Droit international général

Edward Elgar Publishing has just launched a book series devoted to private international law. The first book in the series is titled The Rome III Regulation – A Commentary on the Law Applicable to Divorce and Legal Separation, and has been edited by Sabine Corneloup.

The blurb reads as follows.

This comprehensive Commentary provides an in-depth, article-by-article analysis of the Rome III Regulation, the uniform rules adopted by the EU to determine the law applicable to cross-border divorce and legal separation. Written by a team of renowned experts, private international law scholars and practitioners alike will find this Commentary an incisive and useful point of reference. 

Contributors include Alexandre Boiché, Laura Carpaneto, Christelle Chalas, Sabine Corneloup, Stefano Dominelli, Cristina González Beilfuss, Susanne Lilian Gössl, Petra Hammje, Bettina Heiderhoff, Fabienne Jault-Seseke, Natalie Joubert, Thalia Kruger, Caroline Sophie Rupp and Jinske Verhellen.

More information is available here.

England remains a jurisdiction of choice for corporate social responsibility /CSR litigation, in recent parlour often referred to as corporate (human and other rights due diligence. Jalla & Ors v Royal Dutch Shell Plc & Ors [2020] EWHC 459 (TCC) concerns a December 2011 oil spill which claimants allege companies forming part of the Shell group are responsible for. Anchor defendant in the UK is Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Limited – STASCO.

Stuart-Smith J on Tuesday last week upheld jurisdiction against the London-based mother holding on the basis of Article 4 Brussels Ia, and rejected an application for stay on Article 34 grounds. The judgment is lengthy, the issues highly relevant: this post therefore will be somewhat more extensive than usual.

Standard applications in cases like these now take the form of opposing jurisdiction against UK based defendants using Article 34 Brussels Ia (forum non conveniens -light; readers will remember the issues from ia Privatbank (cited by Stuart-Smith J) and other A34 postings on the blog); alternatively, resisting the case go to full trial on the basis that there is no real issue to be tried; abuse of process arguments (against such defendants: based on EU law); and case-management grounds. The latter two are of course disputed following Owusu. And against non-UK (indeed non-EU based defendants), using forum non conveniens; abuse of process; case-management and no real issue to be tried.

[A further application at issue is to amend form claims to ‘correct’ defendant companies, an application which is subject to limitation periods that are disputed at length in the case at issue. This is civil procedure /CPR territory which is less the subject of this blog].

The jurisdiction challenges are what interests us here and these discussions start at 207. The discussion kicks of with core instructions for ‘Founding jurisdiction’ in principle: the five step ladder expressed by Lord Briggs in Vedanta – which of course confusingly include many echoes of forum non as well as Article 34 analysis. Claimant must demonstrate:

(i) that the claims against the anchor defendant involve a real issue to be tried;

(ii) if so, that it is reasonable for the court to try that issue;

(iii) that the foreign defendant is a necessary or proper party to the claims against the anchor defendant;

(iv) that the claims against the foreign defendant have a real prospect of success; and

(v) that, either, England is the proper place in which to bring the combined claims or that there is a real risk that the claimants will not obtain substantial justice in the alternative foreign jurisdiction, even if it would otherwise have been the proper place, or the convenient or natural forum.

For the purposes of current application, Stuart-Smith J focuses on i, ii, and v:

• When considering whether there is “a real issue to be tried” the test to be applied is effectively the same as the test for summary judgment: reference here is made to Okpabi. It may be important to point out that the ‘real issue to be tried’ test must not be confused as a negation of Owusu. The test effectively has a gatekeeping purpose, not unlike the similar test in e.g The Netherlands as shown in Kiobel.
• The second condition, reasonableness to try the real issue, Stuart-Smith J concedes that this condition has been heavily debated for it is not entirely clear. He links the condition to the anchor jurisdiction issue: for Stuart-Smith J, the fact that the anchor defendant is sued for the sole or predominant purpose of bringing the foreign defendant into the action within the jurisdiction is not fatal to an application to serve the foreign defendant out of the jurisdiction. He seems to suggest therefore a light reading of the reasonableness requirement and emphasises (at 215) as Lord Briggs had done in Vedanta, that per C-281/02 Owusu, the effect of the mandatory terms of A4(1) BIa is that jurisdiction that is vested in the English Court by the article may not be challenged on arguments which in other circumstances would be forum non conveniens grounds. (This reinforces his flexible reading of the reasonableness requirement).
• On the fifth condition, Stuart-Smith J at 217 focuses on the scenario of an A4 defendant likely to continue being sued regardless of the English PIL decision (forum non in particular) viz the non-EU defendants (an issue which was quite important in Vedanta, where no A34 arguments were raised). If that is indeed likely then in his view this must have an impact on how the court considers the application of the English rules.

As noted Stuart-Smith J lists these arguments as ‘founding jurisdiction’ and at 227 finds there is a real issue to be tried: a reliable conclusion in the other direction (that STASCO had not retained legal responsibility for the operation of the Northia) cannot be found at this jurisdictional stage.

The Abuse of EU law argument is given short, one para (at 218) shrift, with reference to Lord Briggs in Vedanta (who focused on Article 8(1) CJEU authority for there is little precedent on abuse of EU law).

Turning then to the pièce de résistance: Article 34.  Readers of the blog will have followed my regular reporting on same.

Stuart-Smith’s first discusses authority in abstracto, and his points are as follows:

• BIa’s section 9, ‘lis pendens – related actions’, harbours two twins. At 222: ‘Articles 29 and 33 apply where proceedings in different jurisdictions involve the same cause of action and are between the same parties. Articles 30 and 34 apply where proceedings in different jurisdictions are “related” without satisfying the additional prerequisites for the application of Articles 29 and 33 (i.e. the same cause of action and between the same parties).‘ The twins are of course not identical: in each set, one involves action ex-EU, the other looks to intra-EU scenarios.
• Zooming in on the A30-34 twin: A30 defines ‘related’ and A34 does not. Under A30(3), actions are related where they are “so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from different proceedings.” (at 222) under A34(1)a, the discretion to stay an action under that article does not arise unless “it is expedient to hear and determine the related actions to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgment resulting from separate proceedings”. Semantically one might suggest the latter therefore is a subset of the former (which would also suggest not all actions that are ‘related’ under A30 are so under A34). Stuart-Smith J however proposes to focus on the commonality of both, which is the presence of expediency, ‘to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from <different: A30> <seperate: A34’ proceedings. Again at 222: ‘Although there is a semantic argument that this means that cases falling within Article 34(1)(a) are a subset of “related actions”, I cannot conceive of circumstances where this would matter: the expediency criterion is a pre-requisite for the exercise of the court’s discretion both under Article 29 and under Article 34.’
• At 223 then follows the discussion of “risk of irreconcilable judgments”. ‘Because Articles 30 and 34 do not require the proceedings to involve the same cause of action and to be between the same parties, it is plain that the “risk of irreconcilable judgments” to which Articles 30(3) and 34(1)(a) refer cannot require that there be a risk that one judgment may give rise to an issue estoppel affecting the other.’ In other words, the test of irreconcilability is suggested to be more easily met in A30 (and 34) then it is under A29 (and 33). Nevertheless, with reference to Donaldson DJ in Zavarco, Stuart-Smith J suggests the points of difference between the judgments (whether arising from findings of fact or of law) would have to “form an essential part of the basis of the judgments” before A30 or 34 may be engaged.
• At 225 he then refers to Privatbank, held by the Court of Appeal after proceedings in Jalla had been closed, in which the Court of Appeal held that the fact that actions could not be consolidated and heard together (much as of course such togetherness cannot be imposed upon the foreign courts) is relevant to the exercise of the Court’s discretion and, in the absence of some strong countervailing factor, will be a compelling reason for refusing a stay. At 246, that importance of the impossibility of consolidated hearings is re-emphasised.

At 228 then Stuart-Smith J arrives at the application in concreto. He starts with the defendants’ arguments: ‘In their written submissions the Defendants rely upon a number of claims brought by groups of claimants or communities before various courts in Nigeria and one action of rather different complexion, known as the Federal Enforcement Action [“FEA”]. They submit that the English proceedings against STASCO should be stayed, at least temporarily, in order to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments being reached in England and in one or more of the Nigerian proceedings by waiting for the determinations of the Nigerian Courts and then taking proper account of those determinations in disposing of the English proceedings. The Defendants submit that, by the imposition of a stay, the court would avoid “a course of conflict with the courts of a friendly state” and avoid “cutting across executive actions of the Nigerian State in relation to property situated within its territory” which the Defendants submit would be in breach of the act of state doctrine and considerations of comity.‘ He then proceeds to discuss the arguments:

• Firstly he discusses at length the status of the FEA (which counsel for the defendants focused on) as well as a number of other actions pending in the Nigerian courts.
• Of note is his observation at 234: ‘It is a fact material to the exercise of the court’s discretion on these applications that the Defendants in these proceedings rely upon the existence of the FEA as grounds for imposing a stay pursuant to Article 34 while at the same time SNEPCO is maintaining its root and branch opposition to the validity (as well as the factual merits) of the FEA.’
• At 237 he notes the not carbon copy but nevertheless overlap between proceedings, at the level of claimants, defendants, and facts, but not the allegations of negligence and Rylands v Fletcher which are not directed at STASCO in the FEA proceedings. Of note is that he adds in fine that the potential problem of double recovery is simply an issue with which the English and Nigerian courts may have to grapple in due course.
• At 241 he holds obiter that expediency is not met here for a stay would not reduce the risk of irreconcilable judgments. Here, the true nature of forum non (I realise of course A34 is only forum non light) re-emerges: the English proceedings will continue after the stay in all likelihood will have been lifted (there will continue to be a case to answer for STASCO). ‘(A)lthough the English court would afford due attention and respect to the findings of the Nigerian courts, the findings of the Nigerian courts in the FEA and the other actions would not bind the English court to make equivalent findings even on the most basic matters such as whether the December 2011 Spill reached land.’ However ‘in the light of the ruling by the Court of Appeal [in Privatbank, GAVC] that expediency is a theoretical concept, I will proceed on the assumptions (without deciding) that, for the purposes of Article 34, (a) the actions in Nigeria are related actions and (b) it is expedient to determine the related actions together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgment resulting from different proceedings.’
• That leaves the question whether a stay is necessary for the ‘proper administration of justice.’
  • At 242 the elements of recital 24 are considered in turn. Stuart-Smith emphasises in particular that while the damage occurred in Nigeria, there is a strong international element that is alleged to give rise to a duty of care owed by STASCO to the Claimants; and he underlines the uncertainty as to the length of the Nigerian proceedings).
  • At 245 he concludes that no stay is warranted: I shall recall the para in full (underlining is mine, as is the lay-out):
    • ‘Balancing these various considerations together, I am not satisfied that a stay is necessary for the proper administration of justice.
    • I start with the fact that jurisdiction is based on Article 4 and that it is contemplated that the proceedings against STASCO may continue after a temporary stay to await the progress of the Nigerian actions.
    • Second, the length of that stay is indeterminate whether one looks at the FEA or the other actions; but on any view it is likely to be measured in years rather than months, thereby rendering these Claimants’ claims (which were issued late) almost intolerably stale.
    • Third, a stay would prevent any steps being taken towards the resolution of the difficult limitation and other issues which the earlier parts of this judgment identify; and it would prevent any other steps being taken to ensure the swift and just progression of the English action if and when the stay is removed. That is, in my judgment, a major drawback: if and to the extent that there are valid (i.e. not statute-barred) claims to be pursued, there is a compelling interest of justice in their being pursued quickly. Otherwise, as is well known, there is a risk that valid claims may fall by the wayside simply because of the exorbitant passage of time.
    • Fourth, although the factual connection with Nigeria is almost complete, the English court’s jurisdiction is not to be ousted on forum non conveniens grounds and, that being so, there is no reason to assume that imposing a stay until after the Nigerian courts have reached their conclusions will either cause the English proceedings to be abandoned or determine the outcome of the English proceedings or eliminate the risk of irreconcilable findings altogether. I am certain that the English court would and will, if no stay is imposed at this stage, remain vigilant to the need to respect the Nigerian courts and their proceedings; and I do not exclude the possibility that circumstances might arise at a later stage when a pause in the English proceedings might become desirable in the interest of judicial comity and respect for Nigeria’s sovereign legal system.
    • Fifth, I bear in mind the fact that the scope of the FEA action is not clear, so that it is not clear what issues will be determined, save that the issue of STASCO’s responsibility and actions will not be as they are not before the Nigerian Court. Turning to the other actions, STASCO is only a party to the HRH Victor Disi Action which, though technically pending, cannot be assumed to be certain to come to trial. The status of the remaining actions, where STASCO is not a party, is as set out above but does not give confidence that one or more of those actions will emerge as a suitable vehicle for determining issues relating to the spill so as to fetter the freedom and resolve of the English court to reach a different conclusion on behalf of different claimants and in an action against STASCO if that is the proper result.
    • Sixth, in my judgment, the proper administration of justice is better served by taking interim steps to bring order to the English proceedings, specifically by addressing the issues of limitation and, potentially, existence and scope of duty, which are disclosed in the earlier parts of this judgment. The outcome of those steps should determine whether and to what extent STASCO is available as an anchor defendant.’

There is an awful lot here which may prove to be of crucial relevance in the debate on the application of Article 34. Most importantly, Stuart-Smith’s analysis in my view does justice to the DNA of A34, which includes a strong presumption against a stay.

Geert.

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

Highly relevant new CSR, corporate due diligence ruling.
Shell Bonga oil field spill
Reference to ia Privatbank https://t.co/fGnGrVjI7R and Vedanta https://t.co/SsAloPiwc9

A4 BIa jurisdiction upheld. No stay on A34 grounds. https://t.co/wIifRnsWZq

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 3, 2020

On 13 February 2020, the CJEU ruled again on the competence of the court to hear passenger compensation claims under the Flight Compensation Regulation regarding cancelled flights.

Flightright v Iberia concerned a three-leg journey by two passengers from Hamburg to London, then London to Madrid, and finally from Madrid to San Sebastián. The whole trip was reserved in a single booking. Iberia operated the second and the third legs and it eventually cancelled the latter. The two passengers assigned their claims for compensation to the online rights portal flightright. The latter sued Iberia at the local tribunal in Hamburg, the point of departure. The tribunal doubted its jurisdiction and asked the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.

The case turns on the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) Brussels I bis Regulation, which gives jurisdiction in matters relating to the provision of services to the tribunal of the place “where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided”. The Hamburg tribunal had been unsure whether the conditions of this head of jurisdiction were fulfilled, given that Iberia was merely operating the last leg of the flight and was (1) neither the contractual partner of the passengers; nor (2) operating a flight running to or from Hamburg, the place where the suit was brought. 

It is settled law, following the seminal CJEU decision in Rehder, that in the case of air transport contracts, the place of performance is deemed to be located at the points of both departure and of arrival, and that the passenger can choose between the two to bring her claim.

Multistop journeys and the liability of operating carriers were the subject of the decision in Air Nostrum, which also involved flightright, but which must not be confused with the present case. In Air Nostrum, suits were brought at the point of arrival regarding problems that had occurred on the first leg of the journey. The CJEU ruled that, although the carrier operating this leg had no direct contractual obligation with the passenger, it should be regarded as fulfilling an obligation freely consented to by performing a flight for another airline.  The effect of this was that Article 7(1) Brussels I bis applied. The Court of Justice also held that a multistop journey confirmed in a single booking is to be regarded as a single service for the purposes of Article 7(1) Brussels I bis. The Court of Justice therefore concluded that the tribunal at the place of the final destination of the multistop journey had jurisdiction over the carrier operating the first leg of the flight.

In another decision, České aerolinie, a passenger had booked a combined journey with the defendant, which operated the first leg of the journey, while a non-EU carrier performed the second. The latter being significantly delayed, the passenger sued the defendant – who was not involved in the delay – at the place of departure. The CJEU ruled here that indeed the defendant could be sued there because the journey is to be considered as one service (confirming the earlier judgment in Air Nostrum) and that the place of departure is to be considered a place of performance for the whole service under Article 7(1) Brussels I bis.

In flightright v Iberia, the situation was somehow the reverse of Air Nostrum: the carrier operating the last and delayed leg of a multistop flight was sued at the place of departure. Again, the Court of Justice considered that the tribunal at this place had jurisdiction over the claim under Article 7(1)(b), second indent, Brussels I bis. The CJEU considered the journey comprising three legs as one service to carry the passenger from Hamburg to San Sebastián because it was made in a single booking (para. 27 – 29). In the view of the Justices, the tribunal at the place of departure (Hamburg) has a sufficiently close connection to the dispute. Even though it related to the cancelled flight between Madrid and San Sebastián, finding this tribunal competent satisfied the objective of proximity (para. 29 – 31). This solution would also fulfil the principle of predictability, given that the applicant and the defendant both could identify the place of departure and arrival (para. 32).

The new judgment is hardly surprising. The solution reached by the CJEU fully squares with the previous rulings. Indeed, the new judgment merely continues the same logic, the main axioms of which are as follows: (1) multistop journeys are to be regarded as one service for the purposes of Article 7 Brussels I bis where they were made in a single booking; (2) a carrier operating a leg of the journey fulfils an obligation freely consented to, even though it has no direct contractual relation with the passenger; and (3) the passenger can choose to sue such carrier at the point of departure or of arrival of the whole journey.

The novel aspect of the decision is merely that a tribunal at the place of departure can be deemed competent to hear a claim for compensation relating to the final leg of the flight. Therefore, carriers operating parts of multistep journeys may find themselves sued in a court at a place to which or from which they do not fly. One can only warn them to pay particular attention to their arrangements with other airlines and to be cautious when confirming or authorising single bookings.

The first issue of the open-access journal Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional for 2020 is out.

It includes more than fifty papers, covering a broad range of topics, such as the use of foreign powers of attorney for the purchase of immoveable property, consumer protection, the relationship between the recast Brussels II Regulation and the Hague Convention on the protection of  children, the flow of personal data between the EU and the UK after Brexit, matrimonial property regimes under Regulation 2016/1103, and the implementation of the rules on obtaining information on bank accounts under the Regulation establishing a European Account Preservation Order.

Most of the contributions are in Spanish. The rest are in English or in Italian.

The issue can be downloaded here.

IN [2019] EWCOP 56 QD, Cobb J in the Court of Protection applied the Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults to a removal from Spain of an adult father suffering from Lewy Body Dementia, a progressive neurodegenerative dementia, without consent of the new wife. by the children of his first marriage. Following the removal the children seek an order that he reside at a care home in England, that he not return to Spain, and that he have only supervised contact with his wife.

Cobb J decided that the English courts do not have jurisdiction given that in his judgment the father is habitually resident in Spain, with at 28-29 a list of the reasons leading to his conclusion (it includes a negative view on the removal ‘by stealth’, as well as particular emphasis on the father’s expressed will to live in Spain when he was not yet incapacitated). The common law doctrine of necessity does not alter this as alternative, less drastic measures could and should have been sought first (such as alerting Spanish social services; at 29).

The judge did make use of his limited urgency jurisdiction to issue a ‘protective measures’ order which provides for the father to remain at and be cared for at home he resides in, and to continue the authorisation of the deprivation of his liberty there only until such time as the national authorities in Spain have determined what should happen next. It is for the Spanish administrative or judicial authorities to determine the next step, which may of course be to confer jurisdiction on the English courts to make the relevant decision(s).

Geert.

The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law is seeking two legal officers. Candidates are expected to possess, among others, two years of relevant full-time professional experience (e.g., in practice, government, academia, IGOs or NGOs). They must also be nationals of Member States of the Conference.

Duties include general assistance in various areas of the work programme of the Conference, the areas of priority being international commercial litigation / civil procedure and child support (maintenance) matters.

One-year contracts are offered, starting in May 2020.

The deadline for applications is 25 March 2020 (12.00 a.m. CET).

Further information is available here.

Yesterday (4 March 2020) Viet Nam acceded to the HCCH Evidence Convention and the Philippines acceded to the HCCH Service Convention.  Ukraine signed the HCCH Judgments Convention.

The HCCH Evidence Convention will enter into force for Viet Nam on 3 May 2020. Pursuant to article 39 of the Evidence Convention, the accession will have effect only as regards the relations between Viet Nam and such Contracting States as will have declared their acceptance of the accession. Accordingly, this is a semi-open Convention similar to the HCCH Child Abduction Convention.

In the absence of any objection pursuant to its article 28, the HCCH Service Convention will enter into force for the Philippines on 1 October 2020. No objection has ever been made under the Service Convention (so far).

Ukraine has signed the HCCH Judgments Convention in accordance with its article 24. In order to consent to be bound by the treaty, Ukraine needs to deposit an instrument of ratification. In the meantime, a signatory State has the obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force (article 18 of the UN Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).

The HCCH Judgments Convention is not yet in force. In accordance with article 28: “This Convention shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of the period during which a notification may be made in accordance with Article 29(2) with respect to the second State that has deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession referred to in Article 24.”

There are currently two signatory States: Uruguay and Ukraine. The act of signing a treaty does not count towards the timeline specified in article 28 of the HCCH Judgments Convention as it is not an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

The HCCH news item is available here.

Yesterday (4 March 2020) Viet Nam acceded to the HCCH Evidence Convention and the Philippines acceded to the HCCH Service Convention.  Ukraine signed the HCCH Judgments Convention.

The HCCH Evidence Convention will enter into force for Viet Nam on 3 May 2020. Pursuant to article 39 of the Evidence Convention, the accession will have effect only as regards the relations between Viet Nam and such Contracting States as will have declared their acceptance of the accession. Accordingly, this is a semi-open Convention similar to the HCCH Child Abduction Convention.

In the absence of any objection pursuant to its article 28, the HCCH Service Convention will enter into force for the Philippines on 1 October 2020. No objection has ever been made under the Service Convention (so far).

Ukraine has signed the HCCH Judgments Convention in accordance with its article 24. In order to consent to be bound by the treaty, Ukraine needs to deposit an instrument of ratification. In the meantime, a signatory State has the obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force (article 18 of the UN Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).

The HCCH Judgments Convention is not yet in force. In accordance with article 28: “This Convention shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of the period during which a notification may be made in accordance with Article 29(2) with respect to the second State that has deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession referred to in Article 24.”

There are currently two signatory States: Uruguay and Ukraine. The act of signing a treaty does not count towards the timeline specified in article 28 of the HCCH Judgments Convention as it is not an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

The HCCH news item is available here.

Johnny Hallyday, born Jean-Philippe Smet, died in 2017 age 74. Over a career of 57 years, he released more than 80 albums and gave over 3200 concerts. He was nicknamed the French Elvis, l’idole des jeunes. Over a million people filled the streets of Paris for his funeral.

Although he was known to spend a lot and to tour constantly to maintain his lifestyle, Johnny had quite some assets when he died. In addition to the royalties he would receive each year, he owned a house near Paris, a house in the French Carribean and two properties in California (one in Pacific Palisades in Los Angeles, one in Santa Monica). He also owned a number of luxury cars and motorbikes.

The singer had married several times and had many affairs. In 1965, he married French singer Sylvie Vartan, with whom he had a son, David.  In the early 1980s, he dated French actress Nathalie Baye and had a daughter, Laura. David Hallyday became a singer, Laura Smet an actress (picture).

Finally, in 1996, he was married to French model Laeticia Boudou by Mayor Nicolas Sarkozy. In the 2000s, they adopted two girls, Jade and Joy.

In 2014, Johnny wrote several wills. In the first will, he declared that he resided at his home in Los Angeles and that he donated the entirety of his estate to his last wife Laeticia pursuant to Californian law or, should she die before or with him, to his two adopted daughters, Joy and Jade. But he then wrote a new will whereby he transferred all his assets to a trust established in the U.S. and appointed his wife as executrix of the will.

Obviously, the immediate consequence of the will was that his two first children would not receive anything from their father. This would go against one of the fundamental principle of the French law of succession, namely that each of the four children was entitled to receive 18% of the entire estate. But was French law applicable?

In February 2018, David and Laura initated proceedings against Laeticia and her two adopted daughters in Nanterre, France, seeking a declaration that the (last) will of their father was null and void under French law. They also sought and obtained protective measures freezing a number of the assets in dispute.

The first issue for the French court was to decide whether it had jurisdiction under the Succession Regulation. This meant assessing where the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of his death was. Scholars have long identified that a drawback of this connecting factor is that it is very difficult to apply to artists who travel all the time and have homes in different countries. Laeticia claimed that her husband (and she and her daughters) resided habitually in Los Angeles; David and Laura that he habitually resided in France.

There is no doubt that Johnny spent a lot of time in both places. His adopted daughters were schooled at the Lycee Français of Los Angeles and, as many French stars, he liked the fact that he could live an anonymous life in the U.S.  But he also spent a lot of time in France. He was a French idol, and his concerts were essentially given in France. He died at his home in Paris.

The Preamble to the Succession Regulation proposes alternative methods to assess residence. Recital 23 provides that, in principle, the test should be whether the deceased has a “close and stable relationship” with the state concerned. However, Recital 24 states that, in certain cases where the deceased lived in several states alternatively, it could be difficult to assess habitual residence, and it would thus be legitimate to take into account nationality and the location of the main assets of the deceased. Laeticia relied on Recital 23, David and Laura relied on Recital 24.

The Court would ultimately find that Recital 23 controlled, but decide in favour of David and Laura.

In a judgment delivered on 28 May 2019, the Court conducted an overall assessment of the situation.

It first noted that the issue was the last habitual residence of the deceased. A number of facts were reported dating decades earlier, such as the fact that, when Sylvie Vartan, the first wife of Johnny, lived in LA with young David (now 53), the rockstar would spend most his time in France. The Court ruled that it would ignore such references to events older than 10 years.

The court started with the period 2007-2012 to insist on the fact that, during that time, Johnny declared, in particular in various wills, that he resided in Switzerland and wished to subject his succession to Swiss law. The court noted that, while the purpose of such declarations were likely tax related, it did not change the fact that under Swiss tax law, the tax status that Johnny wanted required to have significant ties with Switzerland.

The court then moved to the time period after 2012, for which much more factual evidence of the presence of the rockstar on each of the two territories was available. The Reason why was that Johnny and his last wife had opened an instragram account in 2012. David used the instagram account of his father to provide a detailed account of the time the latter spent in France and elsewhere since 2012. The result was that the rockstar spent at least 151 days in France in 2015, at least 168 days in France in 2016, and that he stayed in France in the last 8 months of his life in 2017. With modern technology, finding out where VIPs spent most of their time might not be so difficult, after all.

Finally, the court conducted a subjective analysis and assessed the conditions and reasons of the presence of the rockstar in each country. The court recognised that it was not easy to assess the state of mind of the deceased relating to his stays in each of the two countries. However, the court agreed with the proposition that it was not possible to dissociate the artist from the private person, and thus found that the decisive factor was that the singer loved to perform, and that his life was entirely directed towards this activity. He toured constantly, including in the last three years of his life, and he did so almost exclusively in France.

The court concluded that Johnny Hallyday did not have alternate residences, but only one residence, in the last years of his life. He thus fell within the scope of Recital 23 of the Preamble, not Recital 24. Quite a remarkable conclusion : although the two youngest kids of the rockstar were schooled in the U.S. and he spent time there each year, he was found to have no residence there.

Laeticia immediately lodged an appeal againt the judgment. But she waived it in November 2019.

In 2018, the trust established by the rockstar to the profit of his wife initiated proceedings in the Superior Cour of California in Los Angeles against David and Laura seeking an order to transfer various assets of the rockstar to the trust, including rights over songs, funds in a bank account, four Harley Davidsons and three luxury cars. David and Laura have filed a motion to stay or dismiss proceedings on the ground of comity and forum non conveniens.

It seems that the case puzzled the LA Court. After being postponed four times, the case was postponed again on 4 February 2020, to May 2020. I could not access the documents filed by the parties, but the popular press has reported that Justice May said during one of the hearings that he found the case “very complex”, that he did not see the jurisdiction of the French court as necessarily exclusive of the jurisdiction of his own court, and that he wondered about the base of the rights of the widow under French law: “We are talking about 25%, but the big question is, 25% of what?”

What is the territorial reach of the Succession Regulation? If it purports to reach assets situated in California, does California law allow it? If it does not, should the shares of each of the children be calculated on the French/European estate only?

All very interesting questions. We very much hope Justice May answers them.

Singapore and Fiji have each deposited instruments of ratification at the UN Headquarters on 25 February 2020. The UN Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (“Singapore Convention on Mediation”) facilitates the cross-border enforcement of international commercial settlement agreements reached through mediation (see previous post here). To date, fifty-two States have signed the Convention. It will enter into force six months after the deposit of three instruments of ratification. The list of signatory States may be found here.

Singapore and Fiji have each deposited instruments of ratification at the UN Headquarters on 25 February 2020. The UN Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (“Singapore Convention on Mediation”) facilitates the cross-border enforcement of international commercial settlement agreements reached through mediation (see previous post here). To date, fifty-two States have signed the Convention. It will enter into force six months after the deposit of three instruments of ratification. The list of signatory States may be found 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 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

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.

The last issue of the Revue critique de droit international privé for 2019 has just been released. It contains numerous casenotes and one article by Poul F. Kjaer (Copenhagen Business school) on the sociological idea of connectivity and private international law (L’idée de “connectivité” et le droit international privé).

The article is a revised translation of a paper by the same author titled Constitutionalizing Connectivity: the Constitutional Grid of World Society.

Global law settings are characterized by a structural pre‐eminence of connectivity norms, a type of norm which differs from coherency or possibility norms. The centrality of connectivity norms emerges from the function of global law, which is to increase the probability of transfers of condensed social components, such as economic capital and products, religious doctrines, and scientific knowledge, from one legally structured context to another within world society. This was the case from colonialism and colonial law to contemporary global supply chains and human rights. Both colonial law and human rights can be understood as serving a constitutionalizing function aimed at stabilizing and facilitating connectivity. This allows for an understanding of colonialism and contemporary global governance as functional, but not as normative, equivalents.

A full table of contents is available here.

Readers of our blog may be pleased to learn (if they have not already noticed) that since the beginning of the year, all our posts are automatically published to our brand-new Twitter account.

Whether you want to share and discuss our content or simply to receive all our latest posts directly in your Twitter feed, feel free to follow @PrIL_Blog!

Readers of our blog may be pleased to learn (if they have not already noticed) that since the beginning of the year, all our posts are automatically published to our brand-new Twitter account.

Whether you want to share and discuss our content or simply to receive all our latest posts directly in your Twitter feed, feel free to follow @PrIL_Blog!

News item by Dr Orsolya Toth, Assistant Professor in Commercial Law, University of Nottingham

The University of Nottingham Commercial Law Centre will hold its inaugural Nottingham Arbitration Talk on Wednesday 18 March at 2 pm.  The Centre is delighted to welcome distinguished speakers to the event drawn from both academia and practice.  The Keynote address will be given by Professor Sir Roy Goode, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Oxford.  The speaker panel will host Angeline Welsh (Essex Court Chambers), Timothy Foden (Lalive) and Dr Martins Paparinskis (University College London).  

The theme of the event will be ‘Procedure and Substance in Commercial and Investment Treaty Arbitration’.  It will address current and timeless issues, such as the influence of procedure on the parties’ substantive rights, the recent phenomenon of ‘due process paranoia’ in arbitration and the current state of the system of investment treaty arbitration.  For detailed programme and registration please visit https://unclcpresents.eventbrite.co.uk