of one Member State excludes the jurisdiction of the courts of another Member State in respect of further requests to have the main insolvency proceedings opened received by a court of that other Member State after the debtor has moved its centre of main interests to that other Member State?’

Neither, possibly because the question was not so asked by the referring court, does it entertain the issue of ‘permanency’ required to move COMI to another state (see my previous post for detail).

Applicants in the current case and Bidco say that the effect of the GalapagosCJEU judgment is that GSA’s winding up can and should now proceed in E&W. Signal, however, contends that the English insolvency proceedings should remain stayed or should be dismissed.

Of relevance in that assessment is Article 67(3) (c) withdrawal agreement, which reads

In the United Kingdom, as well as in the Member States in situations involving the United Kingdom, the following provisions shall apply as follows:…

Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council shall apply to insolvency proceedings, and actions referred to in Article 6(1) of that Regulation, provided that the main proceedings were opened before the end of the transition period;

The question in my view is not ‘are the German insolvency proceedings to be regarded as the “main proceedings” within the meaning of Article 3 of the Recast EIR?’ which is the course which the judge seems to follow. Rather, whether either the German or the English insolvency proceedings were to be regarded as main proceedings.

In either case, in my view, main proceedings have been opened and the EU EIR continues to apply as acquired EU law.

[21] Signal’s position is that unless and until the German courts have given effect to CJEU Galapagos by setting aside or otherwise the Düsseldorf insolvency proceedings, the German insolvency proceedings remain the “main proceedings” for the purposes of the Recast EIR. Accordingly, under A67(3) WA the Recast EIR remains applicable and the German proceedings have to be recognised by the English court, precluding the making of a winding up order. If that is wrong, and the Recast EIR does not apply, Signal argue that GSA’s COMI is not in England, such that the UK IR (the retained Insolvency Regulation) does not apply, leaving s. 221 of the relevant UK law as the only jurisdictional basis for a winding up order. In addition, whether under the UK IR or s. 221, Signal contends that the circumstances are such that the court should not exercise its discretion to make the order.

The rather important questions are therefore summarised by Bacon J [23] as

i) The first issue is whether the Recast EIR remains applicable to these proceedings, as Signal contends. That in turn depends on whether the German proceedings are to be characterised as “main proceedings” for the purposes of Article 67(3)(c) of the Withdrawal Agreement. – as I note above, that issue is wrongly formulated.

ii) If the German proceedings are not “main proceedings”, such that the Recast EIR no longer governs the question of jurisdiction of the UK courts in the present case, the next question is whether there is jurisdiction to make a winding up order under the UK IR on the basis that GSA’s COMI is in England. – again see my own caveat above.

iii) The final issue is whether the court should exercise its discretion to make a winding up order under either the UK IR if that is applicable, or alternatively under s. 221 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

[48] the judge has the interim conclusion that up to and until 31 December 2020, the combined effect of the pending application before the High Court and the Recast EIR was to prohibit the German courts from declaring jurisdiction to open main insolvency proceedings. After that date, however, they could quite validly do so, if GSA’s COMI was by then situated in German territory.

I am not convinced that a mere request for opening of proceedings equates opening of these proceedings, and I am not convinced that the fall-back finding of COMI in England [83] ff, applying the Swissport ([2020] EWHC 3556 (Ch), unreported) summary of criteria, is solid: it is exactly on this point that the CJEU’s silence on the issue of ‘permanency’ is frustrating.

The judge concludes that a winding up order in respect of GSA be made however I think her analysis is incorrect and I assume permission to appeal must have been sought.

Geert.

English court concludes, not uncontroversially, that it has jurisdiction to wind-up following unclear CJEU Galapagos, discussed here https://t.co/uCmHjGT0tb

Barings (UK) Ltd & Ors v Galapagos SA [2022] EWHC 1633 (Ch)https://t.co/DMIbLfgxMH

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 30, 2022

The Singapore-based Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) is organising a second joint webinar with the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) on 27 July.

Titled Cross-border Commercial Dispute Resolution – HCCH 2005 Choice of Court and 2019 Judgments Conventions, the webinar will take place on Wednesday 27 July between 3 to 6pm (Singapore time), and will comprise two sessions to take a holistic look at the Choice of Court and Judgments Conventions. Attendees have the option of attending one or both sessions.

Invited speakers include Sara Chisholm-Batten (Partner, Michelmores LLP), the Honourable Justice David Goddard (Court of Appeal of New Zealand), Justice Anselmo Reyes (International Judge, Singapore International Commercial Court), Nish Shetty (Partner, Clifford Chance LLP) and Dr Ning Zhao (Senior Legal Officer, HCCH).

For more information or to register, see here. Queries about the webinar can be directed to Catherine of ABLI at info@abli.asia.

The region is a hotbed for international commercial litigation, as readers of the blog will know, and the event is very timely.

Geert.

When prof Bookman asked my input on Celsius’ choice of court and governing law’s clause in its GTCs, I was otherwise engaged. Subsequently I waited with an answer for I used the issue for an exam question. – so here is my primer.

Celsius are one of the leading crypto currencies exchanges (future readers may not be familiar: crypto currencies were an early 21st century Ponzi scheme).

The question I put to the students, was:  A fellow academic and practitioner from the US asks you how clause 33 of the standard Celsius contract, copied below, would be received in the EU. Celsius are one of the world’s leading crypto currencies exchanges.

How do you respond to this question? Argue with reference inter alia to relevant CJEU case-law.

Students had two pages to answer. I did not specify Celsius’ domicile. This is what I expect to be included in the reply. Both for jurisdiction and for there is a clear distinction between the B2B and B2C scenario.

Re: B2C: For the contract to be a true ‘consumer’ contract within the meaning of Brussels Ia, Celsius would have had to target their activities at the consumer’s Member State etc.: CJEU Peil and Reliantco are good pointers, as are Ramona Ang and Khalifeh v Blom Bank. Whether Celsius are domiciled in the EU is of no consequence for the consumer section to be engaged. At the jurisdictional level, the choice of court clause would have no consequence (A19 BIa), and the consumer would be able to sue Celsius either in the consumer’s EU domicile, or in Celsius’ EU domicile if it has one. Celsius would only be able to sue in the consumer’s domicile. Articles 33-34 BIa lis pendens rules would not be engaged.

At the applicable law level, the choice for New York law would stand, however mandatory law of the consumer’s habitual residence (which would include transposition of EU consumer law) would trump any conflicting provisions (A6(1) and (2) Rome I).

Re: B2B or indeed a B2C contract which does not trigger the consumer section, the picture would be quite different. Here, whether Celsius as contracting partner has a domicile in the EU, does matter.

If there is such domicile, then at the level of jurisdiction, the EU based party is likely to seize the A4 domicile court, potentially also seeking out a forum contractus if the currency services were to be provided elsewhere than in the place of Celsius’ domicile. That is where Celsius, had it seized an ex-EU court first, then might seek application of A33-34. For this it may come to regret having included hybrid choice of court: recital 24(2)’s reference to the ex-EU court having exclusive jurisdiction arguably does not apply to hybrid choice of court.

Were Celsius to sue the other party in an EU court first (taking ‘any applicable jurisdiction’ at its face value and understanding it as including EU courts), the other party is likely to raise the invalidity of the hybrid choice of court. This is where BIa knickers will get into their proverbial twist: for recital 20’s lex fori prorogati’s instruction as lex casae for the validity of the clause, only refers to ‘a court or courts of a Member State’. Celsius could of course chose to ignore choice of court (implicitly accepting its invalidity) and seize the A4 court of the EU counterparty.

At the level of applicable law, choice for New York law will in any case stand in this scenario, with however A3(4) Rome I’s rule for ‘purely EU’ contracts kicking in, and potentially Article 9 Rome I’s lois de police.

If there is no EU Celsius domicile, Celsius is unlikely to sue in the EU (for it risks having an EU court apply EU banking, finance etc law as mandatory law) however if it does, it would either do so on the basis of A4 domicile jurisdiction, or invoking, as above, the ‘any applicable jurisdiction’ instruction in the hybrid choice of court. Only A9 Rome I could then marginally upset choice of NY law.

Finally, assuming Celsius were to sue the consumer outside the EU, and were to seek enforcement of the judgment in an EU Member State, this would engage the Member States’ residual rules on recognition and enforcement.

Quite a set of variables in the end, and I would be much happy to hear others’ thoughts.

Marking me will look out for core B2B /B2C and domicile considerations.

Geert.

I was going to ask why the dispute has to be in the US, and point out that the class action and class arb ban might not be enforceable elsewhere, but then I saw the NY choice of law and choice of forum clauses, which presumably are enforceable, rt?@Tarheel_Lawprof @GAVClaw pic.twitter.com/vq6Rx3L6Np

— Pamela Bookman (@PamelaBookman) June 15, 2022

A puzzling title perhaps I agree but let me explain. Thank you Matthias Storme for alerting me to the May 2021 preliminary reference by the Belgian Supreme Court, a reference now known at the CJEU as Case C-358/21 Tilman SA (of Belgium) v Unilever Supply Chain Company AG (of Switserland). Elucidation is asked of Article 23 of the Lugano 2007 Convention, the choice of court provision in the Convention.

The question referred, reads

Are the requirements under Article 23(1)(a) and (2) of [Lugano 2007], satisfied where a clause conferring jurisdiction is contained in general terms and conditions to which a contract concluded in writing refers by providing the hypertext link to a website, access to which allows those general terms and conditions to be viewed, downloaded and printed, without the party against whom that clause is enforced having been asked to accept those general terms and conditions by ticking a box on that website?

Article 23 Lugano 2007 is identical (mutatis mutandis: the only difference being that A23 Lugano refers to ‘States to the Convention’ instead of ‘Member States’) to the former Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation, Regulation 44/2001.  A23 Lugano 2007 reads in relevant part

1. 1. If the parties, one or more of whom is domiciled in a State bound by this Convention, have agreed that a court or the courts of a State bound by this Convention are to have jurisdiction to settle any disputes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship, that court or those courts shall have jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Such an agreement conferring jurisdiction shall be either: (a) in writing or evidenced in writing; or (b) in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves; or (c) in international trade or commerce, in a form which accords with a usage of which the parties are or ought to have been aware and which in such trade or commerce is widely known to, and regularly observed by, parties to contracts of the type involved in the particular trade or commerce concerned.
   2. Any communication by electronic means which provides a durable record of the agreement shall be equivalent to ‘writing’.

The case at issue therefore does not question so-called ‘click-wrap’ consent to general terms and conditions – GTCs. These require the contracting partner to tick the relevant box which then ‘wraps up’ the agreement, including choice of court (and law). They were the subject of CJEU El Majdoub v CarsOnTheWeb. In that judgment, the CJEU held that in a B2B context, where the GTCs that have to be ticked can be saved and printed, they can be a ‘durable’ record of consent. (Not: consent itself: that is subject to a separate analysis, under the relevant lex causae, see below).

Rather, the title of this post calls the issue one of ‘flag-wrap’: one of the parties’ (Unilever’s) GTCs  are contained on a website, and their existence is ‘flagged’ in the written main contract. Does that suffice to bind the parties as to the GTC’s choice of court (in favour of the English courts; note the courts were seized pre-Brexit; the UK’s Lugano troubles are not engaged)?

The provisions on forum clauses are drafted in a way ‘not to impede commercial practice, yet at the same time to cancel out the effects of clauses in contracts which might go unread’ (Jenard Report), or otherwise ‘unnoticed’ (CJEU Colzani). The Brussels Convention and now the Regulation show great support for choice of court agreements and aim not to be as overly formalistic as the conditions imposed upon them.

Importantly, valid choice of court does require both a clearly and precisely demonstrated consent to be bound by choice of court and one or another Article 25-sanctioned form of expression of that consent. In Colzani the CJEU held [7]:

the requirements set out in Article [25] governing the validity of clauses conferring jurisdiction must be strictly construed. By making such validity subject to the existence of an ‘agreement’ between the parties, Article [25] imposed upon the court before which the matter is brought the duty of examining, first, whether the clause conferring jurisdiction upon it was in fact the subject of a consensus between the parties, which must be clearly and precisely demonstrated. The purpose of the formal requirements imposed by Article [25] is to ensure that the consensus between the parties is in fact established.

CJEU authority of Colzani and Coreck Maritime impose on the court the duty of examining ‘whether the clause conferring jurisdiction upon it was in fact the subject of a consensus between the parties’ and this had to be ‘clearly and precisely demonstrated’.

In practice, many courts conflate the check for consent with the check for expression of that consent and even the CJEU is not always clear in distinguishing it. In particular, absence of proof of any of the three possible avenues for expression of consent, included in Article 25(1) a, b or c, or then taken as an absence of consent, full stop. In Colzani, the CJEU held

[T]he mere fact that a clause conferring jurisdiction is printed among the general conditions of one of the parties on the reverse of a contract drawn up on the commercial paper of that party does not of itself satisfy the requirements of Article 17, since no guarantee is thereby given that the other party has really consented to the clause waiving the normal rules of jurisdiction. Where a clause conferring jurisdiction is included among the general conditions of sale of one of the parties, printed on the back of a contract, the requirement of a writing under the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention is fulfilled only if the contract signed by both parties contains an express reference to those general conditions.

The CJEU here, wrongly, seems to suggest lack of compliance with the expression of consent indicates a lack of that consent full stop.

Importantly, the CJEU in its rulings on what was then Article 23 and its Brussels Convention predecessor keeps utterly silent on national conditions relating to the actual formation or existence of consent. This, as regular readers of the blog will know, is at least for cases covered by Brussels Ia, subject to the lex fori prorogati, with renvoi, an issue which both national courts and the CJEU struggle with.

How then should the CJEU respond to the question (I asked my conflict of laws students at Leuven this question in a first exam on 18 June)?

Firstly, the Court should (and will) remind us of the Jenard /Colzani core instruction: the need to ensure consent is established, without being overly formalistic. Different from the context of the protected categories, there is no ‘weaker category’ to protect here.

Secondly,  there needs to be durability of the record of consent. That seems to be guaranteed here via the technicalities of the Unilever platform (downloadable GTCs) and in line with aforementioned CJEU Al Majdoub (the June students were not given technical details but should still flag durability).

Thirdly, despite the formal A23  requirement most probably being met, the consent requirement to me seems far from certain. In a click and wrap context ― lest there be issues of agency, duress, consumer protection laws etc. (in a context where the consumer title’s conditions are not met) which need to be held under the law applicable to consent ― the box ticking solidifies establishment of consent. In a mere flag and wrap context, that to me seems far less certain. If the reference were to a url where GTCs are properly and collectively displayed (if need be, updated with clear reference to chronology; see housekeeping), consent by an ordinary careful business (the proverbial (business)man on the Clapham omnibus). Yet if such as here, the link communicated in the formal contract refers to a platform where the  GTCs are not the first thing the contracting party sees, rather, where it is expected that that contracting party registers and /or downclicks, search and retrieve etc., that consent to me seems far less certainly established. [Again my students were not given the details on the platform which the reference includes, they did however have to signal the issue of consent).

Finally, under BIa, the lex fori prorogati, incl renvoi, would determine the above considerations of consent. Here, therefore, English law including its conflict of laws rules on choice of court. However seeing as the case is not subject to Brussels Ia, but rather to Lugano, the lex causae for consent will be an issue for the courts seized (here, the Belgian courts) to determine. Under the Belgian rules, this means application of Rome I (Rome I excludes choice of court agreements however Belgium’s private international law Act makes Rome I applicable even to carved-out contractual arrangements).

An interesting reference.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.10.