Agrégateur de flux

Ioannis Revolidis, Lecturer at the L-Università ta’ Malta (UM), has published an article titled Collective Redress in Environmental Matters – A Private International Law Perspective Through the Lens of the Dieselgate Scandal, which can be downloaded here. The Dieselgate emissions scandal, which surfaced in 2015, implicated several European car manufacturers found to have installed software […]

Application of Singapore’s new rules on service out of jurisdiction: Three Arrows Capital and NW Corp

The Rules of Court 2021 (‘ROC 2021’) entered into force on 1 April 2022. Among other things, ROC 2021 reformed the rules on service out of jurisdiction (previously discussed here). Order 8 rule 1 provides:

‘(1) An originating process or other court document may be served out of Singapore with the Court’s approval if it can be shown that the Court has the jurisdiction or is the appropriate court to hear the action.

…

(3) The Court’s approval is not required if service out of Singapore is allowed under a contract between the parties.

…’

A handful of decisions on the application of Order 8 rule 1 have since been delivered; two are discussed in this post. One of them considers the ‘appropriate court’ ground for service out of jurisdiction provided in Order 8 rule 1(1) and touches on the location of cryptoassets; the other is on Order 8 rule 1(3).

Service out under the ‘appropriate court’ ground

Cheong Jun Yoong v Three Arrows Capital[1] involved service out of jurisdiction pursuant to the ‘appropriate court’ ground in Order 8 rule 1(1). As detailed in the accompanying Supreme Court Practice Directions (‘SCPD’), a claimant making an application under this ground has to establish the usual common law requirements that:

‘(a) there is a good arguable case that there is a sufficient nexus to Singapore;

(b) Singapore is forum conveniens; and

(c) there is a serious issue to be tried on the merits of the claim.’[2]

For step (a), the previous Order 11 gateways have been transcribed as a non-exhaustive list of factors.[3] This objective of this reform was to render it ‘unnecessary for a claimant to scrutinise the long list of permissible cases set out in the existing Rules in the hope of fitting into one or more descriptions.’[4] As Three Arrows illustrates though, old habits die hard and the limits of the ‘non-exhaustive’ nature of the jurisdictional gateways remains to be tested by litigants. The wide-reaching effect of a previous Court of Appeal decision on the interpretation of gateway (n) which covers a claim brought under statutes dealing with serious crimes such as corruption and dug trafficking and ‘any other written law’ is also yet to be grasped by litigants.[5]

In Three Arrows, the first defendant (‘defendant’) was a British Virgin Islands incorporated company (BVI) which was an investment fund trading and dealing in cryptocurrency. It was under liquidation proceedings in the BVI; its two liquidators were the second and third defendants in the Singapore proceedings. The BVI liquidation proceedings were recognised as a ‘foreign main proceeding’ in Singapore pursuant to the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency as enacted under Singapore law.[6] The claimant managed what he alleged was an independent fund called the ‘DC Fund’ which used the infrastructure and platform of the defendant and its related entities. After the defendant decided to relocate its operations to Dubai, the claimant incorporated Singapore companies to take over the operations and assets of the DC Fund. Not all of the assets had been transferred to these new companies at the time the defendant went into liquidation. The claimant’s case was that the DC Fund assets remaining with the defendant were held on trust by the defendant for the claimant and other investors in the DC Fund and were not subject to the BVI liquidation proceedings. The Liquidators in turn sought orders from the BVI court that those assets were owned by the defendant and subject to the BVI Liquidation proceedings.

The claimant relied on three gateways for service out of jurisdiction: gateway (a) where relief is sought against a defendant who is, inter alia, ordinarily resident or carrying on business in Singapore; gateway (i) where the claim is made to assert, declare or determine proprietary rights in or over movable property situated in Singapore; and gateway (p) where the claim is founded on a cause of action arising in Singapore.

On gateway (a), the defendant was originally based in Singapore before shifting operations to Dubai a few months before the commencement of the BVI Liquidation proceedings. The claimant attempted to argue that residence for the purposes of gateway (a) had to be assessed at the time when the company was ‘alive and flourishing’.[7] This was rightly rejected by the court, which observed that satisfaction of the gateway depended on the situation which existed at the time application for service out of jurisdiction was filed or heard. On gateway (p), it was held that there was a good arguable case that the cause of action arose in Singapore because the trusts arose pursuant to the independent fund arrangement between the parties which was negotiated and concluded in Singapore. All material events pursuant to the arrangement took place when the defendant was still based in Singapore and the defendant’s investment manager was a Singapore company.

It is perhaps the court’s analysis of gateway (i) which is of particular interest as it deals with a nascent area of law. Are cryptocurrencies ‘property’ and if so, where are they located?

The court confirmed earlier Singapore decisions that cryptocurrencies are property.[8] It held:

‘Given the fact that a cryptoasset has no physical presence and exists as a record in a network of computers …. It best manifests itself through the exercise of control over it.’[9]

Between a choice of the identifying the situs as the domicile or residence of the person who controls the private key linked to the cryptoasset, the court preferred residence as being the ‘better indicator of where the control is being exercised.’[10] Seemingly drawing from the position in relation to debts, one of the reasons for preferring residence was that this was where the controller can be sued.[11] The court was also concerned that there may be difficulties in identifying domicile.[12] On the facts, the controller was one of the Singapore incorporated companies set up by the claimant and the claimant was in turn the sole shareholder of that company. Both the company and claimant were resident in Singapore and thus gateway (p) was satisfied.

On the other requirements for service out with permission of the court under the ‘appropriate court’ ground, the court was persuaded that there was a serious issue to be tried on the merits and that connecting factors indicated Singapore was forum conveniens. The defendants’ application to set aside the order granting permission to serve out of jurisdiction and to set aside service of process on them thus failed. The Appellate Division of the Singapore High Court has recently refused permission to appeal against the first instance decision.[13]

It bears pointing out that the same issue of ownership of the assets of the DC Funds was before the BVI court in the insolvency proceedings. The first instance court was unmoved by the existence of parallel proceedings in the BVI, as the BVI proceedings were at a very early stage and hence were not a significant factor in the analysis on forum conveniens.[14] However, as mentioned above, the BVI insolvency proceedings had been recognised as a ‘foreign main proceeding’ by the Singapore court. Under Article 21 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, relief granted pursuant to such recognition can include staying actions concerning the ‘debtor’s property’.[15] While the very issue in the Singapore action is whether the assets of the DC Funds are indeed the ‘debtor’s property’,[16] staying the action will clearly be in line with the kinds of relief envisaged under Article 21. Under the Model Law, the issue of forum conveniens should take a back seat as the emphasis is on cross-border cooperation to achieve an optimal result for all parties involved in an international insolvency.

Service out pursuant to a contractual agreement

In NW Corp Pte Ltd v HK Petroleum Enterprises Cooperation Ltd,[17] the contract between the claimant and defendant, who were Singapore and Hong Kong-incorporated companies respectively, contained this clause:

‘This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the English law [sic]. Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination, shall be referred to and finally resolved by Singapore court [sic] without recourse to arbitration and to service of process by registered mail …’

The claimant served process on the defendant in Hong Kong by way of registered post to the defendant’s last known address and purportedly pursuant to Order 8 rule 1(3) ROC 2021. The issue whether the service was validly effected arose when the defendant sought to set aside the default judgment that was subsequently approved by the Singapore High Court Registry. The defendant argued that Order 8 rule 1(3) required that the agreement name not only a method of service but also specify a location out of Singapore where service could take place. The Assistant Registrar (‘AR’) disagreed, holding that this would be too narrow an interpretation of Order 8 rule 1(3). Pointing to the more relaxed modes of service permitted under the ROC 2021[18] in comparison with the predecessor ROC 2014,[19] the AR stated that there was no suggestion in Order 8 rule 1(3) or in the definitions provided elsewhere which suggested that both method and place of service had to be specified in a jurisdiction clause in order for a claimant to avail itself of service out without permission of the court. The AR was of the view that an agreement could come within Order 8 rule 1(3) so long as it provided for service of originating process of the Singapore courts on a foreign defendant.

The reasoning was as follows. First, Order 8 rule 1(3) was a deviation from the orthodox principles that the Singapore court’s jurisdiction was territorial in nature and service on a defendant abroad ordinarily required permission of court. If a foreign defendant agreed that jurisdiction of the court can be founded over them by way of service of originating process, that service necessarily included service out of Singapore. Thus, to come within Order 8 rule1(3), the agreement merely required the foreign defendant to consent to the jurisdiction of the court to be founded over them by way of service of originating process. Secondly, the phrase used in Order 8 rule 1(3) was service ‘out’ of Singapore, rather than service ‘outside’ Singapore. Only the latter phrase, in the AR’s view, connoted that service of process at a location other than Singapore was required.

On the first rationale, the Singapore court’s in personam jurisdiction over a defendant is founded on service of process.[20] This is the case ordinarily, with or without the defendant’s agreement. If the defendant expressly agrees that this can be done, this could be used to counter a subsequent challenge by the defendant to the existence of jurisdiction of the Singapore court, but it is difficult to see how, without more, an agreement to accept service of Singapore process takes the defendant outside the orthodox territorial framework of the Singapore court’s jurisdiction. Surely only the defendant’s agreement to service of Singapore process abroad, rather than merely agreement to service of Singapore process, would provide justification for the deviation from orthodox principles? The AR seemed to be suggesting that it is implicit that a foreign defendant, by agreeing to accept service of Singapore process, also consents to service of process out of Singapore, but the second rationale proffered renders any implicit agreement moot as, on the AR’s view, Order 8 rule 1(3) does not require the defendant to agree to accept service abroad. However, the legal difference between ‘out’ and ‘outside’ is elusive, as ‘service out of jurisdiction’ is uncontroversially understood to refer to service on a defendant who is abroad and thus not within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

A parallel provision to Order 8 rule 1(3) can be found in the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 (‘SICC Rules’). Permission of the SICC is likewise not required where the defendant is party to a ‘written jurisdiction agreement’ for the SICC or ‘service out of Singapore is allowed under an agreement between the parties.’[21] Order 8 rule 1(3) is missing the first option. However, it would be unlikely for the parties to have agreed on ‘service out of Singapore’ without first having agreed on a Singapore choice of court agreement. Despite this slight oddity, the intention of the drafters is clearly to liberalise the service out(side) of jurisdiction rules. Whether the intention was to liberalise it as much as was held in NW Corp is, however, debatable.

[1] [2024] SGHC 21.

[2] SCPD 2021 para 63(2).

[3] SCPD 2021 para 63(3).

[4] Civil Justice Commission Report, Chapter 6, p 16 (29 December 2017).

[5] Li Shengwu v Attorney-General [2019] 1 SLR 1081 (CA). The point is explained here.

[6] Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 s 252 and Third Schedule.

[7] [2024] SGHC 21 [46].

[8] CLM v CLN [2022] 5 SLR 273; Bybit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin [2023] 5 SLR 1748.

[9] [2024] SGHC 21 [60]

[10] [2024] SGHC 21 [63].

[11] [2024] SGHC 21 [63].

[12] [2024] SGHC 21 [63].

[13] Three Arrows Capital Ltd v Cheong Jun Yoong [2024] SGHC(A) 10.

[14] [2024] SGHC 21 [82].

[15] Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, Third Schedule, Art 21(1)(a).

[16] The respondent was clearly the legal owner; the question was whether the assets belonged beneficially to the applicant.

[17] [2023] SGHCR 22.

[18] ROC 2021 O7 r2(1)(d).

[19] ROC 2014 O10 r3.

[20] Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 s16(1)(a). The court also has jurisdiction if the defendant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the court (s16(1)(b)), but submission is normally used to counter a jurisdictional objection by the defendant; in the ordinary course of things, service of process must first take place.

[21] SICC Rules 2021 O5 r6(2).

A further effort in tackling the blog queue. Those with an interest in the application of Rome II to purely economic damage will be interested in Uzdaroji Akcine Bendrove “Palink” et al v CNH Industrial NV et al ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:7093 and most probably will have seen my Tweet on the case at the time (January 2024).

The Dutch Supreme Court (the referring court oddly calling claimants “claimanten” in Dutch; my Dutch colleagues will correct me however surely this is a novel Anglicism and one which must be firmly stopped and pronto; what’s wrong with *eisers*?) has been seized with a preliminary reference on the application of Article 6 Rome II.

That Article identifies the applicable law for infringement of competition law and acts restricting free competition and it is a calamitous statutory provision.

Article 6. Unfair competition and acts restricting free competition

1.   The law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of an act of unfair competition shall be the law of the country where competitive relations or the collective interests of consumers are, or are likely to be, affected

2.   Where an act of unfair competition affects exclusively the interests of a specific competitor, Article 4 shall apply

3. | (a) | The law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of a restriction of competition shall be the law of the country where the market is, or is likely to be, affected. | (b) | When the market is, or is likely to be, affected in more than one country, the person seeking compensation for damage who sues in the court of the domicile of the defendant, may instead choose to base his or her claim on the law of the court seised, provided that the market in that Member State is amongst those directly and substantially affected by the restriction of competition out of which the non-contractual obligation on which the claim is based arises; where the claimant sues, in accordance with the applicable rules on jurisdiction, more than one defendant in that court, he or she can only choose to base his or her claim on the law of that court if the restriction of competition on which the claim against each of these defendants relies directly and substantially affects also the market in the Member State of that court.

4.   The law applicable under this Article may not be derogated from by an agreement pursuant to Article 14.

A first question referred relates to the qualification of infringement of competition law, Article 101 TFEU (prohibition of cartels) in particular  as a singular, continuous event or rather a chain of new events: if it is a simple and continuous unlawful conduct it would lead to separate claims for damages at the time the damage is suffered; the alternative is that it results in a single claim for damages per victim, consisting of various damage items.

The conflicts relevance also kicks in ratione temporis viz the singular /continuous qualification: what is the decisive point in time for determining the applicable conflict rule?

Furthermore, the first instance court has referred on A6(3)(a) Rome II. Should the determination of the applicable law be based on the country where the first purchaser of the truck to which the claim relates is established (also in the case of transport services)? Or must this be connected to the place where the truck or transport service was purchased? Or does another criterion apply?

If it is held that competitive conditions have been affected at least throughout the internal market, how can A 6(3) b Rome II be applied (choice of law by claimant for the lex fori: “the person seeking compensation for damage who sues in the court of the domicile of the defendant, may instead choose to base his or her claim on the law of the court seised”)?

With regard to Article 6(3)(b) Rome II, the court asks the Supreme Court whether a choice of law for the lex fori can be made if the following requirements are met: that the market is or is likely to be affected in more than one country; that one of the defendants be brought before the court of his place of residence; that the market in the Member State of that court is directly and significantly affected by the restriction of competition.

Or does the (additional) requirement that the consequences for the victim must have occurred in different countries, including (in this case) the Netherlands, also apply to the application of Article 6(3)(b) of Rome II?

This will be an interesting SC judgment on one of the most dense Rome II Articles. Will the SC at its turn refer to the CJEU?

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 4.53 ff.

Truck cartel, applicable law
First instance Amsterdam refers to Dutch Supreme Court for clarification of A6 Rome II: applicable law for competition law infringement

UZDAROJI AKCINE BENDROVE "PALINK" et al v CNH INDUSTRIAL N.V., et al https://t.co/ezzYWT1SAC

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 17, 2024

Schrems (Communication de données au grand public)
Principes du droit communautaire
Avocat général Rantos : l’expression publique de son orientation sexuelle par l’utilisateur d’un réseau social rend cette donnée « manifestement publique », sans pour autant autoriser son traitement à des fins de publicité personnalisée

A new handbook titled European Judicial Cooperation in Cross-Border Litigation, edited by Paolo Biavati and Michele Angelo Lupoi, has just been published by Bologna University Press. The blurb reads as follows: There is an increasing amount of European legislation in procedural matters, with which legal practitioners from EU member States (and beyond) must deal on […]

Stadt Duisburg
Citoyenneté européenne
Le droit de l’Union ne s’oppose pas, par principe, à la perte automatique de la nationalité allemande en cas de recouvrement de la nationalité turque

NW (Informations classifiées)
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Citoyenneté de l’Union : le retrait, sur la base d’informations classifiées, du titre de séjour d’un ressortissant d’un pays tiers élevant un enfant citoyen de l’Union doit pouvoir faire l’objet d’un recours effectif

For a workshop on collective actions on ESG toics that will take place in Amsterdam on 21 and 22 November 2024 a call for paper has been posted, deadline 1 July 2024.

As a follow-up from the 4th International Class Action Conference in Amsterdam, 30 June – 1 July 2022, the University of Amsterdam, Tilburg University and Haifa University are jointly organizing a workshop on large scale collective actions on Environmental, Social and Governance topics. The workshop is intended to act as a forum for the sharing of experiences and knowledge. In an increasingly interconnected world, such opportunities for international scholars and practitioners to come together and discuss notes and views on the development of collective redress in their jurisdictions, are more relevant than ever. We choose to organize this as a workshop centered around academic papers in order to both give serious substance to the forum and to convert the exchange of knowledge into lasting contributions in the shape of publications in a special issue journal.

More information is available here: Call for papers for workshop on ESG collective action in Amsterdam – 21 and 22 Nov 2024

A quick note on the first instance court in Amsterdam in B&C v Atlas Flexibles e.a. ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:4982. Relevant parties are bound by an SPA (share purchase agreement) with binding arbitration clause (pointing to Germany). B&C are pondering the viability of a pauliana (set-aside). To assist them with the viability decision they would like to depose a Netherlands-domiciled director of one of the corporations involved.

[4.3] the court holds that under the New York Convention (Article 2) the recognition of an arbitration agreement only extends to the subject-matter capable of settlement by arbitration. There is no indication that the arbitral panel could be asked to order deposition of a fact witness in The Netherlands hence it is held that the NY Convention is not engaged.

As for Brussels Ia, [4.4] the court holds that A35 is not engaged, either: fact witnesses depositions, it holds, are not a ‘provisional or protective measure’, merely a preparatory one with a view to pondering future litigation.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 2.576 ff.

.

Court Amsterdam: A35 Brussels Ia does not apply to, and New York Convention does not restrict, witness questioning subject to Dutch CPR civil procedure rules, in claim which in substance will be dealt with in an #arbitration proceedinghttps://t.co/O78b77BIXi

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) August 29, 2023

I have been absolutely swamped in recent months and as a result, the blog has suffered. In coming up for some air, I decided to first tackle some of the oldest drafts in my blog queue. First up is CJEU C-832/21 Beverage City & Lifestyle GmbH et al v Advance Magazine Publishers Inc held let’s say a little while ago (September 2023; did I flag I have been busy?) which in essence clarifies CJEU Nintendo.

The EU Trademark Regulation 2017/1001 has lex specialis conflict of laws provisions viz Brussels Ia. However it does not specify an anchor mechanism and therefore [26] Article 8(1) Brussels Ia  applies in full.

I discussed Richard de la Tour AG’s Opinion here. As I summarised when I tweeted the judgment, the CJEU has essentially followed the AG’s suggestion of a flexible interpretation of the A8(1) conditions:

with respect to the the A8(1) (compare CJEU The Tatry) condition relating to the existence of the “same situation of law”, this [31] “appears to be satisfied” (final check is for the national court) where the claim concerns the protection of claimant’s exclusive right over EU trade marks, which is based on EU trademark law identical to all EU Member States. [29] Any difference in the legal bases under national law of claims relating to that protection is irrelevant to the assessment of the risk of conflicting decisions.

further, with respect to the condition of “same situation of fact”,  [37]

“the existence of a connection between the claims concerned relates primarily to the relationship between all the acts of infringement committed rather than to the organisational or capital connections between the companies concerned. Similarly, in order to establish the existence of the same situation of fact, particular attention should also be paid to the nature of the contractual relationship between the customer and the supplier.”

[38] Anchor defendant Beverage City & Lifestyle was connected to Beverage City Polska by an agreement for the exclusive distribution of the energy drink ‘Diamant Vogue’ in Germany.

“That exclusive contractual relationship between those two companies may make it more foreseeable that the acts of infringement of which they are accused may be regarded as concerning the same situation of fact, capable of resulting in a single court having jurisdiction to rule on the claims brought against all of the actors who committed those acts.”

The CJEU throughout the judgment emphasises the sound administration of justice objective supporting the joinder mechanism.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2023, 2.505 ff, 2.518.

#CJEU this morning in C‑832/21 Beverage City#Trademark infringement, 'anchor' jurisdiction, A8(1) BIa
Confirming the flexible approach advised by Richard de la Tour AG (discussed here https://t.co/ODrh3F4pKB)https://t.co/nOc8C25mF0 pic.twitter.com/2bndwSS95Z

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) September 7, 2023

Kneipp / EUIPO - Patou (Joyful by nature)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
Marque de l’Union européenne : le Tribunal confirme que la renommée d’une marque s’acquiert et se perd, en général, progressivement

Naass et Sea-Watch / Frontex
Droit institutionnel
Le Tribunal annule partiellement la décision de Frontex refusant une demande d’accès aux documents de la part de Sea-Watch

Sometimes You Lose, Sometimes You Win I have reported about Austrian customers’ attempts to recover their losses from Maltese online casinos and the resulting conflict of jurisdiction previously. Yet sometimes the customer actually wins! And – surprise, surprise – the online casinos refuse to pay out by invoking the prohibition of gambling under the Austrian […]

Le 9 avril 2024, la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme s’est prononcée dans trois affaires qui posaient, pour la première fois, la question de la protection des droits de l’homme dans le cadre des atteintes à l’environnement dues au réchauffement climatique. Les solutions adoptées par les juges de Strasbourg sont originales et permettent de dessiner les contours du raisonnement européen sur l’une des plus préoccupantes questions de notre époque.

en lire plus

A new book titled Brussels II-ter – Cross-border Marriage Dissolution, Parental Responsibility Disputes and Child Abduction in the EU has been published by Larcer-Intersentia. The authors of the book are Nigel Lowe (Cardiff University), Constanza Honorati (Milano-Bicocca University) and Michael Hellner (Stockholm University). The description of the book at the publisher’s website reads as follows. […]

On Tuesday 23 April the Pax Moot Court Competition will kick off in Ljubljana. The oral rounds between 29 teams from all over Europe and beyond (including Asia and Australia) will start on Wednesday 24th. Teams will be litigating against each other for two days in front of private international law experts from academia and practice. The semi-finals and finals are scheduled for Friday 26th.

Also on Friday 26 April, there will be a hybrid conference on Dispute Resolution in Private International Law, co-organised by the Pax team and the University of Aberdeen’s Centre for Private International Law. This will include of three panels: Commercial Arbitration, Business and Human Rights, and Decolonial Perspectives on private international law. All welcome to join!

Please see the programme and register.

On 11 April 2024, the CJEU delivered its judgment in case C-183/23, Credit Agricole Bank Polska. The case was concerned with a consumer who was previously domiciled in a Member State, but who had relocated to an unknown location. It raised the issue of the territorial scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation. The CJEU confirms its […]

Australian and New Zealand courts have developed a practice of managing trans-Tasman proceedings in a way that recognises the close relationship between the countries, and that aids in the effective and efficient resolution of cross-border disputes. This has been the case especially since the implementation of the Agreement on Trans-Tasman Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement, which was entered into for the purposes of setting up an integrated scheme of civil jurisdiction and judgments.  A key feature of the scheme is that it seeks to “streamline the process for resolving civil proceedings with a trans-Tasman element in order to reduce costs and improve efficiency” (Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (TTPA), s 3(1)(a)). There have been many examples of Australian and New Zealand courts working to achieve this goal.

Despite the closeness of the trans-Tasman relationship, one question that had remained uncertain was whether the TTPA regime allows for the grant of an anti-suit injunction to stop or prevent proceedings that have been brought in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. The enforcement of exclusive jurisdiction agreements is explicitly protected in the regime, which adopted the approach of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements in anticipation of Australia and New Zealand signing up to the Convention. Section 28 of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (NZ) and s 22 of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) provide that a court must not restrain a person from commencing or continuing a civil proceeding across the Tasman “on the grounds that [the other court] is not the appropriate forum for the proceeding”. In the secondary literature, different opinions have been expressed whether this provision extends to injunctions on the grounds that the other court is not the appropriate forum due to the existence of an exclusive jurisdiction agreement: see Mary Keyes “Jurisdiction Clauses in New Zealand Law” (2019) 50 VUWLR 631 at 633-4; Maria Hook and Jack Wass The Conflict of Laws in New Zealand (LexisNexis, 2020) at [2.445].

The New Zealand High Court has now decided that, in its view, there is no place for anti-suit injunctions under the TTPA regime: A-Ward Ltd v Raw Metal Corp Pty Ltd [2024] NZHC 736 at [4]. Justice O’Gorman reasoned that the TTPA involves New Zealand and Australian courts applying “mirror provisions to determine forum disputes, based on confidence in each other’s judicial institutions” (at [4]), and that anti-suit injunctions can have “no role to play where countries have agreed on judicial cooperation in the allocation and exercise of jurisdiction” (at [17]).

A-Ward Ltd, a New Zealand company, sought an interim anti-suit injunction to stop proceedings brought against it by Raw Metal Corp Pty Ltd, an Australian company, in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute related to the supply of shipping container tilters from A-Ward to Raw Metal. A-Ward’s terms and conditions had included an exclusive jurisdiction clause selecting the courts of New Zealand, as well as a New Zealand choice of law clause. In its Australian proceedings, Raw Metal sought damages for misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA). A-Ward brought proceedings in New Zealand seeking damages for breach of its trade terms, including the jurisdiction clause, as well as an anti-suit injunction.

O’Gorman J’s starting point was to identify the different common law tests that courts had applied when determining an application to the court to stay its own proceedings, based on the existence (or not) of an exclusive jurisdiction clause. While Spiliada principles applied in the absence of such a clause, The Eleftheria provided the relevant test to determine the enforceability of an exclusive jurisdiction clause: at [16]. The alternative to a stay was to seek an anti-suit injunction, which, however, was a controversial tool, because of its potential to “interfere unduly with a foreign court controlling its own processes” (at [17]).

Having set out the competing views in the secondary literature, the Court concluded that anti-suit injunctions were not available to enforce jurisdiction agreements otherwise falling within the scope of the TTPA, based on the following reason (at [34]):

1. The term “appropriate forum” in ss 28 (NZ) and s 22 (Aus) of the respective Acts could not, “as a matter of reasonable interpretation”, be restricted to questions of appropriate forum in the absence of an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. This was not how the term had been used in the common law (see The Eleftheria).
2. The structure of the TTPA regime reinforced this point, because it is on an application under s 22 (NZ)/ s 17 (Aus), for a stay of proceedings on the basis that the other court is the more appropriate forum, that a court must give effect to an exclusive jurisdiction agreement under s 25 (NZ)/ s 20 (Aus).
3. Sections 25 (NZ) and 20 (Aus) already provided strong protection to exclusive choice of court agreements, and introducing additional protection by way of anti-suit relief “would only create uncertainty, inefficiency, and the risk of inconsistency, all of which the TTPA regime was designed to avoid”.
4. The availability of anti-suit relief would “rest on the assumption that the courts in each jurisdiction might reach a different result, giving a parochial advantage”. This, however, would be “inconsistent with the entire basis for the TTPA regime – that the courts apply the same codified tests and place confidence in each other’s judicial institutions”.
5. Australian case law (Great Southern Loans v Locator Group [2005] NSWSC 438), to the effect that anti-suit injunctions continue to be available domestically as between Australian courts, was distinguishable because there was no express provision for exclusive choice of court agreements, which is what “makes a potentially conflicting common law test unpalatable”.
6. Retaining anti-suit injunctions to enforce exclusive jurisdiction agreements would be inconsistent with the concern underpinning s 28 (NZ)/ s 22 (Aus) about “someone trying to circumvent the trans-Tasman regime as a whole”.
7. The availability of anti-suit relief would defeat the purpose of the scheme to prevent duplication of proceedings.
8. More generally, anti-suit injunctions “have no role to play where countries have agreed on judicial cooperation in the allocation and exercise of jurisdiction”.

The Court further concluded that, even if the TTPA did not exclude the power to order an anti-suit injunction, there was no basis for doing so in this case in relation to Raw Metal’s claim under the CCA (at [35]). There was “nothing invalid or unconscionable about Australia’s policy choice” to prevent parties from contracting out of their obligations under the CCA, even though New Zealand law (in the form of the Fair Trading Act 1986) might now follow a different policy. The TTPA regime included exceptions to the enforcement of exclusive jurisdiction agreements. Here, A-Ward seemed to have anticipated that, from the perspective of the Australian court, enforcement of the New Zealand jurisdiction clause would have fallen within one of these exceptions, and the High Court of Australia’s observations in Karpik v Carnival plc [2023] HCA 39 at [40] seemed to be consistent with this. The “entirely orthodox position” seemed to be that the Federal Court in Australia “would regard itself as having jurisdiction to determine the CCA claim, unconstrained by the choice of law and court” (at [35]).

Time will tell whether Australian courts will agree with the High Court’s emphatic rejection of anti-suit relief under the TTPA as being inconsistent with the cooperative purpose of the scheme. The parallel debate within the context of the Hague Choice of Court Convention – which does not specifically exclude anti-suit injunctions – may be instructive here: Mukarrum Ahmed “Exclusive choice of court agreements: some issues on the Hague Convention on choice of court agreements and its relationship with the Brussels I recast especially anti-suit injunctions, concurrent proceedings and the implications of BREXIT” (2017) 13 Journal of Private International Law 386. Despite O’Gorman J’s powerful reasoning, her judgment may not be the last word on this important issue.

From a New Zealand perspective, the judgment is also of interest because of its restrained approach to the availability of anti-suit relief more generally. Even assuming that the Australian proceedings were, in fact, in breach of the New Zealand jurisdiction clause, O’Gorman J would not have been prepared to grant an injunction as a matter of course. In this respect, the judgment may be seen as a departure from previous case law. In Maritime Mutual Insurance Association (NZ) Ltd v Silica Sandport Inc [2023] NZHC 793, for example, the Court granted an anti-suit injunction to compel compliance with an arbitration agreement, without inquiring into the foreign court’s perspective and its reasons for taking jurisdiction. O’Gorman J’s more nuanced approach is to be welcomed (for criticism of Maritime Mutual, see here on The Conflict of Laws in New Zealand blog).

A more challenging aspect of the judgment is the choice of law analysis, and the Court’s focus on the potential concurrent or cumulative application of foreign and domestic statutes (at [28]-[31], [35]). The Court said that, to determine whether a foreign statute is applicable, the New Zealand court can ask whether the statute applies on its own terms (following Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Fujitsu New Zealand Ltd [2023] NZHC 3598, which I criticised here on The Conflict of Laws in New Zealand blog, also published as [2024] NZLJ 22). It is not entirely clear how this point was relevant to the issue of the anti-suit injunction. The Judge’s reasoning seemed to be that, from the New Zealand court’s perspective, the Australian court’s application of the CCA was appropriate as a matter of statutory interpretation and/or choice of law, which meant that the proceedings were not unconscionable or unjust (at [35]).

As announced in a previous post, a seminar series on the recast of Brussels I bis Regulation, is taking place during the 2023-2024 academic year, both in Paris at the Cour de cassation and online (in French), under the scientific coordination of Marie-Elodie Ancel (University of Paris-Panthéon-Assas) and Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières (University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne). The fourth seminar will […]

Heureka Group (Comparateurs de prix en ligne)
Concurrence
Infractions au droit de la concurrence de l’Union : l’ancien régime de prescription tchèque est incompatible avec le droit de l’Union