Agrégateur de flux

On 12-13 December 2025, the second edition of the (unofficial) Reunion of the Ravenna Summer School on Cross-border litigation and international arbitration will take place. The program of the reunion includes a special session on New perspectives in cross-border litigation and international arbitration, dedicated to the presentations of young researchers The presentations will be selected […]

Latombe / Commission
Principes du droit communautaire
Protection des données : le Tribunal rejette le recours visant à l’annulation du nouveau cadre de transfert de données à caractère personnel entre l’Union européenne et les États-Unis

Zalando / Commission
Rapprochement des législations
Le Tribunal rejette le recours de Zalando contre la désignation de sa plate-forme éponyme comme une très grande plate-forme en ligne

The fifth issue of the IPRax (Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts) for 2025 will be published on 1 September. The following advance abstracts have been kindly provided by the editor of the journal. Two of the articles will be published in English: Krapfl and Krahn discuss evidence gathering in international arbitration via freedom of […]

With a slight delay – entirely due to myself – I am pleased to announce the release of the second 2025 issue of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP, published by CEDAM). This issue features:

Francesco Pesce, Associate Professor at the University of Genoa, Il riconoscimento delle decisioni straniere in materia civile tra previsioni sulla competenza funzionale del giudice interno e comunicazioni alla Commissione europea (Recognition of Foreign Decisions in Civil Matters between Provisions on the Functional Jurisdiction of National Courts and Communications to the European Commission; in Italian)

The implementation of the Regulations adopted by the EU in the context of so-called civil judicial cooperation has assumed an increasing importance over the last twenty years, due to the progressive expansion of the areas of intervention of the legislator of the European Union. Nonetheless, some of the repercussions of such uniform legislation do not seem to have been appropriately reversed, by the Italian national legislator, into the code of civil procedure and into the other special provisions aimed at ruling civil proceedings. With regard to the recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions, it appears that notwithstanding the ever more pressing need to address the matter in a complete and organic manner, a situation of inertia has prevailed in the Italian legal system, moving from the idea that, where compatible with the new EU Regulations, the domestic procedural rules could also be adapted to the intra-European circulation of judgments. This has resulted in a rather fragmentary and incomplete internal regulatory framework of civil procedure, so affecting the principle of legal certainty due to the lack of specific provisions aimed at implementing the EU discipline dedicated to the free movement of decisions. Moreover, the EU Regulations here considered require that each country informs the Commission, by means of a formal communication, of the internal procedures that may be relevant in the application of the uniform discipline (with particular reference to the competent national authorities and to the specific applicable procedures): in this regard – even after the 2022 ‘Cartabia’ reform of civil procedure – it seems that the content of the Italian communications is, in some cases, not only devoid of an adequate legislative basis of reference from the point of view of the national system, but even unreasonable and incoherent if observed in a systemic perspective.

This issue also comprises the following comments:

Curzio Fossati, Postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Cagliari, L’incidenza dell’obbligo di riconoscimento dello status filiationis nell’Unione europea sugli ordinamenti nazionali (The Impact on National Legal Systems of the Obligation to Recognise Filiation Status within the European Union; in Italian)

This article examines whether each Member State of the European Union is obliged to recognise the filiation established in another Member State. Noting the current lack of uniform private international law rules on filiation, the paper considers some examples of conflict-of-laws rules in force in the Member States and highlights the main differences between them. It then analyses the case-law of the Court of Justice on the circulation of personal and family status between Member States in order to examine the scope and basis of the Court’s obligation for Member States to recognise such status. The aim of this work is to show that the solution adopted by the Court of Justice is only partially able to resolve the problematic aspects of the current private international law regulation of filiation, highlighting persistent uncertainties and critical issues.

Kevin Silvestri, Doctor in law, La legge regolatrice degli effetti dell’apertura di procedure di insolvenza sui processi su crediti pendenti all’estero (The Law Governing the Effects of the Opening of Insolvency Proceedings on Proceedings Concerning Claims Pending Abroad; in Italian)

This paper examines a specific facet of the broader challenge of cross-border insolvency proceedings: identifying the law that governs the effect of opening insolvency proceedings in one State on lawsuits concerning creditors’ claims that are already pending in another. The issue is particularly delicate for several reasons. On the one hand, the impact of insolvency proceedings on ongoing creditor litigation is a key element in determining the liabilities of the estate under the lex fori concursus. This includes, in particular, how the proof of claims process interacts with pending lawsuits involving the debtor. On the other hand, under the principle lex fori regit processum, the rules applicable to those lawsuits may differ from those governing the insolvency proceedings themselves, especially when the litigation is pending abroad. This work highlights the tension between these competing principles and explores the difficulties that arise when the legal systems involved adopt different methods of coordinating the proof of claims process with creditor litigation. It then turns to the divergent interpretations of Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2015/848, which seeks to determine the applicable law in such cases. Scholars have advanced a range of interpretations, reflecting the complexity created by the divergences among European leges concursus concerning the treatment of creditor lawsuits pending at the commencement of insolvency proceedings.

Finally, the issue features the following book review by Lenka Válková, Research fellow at the University of Milan: GEERT VAN CALSTER, European Private International Law: Commercial Litigation in the EU, Cambridge, Hart Publishing, 2024, 4th ed., p. 1-468.

The author of this post is Michiel Poesen, co-director of the Centre for Private International Law and Transnational Governance and lecturer of private international law at the University of Aberdeen. This post considers which country’s copyright law governs the training and development (“T&D”) of generative AI (“GenAI”) for commercial purposes. It does so from a […]

On Tuesday, September 2, 2025, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. (CEST). Professor Eva Lein (Lausanne University) will speak, in English, about the topic

“PIL and dispute resolution in times of crisis”

In times of polycrisis, the law is put to the challenge. In international commercial transactions the question is how law can safeguard commercial activity, avoid a plethora of disputes, and encourage a pragmatic legal environment conducive to global economic recovery. This contribution discusses how dispute settlement mechanisms and private international law can be used to responsibly manage disputes in this context and to appropriately respond to future crises.

 

The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.

If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.

The Court of Justice will resume its public activity on 2 September 2025. The most relevant event regarding private international law this month is scheduled for Thursday 11th, when the opinion of AG Ćapeta in case C-196/24, Aucrinde, will be published. The hearing took place last April as reported here. In the case at hand, the […]

The latest issue of the Ritsumeikan Law Review (No. 43, 2025), a law review in English published by the Ritsumeikan University Law Association since 1986, features a study by Professor Mao UEMATSU (School of Law, Ritsumeikan University) entitled Cross-border Patent Litigation and Lis Alibi Pendens: A Korean–Japanese Case Study for Future Asian Principles of Private International Law.

The article examines a series of patent litigation cases in Korea and Japan, analyzing them to “illustrate the complexity of cross-border patent litigation.” It further argues that, even after reforms to procedural laws in both Korea and Japan, structurally similar cross-border conflicts remain unresolved. The paper concludes with preliminary reflections on possible improvements in legal coordination within Asia.

By introducing case law from both jurisdictions and sharing information on recent legal developments in the region, the study provides valuable material for comparative research and contributes to a better understanding of the dynamics of Asian private international law.

The paper is freely available at the Ritsumeikan Law Review online version here.

The third issue of 2025 of ZEuP – Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht, is out. Various articles featured in the new issue will likely be of interest for the readers of this blog, including one by Helmut Ortner, Veronika Korom and Marion Neumann, in English, titled Pacta Sunt Servanda’s Soliloquy Amidst Sanctions: The Impact of EU […]

This post was written by Paul Eichmüller, University of Vienna. A recent decision by the Regional Civil Court of Vienna has sparked controversy in Austrian media. The outcry was due to the fact that the court allowed the enforcement of a domestic arbitral award that was based on “Islamic law (Ahl as-Sunna wa-l-Ǧamāʿa) according to […]

The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts“ (IPRax) features the following articles:

 

C. Krapfl/N. V. Krahn: Can Parties Gather Evidence for Arbitration by Utilizing Freedom of Information Laws? [Article published in English]

This article examines the use of freedom of information laws, specifically the German Freedom of Information Act (“IFG”) and the United States Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), to gather evidence for arbitration. Both acts grant public access to government-held information but include exemptions. Recent German court decisions in the German car toll system case confirm that freedom of information requests can provide evidence for arbitration, emphasizing that such claims cannot be overridden by private arbitration agreements. The courts also ruled that transparency regarding documents enhances due process and does not undermine arbitral tribunals. The article concludes that freedom of information laws, including the IFG and FOIA, offer significant opportunities to gather evidence for arbitration, particularly when one party is a state or government entity, ensuring a fairer and more transparent arbitration process.

 

B. Schmitz: Protection Principle instead of Preferential Law Approach: A Dutch Alternative for Interpreting Article 6 (2) Rome I Regulation

Article 6 (2) Rome I Regulation allows parties to a consumer contract to choose the applicable law, but “such a choice may not, however, have the result of depriving the consumer of the protection afforded” under the non-derogable rules of the consumer’s habitual place of residence. This article introduces the reader to two distinctly different ways of interpreting this restriction to party autonomy: the preferential law approach, which is followed by German scholars, and the protection principle approach, which is followed by the majority of Dutch scholars. The article argues that whilst the preferential law approach is likely to be the correct interpretation in the eyes of the CJEU, the “Dutch method” bears many advantages.

 

L. Hübner: Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred in lawsuits against manufacturers in the diesel emissions’ scandal

This article examines the question of how the place where the harmful event occurred is to be determined in the context of the tort jurisdiction of the Brussels Ibis Regulation in actions brought by purchasers against the manufacturers of emissions-manipulated motor vehicles. While the ECJ had defined the place of acquisition as the place of success in the VKI case, the ECJ had to define the place of acquisition more precisely in FCA Italy. In doing so, the Court continues its questionable line of case law from the VKI decision. The article takes the criticism of the ECJ’s case law as an opportunity to also assess the alternative solutions considered in the literature.

 

W. Wurmnest: The single economic entity concept does not apply to claimants when determining international jurisdiction under Art. 7(2) Brussel Ibis Regulation

In MOL, the CJEU rejected the application of the single economic entity doctrine to the claimant to localise “the place where the harmful event occurred” according to Art. 7(2) Brussels I bis Regulation. Consequentially, a parent company cannot bring an action for damages at its registered office to remedy the losses caused to its subsidiaries in various EU Member States through the acquisition of allegedly cartelised goods at supra-competitive prices. As the parent company is merely indirectly harmed, the damage caused to the subsidiaries is the relevant damage under Art. 7(2) Brussels I bis Regulation. The economic entity doctrine that was developed in EU competition law does not alter this finding. The CJEU’s interpretation is sound from the perspective of procedural law. Making the indirect losses of the parent company the cornerstone of jurisdictional analysis based on the single economic entity doctrine would contradict the Regulation’s objectives of proximity and predictability of the rules governing jurisdiction.

 

M. Lehmann: The United Kingdom as a Fourth State? Controversy About the Continued Application of the Brussels Ibis Regulation after Brexit

Can EU consumers sue a British business in their home Member State? The answer seems obvious, but it has recently been the subject of a heated discussion between several German courts of appeal. At the heart of the debate is the Withdrawal Agreement, which was concluded between the EU and the UK in 2019. The article sheds light on its role and its relation to the Brussels Ibis Regulation.

Furthermore, the merits of the disputes underlying the actions will be addressed. They concerned a specific type of instrument under German law, the “Genussrecht” or “participation right”, which confers on its holders benefits usually reserved for shareholders. Holders of an Austrian issuer of these instruments sued its successor, a British company, in Germany. The article analyses the law governing their claims from various perspectives (contract law, tort law, M&A).

 

G. Freise: Brussels Ibis and CMR: Primacy of Application and Breach of Jurisdiction Agreements as Grounds for Refusal of Recognition

The preliminary ruling procedure discussed in this article addresses two issues. Firstly, it deals with the relationship between the Brussels Ibis Regulation and the CMR, a topic that has previously been considered by the ECJ on several occasions. In this instance, the referring court raised the question of whether the priority given to the more specific CMR in Article 71 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation also applies in the case of a jurisdiction agreement. In contrast to the Brussels Ibis Regulation, the CMR does not recognise exclusive jurisdiction agreements, which is why the court considered a violation of the essential principles of the Brussels Ibis Regulation possible. Unfortunately, due to its lack of relevance to the decision, the ECJ did not comment on this intriguing question. According to the view presented here, however, the CMR should continue to take precedence even without the possibility of an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. Secondly, the referring court raised the question of whether decisions must be recognised if a jurisdiction agreement has been disregarded. On this point, the ECJ upheld its previous case law, reaffirming the principles of mutual trust and recognition. The Court clarified that disregarding a jurisdiction agreement does not constitute grounds for refusing recognition, particularly on the basis of a breach of public policy.

 

R. Wagner: Club de Fútbol Real Madrid vs. Le Monde before the ECJ: Does “the Spanish decision” violate French public policy

“The [European] Union offers an area of freedom, security and justice …” (Art. 67 TFEU). The area of justice makes it possible to enforce civil court decisions from one EU Member State in another EU Member State. This possibility is based on the principle of mutual trust. However, trust in the judiciary of the other EU member states does not have to be completely unlimited. For example, the ECJ ruled, among other things, that a Spanish decision won by the football club Real Madrid against Le Monde does not have to be enforced in France, “… to the extent that this would result in a manifest violation of the freedom of the press, as enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, …”. The following article explains and evaluates this decision.

 

M. Andrae: On the Delimitation of the Provisions on Jurisdiction of the Brussels IIb Regulation and the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention (CPC)

The decision of the ECJ in case C-572/21 provides an opportunity to define the territorial scope of application of the individual provisions of the Brussels IIb Regulation, the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention (CPC), and the German Act on Proceedings in Family Matters (FamFG) regarding the international jurisdiction of courts in matters of parental responsibility. With the entry into force of the Brussels IIb Regulation, this issue has not lost its practical significance. A considerable part of the discussion focuses on Article 10 of the Brussels IIb Regulation, which regulates the court’s jurisdiction based on a choice-of-court agreement. It is argued that such an agreement loses its effect if, after its conclusion but before the proceedings are concluded, the child lawfully relocates and establishes habitual residence in a Contracting State that is not bound by the Regulation. In this case, jurisdiction is determined by the CPC, and the principle of perpetuatio fori does not apply. The jurisdiction of the agreed court can only arise from ancillary jurisdiction under Article 10 of the CPC in such circumstances.

 

F. Berner: Settlement of estates in cases with a foreign element

Complex estate settlements can become even more difficult when potential heirs live abroad. The Higher Regional Court in Düsseldorf (Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf ) had to decide how a fraction of heirs could be registered in the German land register (Grundbuch) if another part of their community of heirs did not participate in the German proceedings and could not be reached by the land registry office.

 

C. v. Bary: The public law of names in cross-border situations taking into account the reform of the private law of names of 1 May 2025

The German law of names is divided between private and public law. In cross-border cases, this has been leading to questions of characterisation (in private international law) and scope of application (in public law) already in the past, with the decision of the Berlin Administrative Court concerning the latter. The answers to these questions are now reconsidered in light of the 2025 reform of the law of names because the scope of application of the private and public law of names now differ from each other. Therefore, a need for reform remains, which should ideally be resolved by abolishing the distinction between private and public law in the law of names altogether.

 

B. Hess: Shallows and abysses of the contractual jurisdiction, Art. 7 No. 1 b) and a) of the Regulation Brussels Ibis – the Higher Regional Court of Dresden in the interfaces between the German and the European laws of civil procedure

The contractual jurisdiction of Article 7 No. 1 of the Brussels I-bis Regulation still causes difficulties for the courts of the EU member states. This demonstrates a judgment rendered by the Dresden Higher Regional Court dated 29 November 2024, that, unfortunately, misunderstood the meaning and the function of European procedural law.

 

L. D. Loacker/G. A. Capaul: Enforceability of foreign arbitration settlements or: Unequal treatment due to gradual differences?

The enforceability of arbitral settlements under German procedural law is subject to considerable restrictions. Based on a recent decision of the Bavarian Higher Regional Court (BayObLG), the authors discuss the extent to which the widespread refusal to enforce foreign arbitral settlements appears justified. Overall, they advocate a more enforcement-friendly approach. Such an approach can be achieved by understanding the scope of application of the UN Arbitration Convention in a way that is more closely aligned with the party-autonomous nature of arbitral dispute resolution. In particular, the reference to the UN Arbitration Convention contained in section 1061 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) does not have to preclude the enforcement of arbitral settlements. In all cases, however, it is important not to fall short of sufficient requirements for the enforceability of arbitral settlements. This is due to the fact that not all forms of arbitral settlements are suitable for a cross-border extension of their effect with regard to enforcement.

 

A. S. Zimmermann: Accelerated Enforcement Proceedings for Cross-Border Child Abductions: European Parameters for Domestic Procedural Law

Child abduction cases are among the most sensitive matters in international family law. The 1980 Hague Convention on Child Abduction, which today connects more than 100 contracting parties, has led to great progress in this area. Its guiding principle is the child’s best interest, which generally requires an abducted child to be returned immediately. The Brussels II, II bis and II ter Regulations incorporated this guiding principle into EU law. Nevertheless, there is no agreement among the Member States as to how much procedural acceleration the child’s best interest requires. In the decision discussed here, the ECJ clarified how much (or rather: how little) the enforceability of return orders may be postponed by national law.

 

S. C. Symeonides: The Public Policy Exception in Choice of Law: The American Version [Article published in English]

To the surprise of many foreign readers, the American version of the public policy reservation (ordre public) is phrased exclusively in terms of jurisdiction and access to courts rather than as an exception to choice of law. At least in its “official” iteration in the First and Second Restatements, the exception allows courts to refuse to entertain a foreign cause of action that offends the forum’s public policy rather than to refuse to apply an offensive foreign law provision while adjudicating a (foreign or domestic) cause of action. This essay discusses the historical origins of this narrow and rather unique formulation, the problems it creates, its tacit rejection by most American courts, and the new flexible formulation of the exception in the proposed Third Conflicts Restatement.

 

A. Hermann: Applicability of the Hague Convention in British-European Legal Relations to Contracts Concluded before Brexit Confirmed

The Belgian Cour de Cassation has ruled that the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements became effective in the United Kingdom and, from the perspective of the EU Member States, in relation to the United Kingdom on 1 October 2015 and has been in force continuously since then. With this decision, the Cour de Cassation helps to eliminate uncertainty for future British-European legal relations.

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 second interviewee is Pierre Mayer, who is Professor emeritus at the University Paris I and a leading French scholar of private international law […]

Originally posted on NGPIL blog on 26 August 2025

The Nigeria Group on Private International Law invites submissions for the annual NGPIL Conflict of Laws’ Competition. The winner will be awarded for the best essay on any aspect of Nigerian conflict of laws. Entries will be accepted from the following: an undergraduate and/or postgraduate scholar studying in Nigeria, or any Nigerian lawyer five years call or below practising and residing in Nigeria. The essay should be unpublished at the time of submission. Submitted essays should be in the English language. Submitted essays should also be within five to eight thousand words. Competitors may be citizens of any nation, age or gender but must be an undergraduate and/or postgraduate scholar studying in Nigeria, or any lawyer below five years post-call experience practising and residing in Nigeria.

The first prize is 200,000 Naira (NGN), and the winner of the competition will be encouraged to publish the paper in any high-quality peer reviewed journal on private international law (conflict of laws). The second prize is 120,000 Naira (NGN), and third prize is 80,000 Naira (NGN). The prize is sponsored by and will be awarded by NGPIL.

Submissions to the Prize Committee must be received no later than 31 October 2025. Entries should be submitted by email in Word or pdf format. The winner will be announced no later than 2 months after the deadline. Decisions of the NGPIL on the winning essay and on any conditions relating to this prize are final. Submissions and any queries should be addressed by email to ngpilaw@gmail.com. All submissions will be acknowledged by e-mail.

Previous Winners

Peace George  (Winner for the 2023/2024 session)

Oluwabusola Fagbemi (Winner for the 2022/2023 session)

Solomon Adegboyo (Winner for the 2021/2022 session)

Family law in the European Union is an intricate, fast-evolving, and politically sensitive area of judicial cooperation. With issues ranging from cross-border divorce to international child abduction, and from parental responsibility to maintenance obligations, practitioners and judges must constantly navigate overlapping instruments, shifting jurisdictional rules, and complex interactions between national and EU law.

The Practical Handbook on EU Family Law: Part I – Key Concepts, Legal Terminology, and CJEU Case Law in Cross-Border Judicial Cooperation, authored by Nadia Rusinova and freely available online for download, positions itself as a much-needed companion in this field. Drawing on the Court of Justice of the European Union’s jurisprudence and the architecture of EU family law, the handbook provides a clear roadmap through legal terminology, concepts, and cross-instrument mechanisms.

Structure and Foundations

The opening Unit 1 sets the stage by outlining the purpose, audience, and method of the handbook. It presents itself as a practical tool designed to support judges, lawyers, academics, and students in navigating the complexities of cross-border family cases. Particularly noteworthy is the emphasis on English as a tool of legal harmonization, highlighting its role as a neutral bridge across diverse national legal systems and a means of fostering greater coherence in judicial cooperation.

EU Family Law in Context

Unit 2 provides the legal and institutional backdrop. It introduces the competence of the EU under Article 81 TFEU, the limits imposed by the special legislative procedure, and the use of enhanced cooperation (e.g., in matrimonial property regimes). It also offers a historical overview, tracing family law’s evolution within the broader framework of judicial cooperation in civil matters. The treatment of the Brussels II system is especially helpful in showing how successive instruments have created the backbone of today’s EU family law. For readers less familiar with EU competences, the discussion of direct applicability, primacy, and the role of domestic courts situates family law firmly within the EU’s constitutional order.

Cross-Instrument Legal Concepts

The third unit is a central part of the handbook, bringing together core legal concepts that recur across family law instruments. These include:

• Structural terms: “civil matters”, “court”, “habitual residence”, “central authorities”.
• Applicable law concepts: universal application, renvoi, and party autonomy.
• Safeguards: public policy and the best interests of the child.
• Jurisdictional coordination: lis pendens, related actions, prorogation, residual jurisdiction.
• Recognition and enforcement: the circulation of decisions, exequatur, enforcement measures, and grounds for refusal.

This cross-instrument perspective demonstrates how family law rules form part of a system of judicial cooperation, requiring coherent interpretation across instruments. The integration of CJEU case law grounds the discussion in practice.

Matrimonial Matters

Unit 4 turns to marriage-related proceedings: divorce, legal separation, annulment, and the recognition of non-judicial divorces involving public authorities. The coverage of jurisdictional bases (such as the habitual residence of spouses and counterclaims) and the recognition of decisions highlights the challenges courts face when marriages break down across borders.

Parental Responsibility

One of the most sensitive aspects of family law, Unit 5 addresses custody, access rights, and parental responsibility. Concepts such as continuing jurisdiction, transfer of jurisdiction, and urgent measures are explained with clarity. The section on perpetuatio fori, which ensures stability of jurisdiction once proceedings are initiated, is particularly insightful. The discussion of enforcement balances the importance of privileged decisions (such as those automatically enforceable) with the role of coercive and non-coercive measures in practice.

International Child Abduction

Unit 6 provides a well-structured synthesis of the 1980 Hague Convention and the EU’s overriding mechanism. It covers wrongful removal or retention, return procedures, and exceptions such as grave risk of harm or settlement of the child. The attention to post-decision scenario, such as further abduction or non-compliance, demonstrates the handbook’s practical orientation and awareness of the complexities courts encounter in real-world cases.

Maintenance Obligations

Unit 7 completes the thematic coverage with maintenance obligations. It clarifies terminology (creditor, debtor, subrogation of public bodies) and explains jurisdictional bases, including forum necessitatis, which safeguards access to justice where no other court is available. The treatment of applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of maintenance decisions is highly useful for practitioners managing the financial dimensions of cross-border disputes.

Annexes and Added Value

The annexes provide a set of especially useful practical tools:

• An alphabetical glossary of terms for quick reference.
• Tables and figures that map out jurisdictional rules and procedures.
• CJEU case law indexed by legal term.

In Conclusion

With this work, Nadia Rusinova has produced a handbook that renders EU family law accessible, well-structured, and firmly practice-oriented, while at the same time combining doctrinal depth with methodological precision. This dual quality enables the handbook to serve not only as a reliable guide for practitioners confronted with cross-border family law issues, but also as a valuable scholarly contribution to the academic study of EU judicial cooperation. Its layered design – beginning with foundational principles, moving through cross-cutting concepts, and then addressing specific domains – makes the handbook equally indispensable for lawyers, judges, and academics alike.

Congratulations, Nadia!

Following Brexit, the Brussels I bis Regulation ceased to apply in the UK. The regulation’s rules of jurisdiction in consumer and employment matters (Chapter II, Sections 4 and 5, Articles 17-23) were replaced by Sections 15A-15E of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. The Explanatory Memorandum to the amendments to the 1982 Act introducing […]

The Faculty of Law at the University of Rijeka has announced the upcoming edition of RIDOC: Rijeka Doctoral Conference, which will take place on Friday, 12 December 2025 in Rijeka, Croatia.

RIDOC is an international academic conference designed for doctoral students in law and related disciplines. It offers a unique platform for early-career researchers to present, test and discuss their research ideas in front of an expert academic audience and fellow PhD candidates from across Europe and beyond.

Key Information:

Conference date: 12 December 2025
Location: Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka (Croatia)

Abstract deadline: 20 October 2025
Submission email: ridoc@pravri.uniri.hr
More information on the web

Contributions from all areas of legal research are welcome, including private international law and related areas. The language of the conference is English.

Katharina Boele-Woelki (Bucerius Law School, Hamburg) and Maarit Jänterä-Jareborg (Uppsala University) edited What Family Law for Europe? with Intersentia. The blurb reads as follows: In what ways does contemporary European family law respond to evolving societal dynamics and the growing imperative to uphold human rights? This volume addresses this question by taking a crossnational, comparative […]

This guest post was written by Ezzatollah Pabakhsh, Master’s Student at the University of Antwerp

The European Union has taken an unprecedented step by regulating artificial intelligence (AI) through the EU AI Act, which is the world’s first comprehensive legal framework for AI governance. According to Recital 61, Article 6(2) and Annex III, 8(a), AI tools used in legal or administrative decision-making processes—including alternative dispute resolution (ADR), when used similarly to courts and producing legal effects—are considered high risk. These tools must comply with the strict requirements outlined in Articles 8 through 27.

These provisions are designed to ensure transparency, accountability, and respect for fundamental rights. This obligation will take effect on August 2, 2026, according to Article 113. Notably, the Act’s extraterritorial scope, as outlined in Articles 2(1)(c) and (g), applies to any AI system that affects individuals within the European Union. This applies regardless of where the system is developed or used. It also applies to providers and deployers outside the EU whose output is used within the Union. This raises a critical question: can non?compliance with the EU AI Act serve as a basis for courts in EU Member States to refuse recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award on procedural or public?policy grounds?[1]

Consider the following scenario: Two EU-based technology companies, one Belgian and one German, agree to resolve their disputes through US-seated arbitration. Suppose the ADR center uses AI-powered tools that do not comply with the EU AI Act‘s high-risk system requirements. How would enforcement of the resulting award play out before national courts in the EU?

This scenario presents a direct legal conflict. If the winning party seeks to enforce the award in a national court of an EU Member State, two well-established legal grounds for refusing enforcement may arise.[2] First, the losing party may invoke Article V(1)(d) of the 1958 New York Convention, together with the applicable national arbitration law. They could argue that reliance on AI systems that do not comply with the EU AI Act constitutes a procedural irregularity, as it departs from the parties’ agreed arbitration procedure and undermines the integrity of the arbitral process.[3] Second, under Article V(2)(b) of the Convention, the enforcing court may refuse recognition on its own motion if it finds that using non-compliant AI violates the forum’s public policy, especially when fundamental rights or procedural fairness are at stake.[4] The following section will examine these two scenarios in more detail.

Scenario 1: Procedural Irregularity under Article V(1)

Imagine that the ADR center uses an AI tool to assist the tribunal in drafting the award during the proceedings. This AI system uses complex algorithms that cannot produce transparent, human-readable explanations of how key conclusions were reached. The final award relies on these outputs, yet it offers no meaningful reasoning or justification for several significant findings. Furthermore, the tribunal does not disclose the extent to which it relies on the AI system, nor is there any clear evidence of human oversight in the deliberation process.

When the losing party in Belgium contests enforcement of the award, they invoke Article V(1)(d) of the New York Convention, arguing that the arbitral procedure did not align with the parties’ expectations or the applicable law. This objection is also found in Article 1721 of the Belgian Judicial Code (BJC), inspired by Article 36 of the UNCITRAL Model Law and, to a large extent, mirroring the grounds of Article V of the New York Convention. Among these, two are especially relevant to the use of AI in the arbitral process and are central to the objection in this case.

First, under Article 1721(1)(d), a party may argue that the award lacks proper reasoning[5], which violates a core procedural guarantee under Belgian law.[6]  This requirement ensures that parties can understand the legal and factual basis for the tribunal’s decision and respond accordingly.[7] In this case, however, the award’s reliance on opaque, AI-generated conclusions, particularly those produced by “black box” systems, renders the reasoning inaccessible and legally inadequate.[8] The EU AI Act further reinforces this objection. Articles 13, 16, and 17 require transparency, traceability, and documentation for high-risk AI systems. Meanwhile, Article 86 grants limited right to explanation for affected persons where a deployer’s decision is based on Annex III systems and produces legal effects. If an award fails to meet these standards, it may not align with Belgian procedural norms.

Second, under Article 1721(1)(e), a party may argue that the tribunal’s composition or procedure deviated from the parties’ agreement or the law of the seat. For example, if the arbitration agreement contemplated adjudication by human arbitrators and the tribunal instead relied on AI tools that materially influenced its reasoning without disclosure or consent, this could constitute a procedural irregularity. According to Article 14 of the EU AI Act, there must be effective human oversight of high-risk AI systems. Where such oversight is lacking or merely formal and AI outputs are adopted without critical human assessment, the legitimacy of the proceedings may be seriously undermined. Belgian courts have consistently held that procedural deviations capable of affecting the outcome may justify refusal of recognition and enforcement.[9]

Scenario 2: Public Policy under Article V(2)(b)

In this scenario, the court may refuse to enforce the award on its own initiative if it is found to be contrary to public policy[10] under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention, Article 34(2)(b)(ii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, or Article 1721(3) of the Belgian Judicial Code (BJC). These provisions allow courts to deny recognition and enforcement if the underlying procedure or outcome conflicts with fundamental principles of justice in national and European legal systems.[11]

In comparative international practice, public policy has both substantive and procedural dimensions. When a breach of fundamental and widely recognized procedural principles renders an arbitral decision incompatible with the core values and legal order of a state governed by the rule of law, procedural public policy is engaged. Examples include violations of due process, lack of tribunal independence, breach of equality of arms, and other essential guarantees of fair adjudication.[12]

In this case, the use of non-transparent AI systems may fall within this category.[13] If a tribunal relies on these tools without disclosing their use or without providing understandable justifications, the process could violate Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This article guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. This issue, along with case law, could provide a reasonable basis for refusal based on public policy.[14] When applying EU-relevant norms, Belgian courts are bound to interpret procedural guarantees in accordance with the Charter. [15]

Comparative case law provides additional support. In Dutco, for example, the French Cour de cassation annulled an arbitral award for violating the equality of arms in the tribunal’s constitution, which is an archetypal breach of procedural public policy.[16] Similarly, in a 2016 decision under § 611(2)(5) ZPO, the Austrian Supreme Court annulled an award where the arbitral procedure was found to be incompatible[17] with Austria’s fundamental legal values.[18] These rulings confirm that courts may deny enforcement when arbitral mechanisms, especially those that affect the outcome, compromise procedural integrity.

Belgian courts have consistently held that recognition and enforcement must be refused where the underlying proceedings are incompatible with ordre public international belge, particularly where fundamental principles such as transparency, reasoned decision-making, and party equality are undermined.[19] In this context, reliance on non-transparent AI—without adequate procedural safeguards—may constitute a violation of procedural public policy. As a result, enforcement may lawfully be denied ex officio under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention and Article 1721(3) of the Belgian Judicial Code, thereby preserving the integrity of both the Belgian and broader EU legal frameworks. Ultimately, courts retain wide discretion under public policy grounds to decide with real control whether or not to enforce AI-assisted awards.[20]

These potential refusals of enforcement within the EU highlight a broader trend, as domestic procedural safeguards are increasingly influenced by global regulatory developments, prompting questions about whether the EU’s approach to AI in arbitration will remain a regional standard or evolve into an international benchmark.

The EU AI Act as a Global Regulatory Model?

The EU has a proven history of establishing global legal benchmarks—rules that, while originating in Europe, shape laws and practices far beyond its borders.[21] The GDPR is the clearest example of this. Its extraterritorial scope, strict compliance obligations, and enforcement mechanisms have prompted countries ranging from Brazil to Japan to adopt similar data protection frameworks.[22]

In arbitration, a comparable pattern could emerge. If EU courts apply the EU AI Act’s high-risk requirements when deciding on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, other jurisdictions may adopt comparable standards, encouraging convergence in AI governance across dispute resolution systems. Conversely, inconsistent enforcement approaches could foster fragmentation rather than harmonisation. In any case, the Act’s influence is already being felt beyond Europe, prompting arbitration stakeholders to address new questions regarding procedural legitimacy, technological oversight, and cross-border enforceability.

 

Conclusion

The interplay between the EU AI Act and the enforcement of arbitral awards highlights how technological regulation is shaping the concept of procedural fairness in cross-border dispute resolution. Whether the Act becomes a catalyst for global standards or a source of jurisdictional friction, parties and institutions cannot ignore its requirements. As AI tools move deeper into arbitral practice, compliance will become not just a regulatory obligation but a strategic necessity for ensuring the enforceability of awards in key jurisdictions.

 

[1] Tariq K Alhasan, ‘Integrating AI Into Arbitration: Balancing Efficiency With Fairness and Legal Compliance’ (2025) 42 Conflict Resolution Quarterly 523, 524.

[2] ibid 525.

[3] Jordan Bakst and others, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Arbitration: A US Perspective’ (2022) 16 Dispute Resolution International 7, 23; Sanjana Reddy Jeeri and Vinita Singh, ‘Soft Law, Hard Justice: Regulating Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration’ (2024) 17 Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal 191, 222.

[4] Sean Shih and Eric Chin-Ru Chang, ‘The Application of AI in Arbitration: How Far Away Are We from AI Arbitrators?’ (2024) 17 Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal 69, 81.

[5] Horst Eidenmuller and Faidon Varesis, ‘What Is an Arbitration? Artificial Intelligence and the Vanishing Human Arbitrator’ (2020) 17 New York University Journal of Law and Business 49, 72.

[6] Dilyara Nigmatullina and Beatrix Vanlerberghe, ‘Arbitration Related Lessons: Insights from the Supreme Courts around the World’ (2020) 2020 b-Arbitra | Belgian Review of Arbitration 307, 354.

[7] Gizem Kasap, ‘Can Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) Replace Human Arbitrators? Technological Concerns and Legal Implications’ (2021) 2021 Journal of Dispute Resolution 209, 230, 249.

[8] Shih and Chang (n 4) 79.

[9] Koen De Winter and Michaël De Vroey, ‘Belgium’ in Baker McKenzie International Arbitration Yearbook: 10th Anniversary Edition 2016–2017 (Baker McKenzie 2017), 81, 82, 85.

[10] Eidenmuller and Varesis (n 5) 80–81; Bernard Hanotiau, ‘Arbitrability; Due Process; and Public Policy Under Article V of the New York Convention Belgian and French Perspectives’ (2008) 25 Journal of International Arbitration 721, 729–730.

[11] Kasap (n 7) 252; Annabelle O Onyefulu, ‘Artificial Intelligence in International Arbitration: A Step Too Far?’ (2023) 89 Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management 56, 63.

[12] Nigmatullina and Vanlerberghe (n 6) 351–352.

[13] Shih and Chang (n 4) 86.

[14] Nigmatullina and Vanlerberghe (n 6) 353.

[15] A de Zitter, ‘The Impact of EU Public Policy on Annulment, Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in International Commercial Arbitration’ (University of Oxford 2019) 5, 251–253.

[16] Stefan Kröll, ‘Siemens – Dutco Revisited? Balancing Party Autonomy and Equality of the Parties in the Appointment Process in Multiparty Cases | Kluwer Arbitration Blog’ <https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/siemens-dutco-revisited-balancing-party-autonomy-and-equality-of-the-parties-in-the-appointment-process-in-multiparty-cases/> accessed 18 August 2025; Nigmatullina and Vanlerberghe (n 6) 351.

[17] Alexander Zollner, ‘Austrian Supreme Court Set aside an Arbitral Award Due to a Violation of the Procedural Ordre Public’ (Global Arbitration News, 21 June 2017) <https://www.globalarbitrationnews.com/2017/06/21/austrian-supreme-court-set-aside-arbitral-award-for-violation-of-public-policy/> accessed 18 August 2025. ; Franz Schwarz and Helmut Ortner, ‘Austria’ in Giacomo Rojas Elgueta, James Hosking and Yasmine Lahlou (eds), Does a Right to a Physical Hearing Exist in International Arbitration? (ICCA Reports, 2020) 26, https://www.arbitration-icca.org/right-to-a-physical-hearing-international-arbitration accessed 5 August 2025

[18] Nigmatullina and Vanlerberghe (n 6) 351.

[19] Alhasan (n 1) 5–6.

[20] Shih and Chang (n 4) 87; Hanotiau (n 10) 737.

[21] Arturo J Carrillo and Matías Jackson, ‘Follow the Leader? A Comparative Law Study of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation’s Impact in Latin America’ (2022) 16 ICL Journal 177, 178; Michelle Goddard, ‘The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): European Regulation That Has a Global Impact’ (2017) 59 International Journal of Market Research 703, 703–704.

[22] Carrillo and Jackson (n 21) 242–245.

By Dr Sarah McKibbin, University of Southern Queensland

The Supreme Court of New South Wales’ decision in Isaacman v King [No 2][1] is the kind of case that tempts one to say ‘nothing to see here’, and yet it richly rewards a closer look. On a conventional application of Voth v Manildra Flour Mills[2] — the leading Australian authority on forum non conveniens — Garling J stayed proceedings that attempted to litigate a New York relationship dispute in Sydney, being ‘well satisfied’ that the NSW Supreme Court was a clearly inappropriate forum.[3] The reasons, though brief by design,[4] illuminate the transaction costs of jurisdictional overreach,[5] show how the Voth framework handles an extreme set of facts, and offer a careful case study for empirical debates about Australian ‘parochialism’ in jurisdictional decision-making.

The Factual Background

The facts almost read like a hypothetical designed to test the outer limits of exorbitant, or long-arm, jurisdiction. A US biotech executive residing in New York sued his former partner, an Australian marketing consultant, in the NSW Supreme Court for alleged negligent transmission of herpes simplex virus during their relationship in New York. The relationship began and ended in New York; the alleged transmission occurred there; the plaintiff’s diagnosis and treatment took place there; and the defendant, though Australian, lived overseas and was only ordinarily resident in Victoria when in Australia. The plaintiff had a four-month period in 2022 split between Sydney, New South Wales, and Melbourne, Victoria, with visits to Queensland, while exploring business opportunities for skincare ventures. He pointed to social friendships in Sydney and his one-off membership of the North Bondi Returned Services League Club.[6]

None of this impressed Garling J as a meaningful link to New South Wales. As Garling J readily observed in the case’s earlier procedural judgment, there was ‘no connection whatsoever between either of the parties, and the pleaded cause of action and the State of New South Wales.’[7] The RSL membership did not establish ‘any connection at all with the forum’.[8] The pleading itself underscored the foreignness of the dispute: by notice under New South Wales’ court rules,[9] the plaintiff relied on New York law, in particular New York Public Health Law § 2307, alongside common law claims available under New York law.[10]

The decision

The stay analysis proceeded squarely under Voth. Garling J recited the familiar principles: the onus lies on the defendant; the question is whether the local court is a clearly inappropriate forum, not whether an alternative is more convenient; it is relevant that another forum can provide justice; and the need to determine foreign law is not conclusive but is a significant factor.[11] The only explicit nod to the English test in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd[12] came through the High Court’s own endorsement in Voth of Lord Templeman’s aspiration for brevity in such applications. [13] Yet Garling J noted that an issue arising in oral submissions required further written submissions, precluding an ex tempore disposition, but nonetheless kept the reasons concise.[14]

On the facts, the connecting factors all pointed away from New South Wales. The conduct giving rise to the claim, the governing law, and the evidentiary base were in New York. Neither party had assets in NSW, so any judgment, whether for damages or for costs, would have to be enforced elsewhere, compounding expense.[15] Garling J accepted, and the parties did not dispute, that New York courts could exercise in personam jurisdiction over the defendant; that acceptance underpinned the conclusion that there was another forum where the plaintiff could ‘obtain justice’.[16] The upshot was decisive but orthodox: the Supreme Court of New South Wales was a clearly inappropriate forum, and the proceedings would be stayed.[17]

The conditional order deserves to be recorded with some precision. The stay was to take effect seven days after publication of the judgment. Within that same seven-day period, the defendant was to file and serve a written undertaking that, if the plaintiff brought civil proceedings in the State of New York concerning the subject matter of the NSW suit, she would not plead any New York limitations defence, provided the plaintiff commenced in New York within three months of the stay taking effect and provided the claims were not statute-barred when the NSW proceeding was commenced.[18] Framed this way, the undertaking did not expand the analysis beyond Voth. It neutralised limitation prejudice, as long as the plaintiff did not delay commencing proceedings, and ensured practical access to the natural forum. Garling J also ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs of the forum non conveniens application.[19]

Two ancillary applications were left untouched. A motion seeking transfer to the Supreme Court of Victoria and a late-filed non-publication motion were not determined.[20] Given the stay, it was not appropriate to go on to decide further issues between the parties. Garling J added that ordering a transfer could impinge on the plaintiff’s own choices about where to proceed next; and with the matter stayed, non-publication orders served no useful purpose.[21]

Comments

Situating Isaacman v King [No 2] in the post-Voth jurisprudence helps explain both the ease and the limits of the result. Voth’s ‘clearly inappropriate forum’ test was announced as only a slight departure from the English Spiliada test,[22] but, as Richard Garnett’s early survey of the doctrine shows,[23] its operation had been variegated.[24] In the years immediately after Voth, Australian courts often refused stays where there were meaningful Australian connections — even if the governing law or much of the evidence was foreign — and sometimes gave generous weight to local juridical advantages.[25] Mary Keyes’ analysis in the Australian family law context underscores why this felt unpredictable: a forum-centric test with broad judicial discretion risks certainty, predictability and cost.[26] Understandably then, Keyes argues for an explicitly comparative, Spiliada-style inquiry that focuses on effective, complete and efficient resolution, the parties’ ability to participate, costs and enforceability.[27]

At the same time, the High Court tempered Voth in specific contexts. In Henry v Henry,[28]  the majority effectively created a presumption in favour of a stay where truly parallel foreign proceedings between the same parties on the same controversy were already on foot, explicitly invoking comity and the risks of inconsistent outcomes.[29] In CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd,[30] the High Court went further. Even without identity of issues, the ‘controversy as a whole’ analysis could render local proceedings oppressive where their dominant purpose was to frustrate access to relief available only abroad.[31] These qualifications that, outside the special case of parallel litigation, Voth directs attention to the suitability of the local forum in its own terms; but where duplication looms in the form of parallel proceedings, the analysis necessarily broadens. That broader, comparative posture is also what Ardavan Arzandeh shows Australian courts actually do in practice, despite Voth’s formal language.[32]

Isaacman v King [No 2] belongs to a different, more straightforward strand in that story: the ‘little or no connection with Australia’ cases in which stays have been ordered because the action and the parties’ controversy are overwhelmingly foreign.[33] Unlike the contested margins Garnett identifies, there was no pleaded Australian statutory right of a kind sometimes relied on as a juridical advantage; no contest about the availability of a competent foreign forum; and no tactical race between parallel proceedings. Garling J canvassed the classic connecting factors, noted the New York law pleaded, recorded the practical burdens of proof and enforcement, and concluded that New South Wales was clearly an inappropriate forum. That emphasis on concrete, case-specific connections and on consequences for the conduct and enforcement of the litigation fits both Keyes’ call for structured, predictable decision-making and Arzandeh’s demonstration that Australian courts, in substance, weigh the same considerations as Spiliada.[34]

Two implications follow. First, the decision is a neat instance of Voth doing exactly what it was designed to do when the forum is only nominally engaged. It offers little purchase for testing the harder comparative question whether, at the margins, Voth’s rhetoric yields different outcomes from Spiliada’s ‘more appropriate forum’ inquiry. That is consistent with Arzandeh’s view that the supposed gap is, in practice, vanishingly small.[35] Secondly, it gives texture to the practical burdens that inappropriate forum choices impose. Expert evidence on New York law would have been required; witnesses and records are in the United States; neither party’s assets are in New South Wales; and the court itself, even in this ‘easy’ case, could not resolve the application wholly on the basis of oral submissions because an issue warranted further written argument. Those are precisely the private and public costs Keyes highlights as reasons to favour a clearer, more comparative framework ex ante, rather than leaving calibration to ex post discretion.[36]

There is, then, a narrow lesson and a broader one. Narrowly, Isaacman v King [No 2] confirms that Australian courts will not entertain a claim whose only local anchors are social relationships and what amounts to a meal-discount club card. Broadly, it supplies one more controlled observation for comparative and empirical work: an extreme outlier that aligns with ‘no connection’ line of authority.[37] It also leaves open — indeed, usefully highlights — the need for data drawn from genuinely contested cases, where juridical advantage and practical adequacy are engaged on the evidence, if we are to assess how far Voth diverges, in practice, from its common law counterparts.[38]

Conclusion

Isaacman v King [No 2] therefore earns its place not because it breaks doctrinal ground, but because it shows the doctrine working as intended. The plaintiff’s Sydney friendships and RSL membership could not anchor a transatlantic dispute in a NSW court; New York law, evidence and enforcement pointed inexorably elsewhere; and a conditional stay ensured that the plaintiff would not be procedurally disadvantaged by being sent to the forum where the dispute belongs. If some forum non conveniens applications can be resolved quickly,[39] this was not one of them. But it was, in the end, a straightforward exercise of judicial discipline about where litigation should be done.

[1] [2025] NSWSC 381.

[2] (1990) 171 CLR 538 (‘Voth’).

[3] Isaacman v King [No 2] (n 1) [50].

[4] Voth (n 2) 565.

[5] See Andrew Bell, Forum Shopping and Venue in Transnational Litigation (Oxford University Press, 2003; J J Spigelman, ‘Transaction Costs and International Litigation’ (2006) 80(7) Australian Law Journal 438, 441–3.

[6] Ibid [22].

[7] Isaacman v King [2024] NSWSC 1291, [85]. The earlier judgment dealt with preliminary procedural matters including the plaintiff’s failed attempt to proceed pseudonymously.

[8] Isaacman v King [No 2] (n 1) [41]–[42].

[9] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

[10] Isaacman v King [No 2] (n 1) [14], [45]–[46].

[11] Ibid [35]–[36].

[12] [1987] AC 460.

[13] Isaacman v King [No 2] (n 1) [37], quoting Voth (n 2) 565. One wonders how often Lord Templeman’s aspiration is realised.

[14] Isaacman v King [No 2] (n 1) [37]–[38].

[15] Ibid [43], [46]–[49].

[16] Ibid [47].

[17] Ibid [39]–[51].

[18] Ibid [4], [56].

[19] Ibid [56].

[20] Ibid [7], [52]–[53].

[21] Ibid [8], [52]–[55].

[22] Voth (n 2) 558.

[23] Richard Garnett, ‘Stay of Proceedings in Australia: A “Clearly Inappropriate” Test?’ (1999) 23(1) Melbourne University Law Review 30.

[24] Cf Ardavan Arzandeh, ‘Reconsidering the Australian Forum (Non) Conveniens Doctrine’ (2016) 65 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 475.

[25] Garnett (n 22) 39–48.

[26] Mary Keyes, ‘Jurisdiction in International Family Litigation: A Critical Analysis’ (2004) 27 UNSW Law Journal 42, 63–4.

[27] Ibid.

[28] (1995) 185 CLR 571.

[29] Ibid 590–1; Garnett (n 22) 52–4.

[30] (1997) 189 CLR 345.

[31] Ibid 400–1; Garnett (n 22) 57–9.

[32] Arzandeh (n 23) 485, 486.

[33] Garnett (n 22) 45–6.

[34] Keyes (n 26) 63–4; Arzandeh (n 23).

[35] Arzandeh (n 23) 491.

[36] Keyes (n 26) 59–60.

[37] Garnett (n 22) 45–6.

[38] On the need for empirical research in this area, see Christopher A Whytock, ‘Sticky Beliefs about Transnational Litigation’ (2022) 28(2) Southwestern Journal of International Law 284.

[39] Spiliada (n 12) 465.