Agrégateur de flux

Uber

Saisie

Conflit de lois

In Bi Xiaoqing v China Medical Technologies [2019] SGCA 50, the Singapore Court of Appeal provided clarity on the extent of the court’s power to grant Mareva relief in support of foreign proceedings.

The first and second respondents were companies incorporated in the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands. The action was pursued by the liquidators of the first respondent against the appellant, a Singapore citizen, who was formerly involved in the management of the respondents and allegedly misappropriated funds from them.

Hong Kong proceedings were commenced first and a worldwide Mareva injunction was granted against, inter alia, the appellant. The terms of the Hong Kong injunction specifically identified assets in Singapore.

Two days after the Hong Kong injunction was obtained, the respondents commenced action in Singapore and applied for a Mareva injunction to prevent the defendants from disposing of assets in Singapore. The action in Singapore covered substantially the same claims and causes of action as those pursued in Hong Kong. After the grant of a Mareva injunction on an ex parte basis, the respondents applied to stay the Singapore proceedings pending the final determination of the Hong Kong proceedings on the basis that Hong Kong was the most appropriate forum for the dispute. The High Court granted the stay and confirmed the Mareva injunction in inter partes proceedings.

The issues before the Court of Appeal were: (1) whether the court had the power to grant a Mareva injunction and (2) whether it should grant the Mareva injunction. In other words, the first question dealt with the existence of the court’s power to grant a Mareva injunction and the second question dealt with the exercise of the power.

The Singapore court’s power to grant an injunction can be traced back to section 4(10) of the Civil Law Act which is in these terms: “A Mandatory Order or an injunction may be granted or a receiver appointed by an interlocutory order of the court, either unconditionally or upon such terms and conditions as the court thinks just, either unconditionally or upon such terms and conditions as the court thinks just, in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just or convenient that such order should be made.” The Court of Appeal clarified that section 4(10) of the Civil Law Act should be read as conferring on the court the power to grant Mareva injunctions, even when sought in support of foreign proceedings. Two conditions had to be satisfied: (1) the court must have in personam jurisdiction over the defendant; and (2) the plaintiff must have a reasonable accrued cause of action against the defendant in Singapore.

Given the stay of the Singapore proceedings, the Court of Appeal had to consider if the Singapore court still retained the power to grant Mareva relief. There had been conflicting first instance decisions on this point: see Petroval SA v Stainsby Overseas Ltd [2008] 3 SLR(R) 856 cf Multi-Code Electronics Industries (M) Bhd v Toh Chun Toh Gordon [2009] 1 SLR(R) 1000. The Court of Appeal preferred the Multi-Code approach, taking the view that the court retains a residual jurisdiction over the underlying cause of action even when the action is stayed. This residual jurisdiction grounds the court’s power to grant a Mareva injunction in aid of foreign proceedings. Further, a party’s intentions on what it would do with the injunction had no bearing on the existence of the court’s power to grant the Mareva injunction.

Party intentions, however, was a consideration under the second question of whether the court should exercise its power to grant the injunction. Traditionally, a Mareva injunction is granted to safeguard the integrity of the Singapore court’s jurisdiction over the defendant so that, if judgment is rendered against the defendant, that jurisdiction is not rendered toothless. The court commented that where it appears that the plaintiff is requesting the court to assume jurisdiction over the defendant for the collateral purpose of securing and safeguarding the exercise of jurisdiction by a foreign court, the court should not exercise its power to grant Mareva relief. On the facts, the court held that it could not be said that the respondents had such a collateral purpose as there was nothing on the facts to dispel the possibility that the respondents may later request for the stay to be lifted. This conclusion suggests that the court would generally take a generous view of litigation strategy and lean towards exercising its power in aid of foreign court proceedings.

Given the requirement that the plaintiff must have a reasonable accrued cause of action against the defendant in Singapore, a Mareva injunction is not free-standing relief under Singapore law. The court emphasized that a Mareva injunction in aid of foreign court proceedings is still ultimately premised on, and in support of, Singapore proceedings. This stance means that service in and service out cases may end up being treated differently. If the defendant has been served outside of jurisdiction and successfully sets aside service of the writ, the court would no longer have in personam jurisdiction over the defendant and there would no longer be an accrued cause of action in Singapore on which to base the application for a Mareva injunction. See for example, PT Gunung Madu Plantations v Muhammad Jimmy Goh Mashun [2018] SGHC 64, [2018] 4 SLR 1420 (see previous post here). On the other hand, if the defendant had been served as of right within jurisdiction and the action is stayed (as in the present case), the court retains residual jurisdiction to grant a Mareva injunction.

After a restrictive court ruling in relation to the court’s power to grant free-standing Mareva relief in aid of foreign arbitrations, the legislature amended the International Arbitration Act to confer that power to the courts. It remains to be seen if the legislature would act similarly in relation to the court’s power to grant free-standing Mareva relief in aid of foreign court proceedings.

To a certain extent, this lacuna is plugged by the recent amendments to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (“REFJA”) (see previous post here). Under the amended REFJA, a judgment includes a non-monetary judgment and an interlocutory judgment need not be “final and conclusive”. In the Parliamentary Debates, the minister in charge made the point that these specific amendments were intended to enable the court to enforce foreign orders such as Mareva injunctions. Only judgments from gazetted territories qualify for registration under the REFJA. To date, HK SAR is the sole listed gazetted territory although it is anticipated that the list of gazetted territories will expand in the near future. While the respondents had in hand a Hong Kong worldwide Mareva injunction, the amendments to REFJA only came into force after the Singapore action was commenced and judgment handed down.

The judgment may be found at here.

In Bi Xiaoqing v China Medical Technologies [2019] SGCA 50, the Singapore Court of Appeal provided clarity on the extent of the court’s power to grant Mareva relief in support of foreign proceedings.

The first and second respondents were companies incorporated in the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands. The action was pursued by the liquidators of the first respondent against the appellant, a Singapore citizen, who was formerly involved in the management of the respondents and allegedly misappropriated funds from them.

Hong Kong proceedings were commenced first and a worldwide Mareva injunction was granted against, inter alia, the appellant. The terms of the Hong Kong injunction specifically identified assets in Singapore.

Two days after the Hong Kong injunction was obtained, the respondents commenced action in Singapore and applied for a Mareva injunction to prevent the defendants from disposing of assets in Singapore. The action in Singapore covered substantially the same claims and causes of action as those pursued in Hong Kong. After the grant of a Mareva injunction on an ex parte basis, the respondents applied to stay the Singapore proceedings pending the final determination of the Hong Kong proceedings on the basis that Hong Kong was the most appropriate forum for the dispute. The High Court granted the stay and confirmed the Mareva injunction in inter partes proceedings.

The issues before the Court of Appeal were: (1) whether the court had the power to grant a Mareva injunction and (2) whether it should grant the Mareva injunction. In other words, the first question dealt with the existence of the court’s power to grant a Mareva injunction and the second question dealt with the exercise of the power.

The Singapore court’s power to grant an injunction can be traced back to section 4(10) of the Civil Law Act which is in these terms: “A Mandatory Order or an injunction may be granted or a receiver appointed by an interlocutory order of the court, either unconditionally or upon such terms and conditions as the court thinks just, either unconditionally or upon such terms and conditions as the court thinks just, in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just or convenient that such order should be made.” The Court of Appeal clarified that section 4(10) of the Civil Law Act should be read as conferring on the court the power to grant Mareva injunctions, even when sought in support of foreign proceedings. Two conditions had to be satisfied: (1) the court must have in personam jurisdiction over the defendant; and (2) the plaintiff must have a reasonable accrued cause of action against the defendant in Singapore.

Given the stay of the Singapore proceedings, the Court of Appeal had to consider if the Singapore court still retained the power to grant Mareva relief. There had been conflicting first instance decisions on this point: see Petroval SA v Stainsby Overseas Ltd [2008] 3 SLR(R) 856 cf Multi-Code Electronics Industries (M) Bhd v Toh Chun Toh Gordon [2009] 1 SLR(R) 1000. The Court of Appeal preferred the Multi-Code approach, taking the view that the court retains a residual jurisdiction over the underlying cause of action even when the action is stayed. This residual jurisdiction grounds the court’s power to grant a Mareva injunction in aid of foreign proceedings. Further, a party’s intentions on what it would do with the injunction had no bearing on the existence of the court’s power to grant the Mareva injunction.

Party intentions, however, was a consideration under the second question of whether the court should exercise its power to grant the injunction. Traditionally, a Mareva injunction is granted to safeguard the integrity of the Singapore court’s jurisdiction over the defendant so that, if judgment is rendered against the defendant, that jurisdiction is not rendered toothless. The court commented that where it appears that the plaintiff is requesting the court to assume jurisdiction over the defendant for the collateral purpose of securing and safeguarding the exercise of jurisdiction by a foreign court, the court should not exercise its power to grant Mareva relief. On the facts, the court held that it could not be said that the respondents had such a collateral purpose as there was nothing on the facts to dispel the possibility that the respondents may later request for the stay to be lifted. This conclusion suggests that the court would generally take a generous view of litigation strategy and lean towards exercising its power in aid of foreign proceedings.

Given the requirement that the plaintiff must have a reasonable accrued cause of action against the defendant in Singapore, a Mareva injunction is not free-standing relief under Singapore law. The court emphasized that a Mareva injunction in aid of foreign court proceedings is still ultimately premised on, and in support of, Singapore proceedings. This stance means that service in and service out cases may end up being treated differently. If the defendant has been served outside of jurisdiction and successfully sets aside service of the writ, there would no longer be an accrued cause of action in Singapore on which to base the application for a Mareva injunction. See for example, PT Gunung Madu Plantations v Muhammad Jimmy Goh Mashun [2018] SGHC 64, [2018] 4 SLR 1420 (see previous post http://conflictoflaws.net/2018/mareva-injunctions-under-singapore-law/). On the other hand, if the defendant had been served as of right within jurisdiction and the action is stayed (as in the present case), the court retains residual jurisdiction to grant a Mareva injunction.

After a restrictive court ruling in relation to the court’s power to grant free-standing Mareva relief in aid of foreign arbitrations, the legislature amended the International Arbitration Act to confer that power to the courts. It remains to be seen if the legislature would act similarly in relation to the court’s power to grant free-standing Mareva relief in aid of foreign proceedings.

To a certain extent, this lacuna is plugged by the recent amendments to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (“REFJA”) (see previous post http://conflictoflaws.net/2019/reform-of-singapores-foreign-judgment-rules/). Under the amended REFJA, a judgment includes a non-monetary judgment and an interlocutory judgment need not be “final and conclusive”. In the Parliamentary Debates, the minister in charge made the point that these specific amendments were intended to enable the court to enforce foreign orders such as Mareva injunctions. Only judgments from certain gazetted territories qualify for registration under the REFJA. To date, HK SAR is the sole listed gazetted territory although it is anticipated that the list of gazetted territories will expand in the near future. While the respondents had in hand a Hong Kong worldwide Mareva injunction, the amendments to REFJA only came into force after the case was decided.

The judgment may be found at: https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/docs/default-source/module-document/judgement/ca-188-2018-j—bi-xiaoqiong-pdf.pdf

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/144.pdf

I reviewed [2018] EWHC 3506 (QB) Kalma v African Minerals et al in an earlier post. It essentially entails vicarious liability of UK-incorporated companies (jurisdiction firmly settled therefore) for human rights abuses committed by Sierra Leone police (SLP), who ensured security at the defendants’ mine. All claims were held to have failed and the Court of Appeal in [2020] EWCA Civ 144 has confirmed same on 17 February (a little before the important SCC ruling in Nevsun).

The High Court’s discussion of the factual involvement of the companies with SLP activities, required to establish vicarious liability, as I noted at the time has echoes of the discussion on the level of oversight required for mother companies to be held liable for subsidiaries’ actions (such as e.g, in Apartheid, Shell (in The Netherlands) or of course in Vedanta). (The case otherwise does not raise the kind of jurisdictional or applicable law issues readers often find on this blog).

Of most relevance for the corporate social responsibility (CSR) issues are the grounds of appeal concerning the alleged duty of care owed, discussed at 110 ff: appellants say that the judge wrongly approached this case as a case of “pure omissions” and that, instead, he should have considered the existence of the duty by reference to first principles and, in particular, the three elements identified in Caparo v Dickman, namely foreseeability, proximity and whether or not such a duty was fair, just and reasonable (Ground 3). The appellants also have an alternative case that, if this was a case of pure omissions, the judge should have found that it was one of the recognised exceptions to the rule, namely that it involved the creation of the danger by the respondents themselves (Ground 4). Core factual consideration in all this are the money, vehicles and accommodation provided to the SLP, which the judge had found was common in Sierra Leone.

Coulson LJ reiterated with the judge that the duty of care tenet was one of omission: failure to protect the claimants (the respondents, arguendo, having failed to protect the claimants from the harm caused by the SLP). Extensive analysis of Turner J’s judgment at the High Court found no reason to reach a different conclusion than his.

Geert.

(Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 8, Heading 8.3.

 

On 14 of February 2020 a new law undermining the independence of judiciary in Poland (a so-called “muzzle law“) entered into force.

The Act of Law of 20 December 2019 bars judges from, among other things, contesting the status of other judges or the legality of their appointment (an English version of the draft Act, almost identical to the Act as adopted, is available here) .

The act is a reaction to (i) the CJEU judgment of 19 November 2019 in the AK case, by which the Court asked Polish judges to verify the conformity of the new Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court with EU law, and (ii) the subsequent judgment of another chamber of the Polish Supreme Court of 5 December 2019 finding that the Disciplinary Chamber does not comply with EU law (an English version can be found here).

According to the new Act, judgments corresponding with the one laid down by Supreme Court on 5 December 2019 would be prohibited. Defecting judges can be removed from the profession.

The law has provoked strong reactions from the European institutions already at the stage of the legislative process.

The Vice-President of the European Commission, Věra Jourová, wrote on 19 December 2019 a letter to the Polish President, the Prime Minister and the Presidents of both chambers of the Parliament. The letter states that the rules of the new legislation “touch upon matters such as judicial independence, further raising the Commission’s existing concerns in this area”.

In the letter, Ms Jourová also encouraged “the Polish authorities to consult the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission on this draft legislation”, and invited “all State organs not to take forward the proceedings on the new draft legislation before carrying out all the necessary consultations”.

On 11 January 2020 a “March of 1000 Gowns” demanding “the right to independence, the right to Europe” took place in Warsaw. Polish judges supported by 50 judges from other European countries, together with thousands of citizens, protested against the draft law.

The Venice Commission adopted on 16 of January 2020 an urgent joint opinion on the draft law. The remark is made in the opinion that, by virtue of some of the amendments to the law, “the judges’ freedom of speech and association is seriously curtailed”: Polish courts will be effectively prevented from examining whether other courts within the country are ‘independent and impartial’ under the European rules”.

On 28 January 2020, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) opened a monitoring procedure for Poland over the functioning of its democratic institutions and the rule of law. In its resolution 2316(2020) it declared that recent reforms in Poland “severely damage the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law”.

The law was adopted anyway. An open question is what impact it will  have on the mutual trust and the mutual recognition of judgments in the European Union. Polish ‘reforms’ resulted already in the rebuttal of the presumption of mutual trust in the context of recognition of judgments in criminal matters (judgment of 25 July 2018 in the LM case, analysed here). But the restriction of the independence of the judiciary has a potential impact on all acts providing for the mutual recognition of judgments, in both criminal and civil matters.

It can be particularly challenging for judges applying norms of EU Private International Law. 

Recognition of civil judgments given by a court or tribunal of a Member State should take into account that the CJEU treats a “court” as an autonomous concept of EU law.

The CJEU elaborated on this notion, among other rulings, in Ibrica Zulfikarpašić (§43) and Pula Parking (§53), where it stated that due to the principle of mutual trust, EU law requires “that judgments the enforcement of which is sought in another Member State have been delivered in court proceedings offering guarantees of independence and impartiality”.

The above-mentioned doubts expressed by the European Commission and PACE appear to challenge that requirement.

Photo: Courtesy of Jakub Włodek / Agencja Gazeta

Le traité prévoit notamment la création d’un comité de coopération transfrontalière ainsi que la possibilité d’adopter des dispositions juridiques et administratives permettant de faciliter la réalisation de projets transfrontaliers.

en lire plus

Junqueras i Vies / Parlement
Droit institutionnel
Le vice-président du Tribunal de l’Union européenne rejette la demande en référé de M. Oriol Junqueras i Vies

Dário Moura Vicente (University of Lisbon) has published the second edition of his monograph on international intellectual property (A Tutela Internacional da Propriedade Intelectual).

The books covers the traditional issues of jurisdiction and applicable law. It also discusses the merits and limits of international harmonisation in the field, and extra-judicial remedies.

More details are available here.

X (Mandat d'arrêt européen - Double incrimination)
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Pour apprécier si le mandat d’arrêt européen contre une personne condamnée en Espagne pour l’infraction d’apologie du terrorisme et d’humiliation de ceux qui en sont les victimes doit être exécuté sans examiner si cette infraction est également punie en Belgique, les juridictions belges doivent tenir compte de la durée de la peine prévue par la loi espagnole applicable aux faits commis

Gómez del Moral Guasch
Rapprochement des législations
Les juridictions espagnoles doivent contrôler le caractère clair et compréhensible de la clause contenue dans les contrats de prêt hypothécaire prévoyant l’application d’un taux d’intérêt variable basé sur l’indice des caisses d’épargne espagnoles

Google Ireland
DISC
Le régime de sanctions se rattachant à la taxe hongroise sur la publicité n’est pas compatible avec le droit de l’Union

Vodafone Magyarország
Aide d'État
Les impôts spéciaux prélevés en Hongrie sur le chiffre d’affaires des entreprises de télécommunications et dans le secteur du commerce de détail sont compatibles avec le droit de l’Union