Droit international général

On 29 November 2024 in Dijon, from 9 AM to 5 PM, the Centre de Recherche sur le Droit International des Marchés et des Investissements Internationaux (CREDIMI) of the University of Burgundy, in partnership with the Centre Droit Éthique et Procédures (CDEP) of the University of Artois, is organizing a colloquium titled La spécialisation du […]

Introduction

The New Zealand Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against a permanent anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunction in relation to a default judgment from Kentucky, which the plaintiff alleged had been obtained by fraud: Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609. The Court upheld the findings of fraud. It also did not rule out the possibility of an injunction being an appropriate remedy in the future. However, the Court concluded that an injunction could only be granted as a step of last resort, which required the plaintiff to pursue its right of appeal against the Kentucky judgment.

The background to the case is set out in a previous post on this blog (see also here). In summary, the case involved allegations of “a massive worldwide fraud” perpetrated by the defendants — a New Zealand company (Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd), an Australian resident with a long business history in New Zealand (Mr Kenneth Wikeley), and a New Zealand citizen (Mr Eric Watson) — against the plaintiff, Kea Investments Ltd (Kea), a British Virgin Islands company owned by a New Zealand businessman. Kea alleged that the US default judgment obtained by WFTL was based on fabricated claims intended to defraud Kea. Kea claimed tortious conspiracy and sought a world-wide anti-enforcement injunction, which was granted by the High Court, first on an interim and then on a permanent basis. Wikeley, the sole director and shareholder of WFTL, appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against the grant of the injunction. At the same time, it upheld the High Court’s declarations that the Kentucky default judgment was obtained by fraud and that it was not entitled to recognition or enforcement in New Zealand. It also upheld the High Court’s damages award (for legal costs incurred in overseas proceedings in defence of the tortious conspiracy).

 

The judgment

There are two points from the judgment that I want to focus on here: the Court’s emphasis on comity, and the relevance of fraud as a basis for an anti-enforcement injunction.

Comity

An entire section of the judgment is dedicated to the concept of comity, which the Court relied on as a guiding principle. The Court said that it was necessary “to confront, head on, the appropriateness, in comity terms, of an order which … in substance, is addressed to United States courts and which could, at least in theory, provoke countermeasures, with the result that no legal system will be able to administer justice” (at [167]). Drawing on work by Professor Andrew Dickinson, the Court confirmed that comity was not simply “a matter of judicial collegiality” (at [164]). In the international system, comity was like “the mortar which cements together a brick house” (citing Judge Wilkey in Laker Airways Ltd v Sabena Belgian World Airlines 731 F 2d 909 (DC Cir 1984) at 937).

Anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions had the effect of interfering with comity, because they interfered with “the interests of a foreign legal system in administering justice within its own territory” (at [164]). Drawing again on Dickinson’s work, the Court said that anti-suit/enforcement injunctions “push[ed] at the boundaries of … the global system of justice” (at [166]). The Court disagreed (at [189]) with the High Court’s observation that the injunction “may even be seen as consistent with the requirements of comity”, insofar as the injunction had the effect of restraining a New Zealand company from abusing the process of the Kentucky court to perpetuate a fraud. The United States courts were “unlikely to look for or need the protection of New Zealand courts” and were “well capable of identifying fraud and ensuring no reward flows from it” (at [189]).

Extreme caution was necessary, therefore, before exercising the power to grant an anti-suit/enforcement injunction (at [176]). Comity required “the court to recognise that, in deciding questions of weight to be attached to different factors, different judges operating under different legal systems with different legal policies may legitimately arrive at different answers” (at [177]). Anti-enforcement injunctions were especially rare and were “characterised by particularly careful assessments of whether the relief sought is truly necessary and consistent with comity” (at [180]).

Because of these concerns, an anti-enforcement injunction should be “a measure of last resort” (referring again to Dickinson, at [185]). This meant that the Court in this case had to “at least await the outcome of the appeal process [in Kentucky] before considering whether to issue an anti-suit or anti-enforcement judgment” (at [186]).

 Fraud as a distinct category?

In the anti-enforcement context, some scholars have treated fraud as a distinct category of case that may justify the grant of an injunction: see, most recently, Hannah L Buxbaum and Ralf Michaels “Anti-enforcement injunctions” [2024] 56 NYU Journal of International Law and Politics 101 at 110-111, citing Ellerman Lines Ltd v Read [1928] 2 KB 144 (CA) in support. The Queensland Supreme Court also relied on Ellerman Lines when granting relief in aid of the New Zealand interim orders (Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley (No 2) [2023] QSC 215 at [178]–[188], with the Queensland Court of Appeal upholding the reasoning in Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] QSC 201).

The Court of Appeal’s reasoning casts doubt on the existence of fraud as a distinct category. In [176], the Court adopted Dickinson’s “convenient collection” of the following four categories that may justify anti-suit relief (see fn 157): that “the foreign court has acted or is likely to act in excess of its jurisdiction under international law, in violation of the requirements of natural justice, otherwise in a manner manifestly incompatible with New Zealand’s fundamental policies, or that its proceedings are likely significantly and irreversibly to interfere with the administration of justice in New Zealand”.

On the facts of the present  case, the Court thought that the category of natural justice was most relevant. The Court considered it “almost inevitable” that, had the New Zealand court been in the Kentucky court’s position, it would have set aside the default judgment, on the basis that the proceeding had not been drawn to Kea’s attention and sufficiently substantial grounds of defence had been made out (at [182]). The Court said that, in these circumstances, “[a]t least if the judgment were final, with all appeal rights exhausted and against a New Zealand entity … a New Zealand court might well consider that, despite its respect for the United States courts, a sufficiently fundamental policy issue was engaged – one ultimately based in principles of natural justice and fair hearing rights – that an anti-suit or anti-enforcement order should issue” (at [183], emphasis added).

What is more, the Court distinguished the case from Ellerman Lines Ltd v Read [1928] 2 KB 144 (CA) on the basis “there was no contractual jurisdiction clause that the New Zealand Court was seeking to enforce” (at [187]). It expressed “caution” about the proposition that the pursuit of the Kentucky proceedings should be injuncted because the proceeding was fraudulent and therefore “inherently unconscionable”, referring to criticism by Dickinson that the language of unconscionability is “a vestige of an earlier monotheistic society [which] no longer performs any useful role and obscures the real reasons for granting injunctions” (at [190]). A conclusion by the New Zealand court that the Kentucky proceeding was vexatious or oppressive had “the capacity to look patronising from the perspective of the United States – something which in comity terms should be avoided” (at [191]). The issue of fraud could be addressed by the United States court, “with all of the advanced legislative and common law apparatus available to it to do justice between the parties” (at [191]).

On the other hand, the Court clarified that it was not suggesting that “it would never be appropriate for a New Zealand court to issue a worldwide anti-enforcement order” (at [188], emphasis in original).

 

Comments

The Court’s detailed engagement with comity is heartening for anyone who is concerned about the destabilising effects of anti-suit/enforcement injunctions on the international system. Yet the reasoning is also underpinned by tension.

First, the Court seemed to eschew fraud as a distinct basis for the award of an anti-enforcement injunction, while accepting the appropriateness of determining whether the foreign proceeding was fraudulent (and granting declaratory relief to that effect). If the Court is willing to entertain a claim that the pursuit of a foreign proceeding forms part of a tortious conspiracy, why should this not provide a potential basis for an injunction (as opposed to, say, natural justice)?

This potential contradiction had flow-on effects for the scope of the Court’s orders, because the Court refused to discharge the appointment of interim liquidators of WFTL. Interim liquidators had been appointed after attempts by the defendant to assign the benefit of the Kentucky default judgment from WFTL to a United States entity, to “insulate” WFTL from “any New Zealand judgment” (at [43]). The Court considered that the appointment of interim liquidators was “for valid domestic reasons by ensuring assets available to satisfy any New Zealand judgment remained under the control of New Zealand parties” and that it was “unaffected by discharge of the anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions” (at [196], [211](e)). The Court acknowledged that the interim liquidators could face pressure to enforce the Kentucky default judgment “in order to meet the New Zealand judgment debt and costs awards against WFTL – this despite the judgments of the High Court and this Court finding claims under the Coal Agreement to be fraudulent and made pursuant to conspiracy” (at [201]). The Court did not “at this stage express any view about how the principles of international comity might respond to that particular scenario” (at [201]). Why is it a “valid domestic reason” to protect the satisfaction of a New Zealand judgment for damages that were incurred in defending the foreign fraudulent proceeding, but it is not a “valid domestic reason” to prevent enforcement of a judgment that is the result of such a fraudulent proceeding?

Second, while the injunction had the potential to interfere with comity, it was also, arguably, a tool for dialogue. The Court of Appeal was clear that the injunction could not be understood as “an act of comity”; and it thought it was unlikely that the Kentucky court would want or would need the help of the New Zealand Court. At the same time, it would be strange if the Kentucky court did not take account of the finding of fraud, or the concerns about natural justice. In this way, the Court of Appeal’s decision to treat the injunction as a last resort, and to require the plaintiff to pursue an appeal in Kentucky, may be seen as part of an unfolding dialogue between the courts that would not have happened – and would not have been possible – without the potential of anti-enforcement relief. At the very least, the decision will serve as a pointer to the Kentucky court that the default judgment has cross-border implications and gives rise to a risk of conflicting orders.

Third, the Court seemed to characterise the plaintiff’s decision to bring proceedings in New Zealand as a strategic move, noting that “WFTL’s New Zealand registration and its status as a trustee of a New Zealand trust provided a jurisdictional leg up with which to challenge enforcement [of the Kentucky default judgment]” (at [194]). This characterisation sits uncomfortably with the Court’s acceptance that the Kentucky proceeding – including the defendants’ choice of Kentucky as a forum – was itself based on fraudulent fabrications. It is one thing to conclude that the plaintiffs should have persevered in Kentucky by pursuing their appeal there, on the basis that a foreign court must be left to control its own proceedings. It is another to say that the plaintiff, by turning to the New Zealand court for help, was using WFTL’s registration in New Zealand as a “jurisdictional leg up” (cf also the Court’s discussion in [183] that there would be a potential case for an anti-enforcement injunction if the default judgment was in breach of a New Zealand entity’s rights to natural justice – that is, if the plaintiff was a New Zealand entity). Where a New Zealand entity is used as a vehicle for fraud, the New Zealand court may have a legitimate interest – or even a responsibility – to stop the fraud, albeit that an injunction is a measure of last resort.

Fourth, the Court of Appeal distinguished Ellerman Lines on the basis that the latter case involved an English jurisdiction clause. This reasoning suggests that anti-suit/enforcement relief may be an appropriate response to foreign proceedings brought in breach of a New Zealand jurisdiction clause, but that it may not be an appropriate response to foreign fraudulent proceedings between strangers. Why is it worse to suffer a breach of a jurisdiction clause, than to be dragged into a random foreign court on the basis of a fraudulent claim (including a forged jurisdiction clause in favour of the foreign court)? The Court did not address this question. The Court also did not address – but noted, in a different part of the judgment – the question whether a breach of a jurisdiction clause should justify injunctive relief as a matter of course (see footnote 158). Clearly, the Court did not think that this question was relevant to its decision to distinguish Ellerman Lines, but a more detailed discussion would have been helpful, to ensure the coherent development of the court’s power to grant anti-suit/enforcement injunctions.

On 2 December 2024, at 6 pm CET, a free webinar will take place in preparation of the 2025 edition of the EAPIL Winter School on Multistate Torts, which will be held on-site in Como between 10 and 15 February 2025 (see here for the full program and further details).

The webinar will give a glimpse of what the Winter School will be about and will briefly present some of its hot topics, such as online defamation, climate change litigation, artificial intelligence and crypto values.

The speakers are some of those who will be lecturing at the Winter School, namely Javier Carrascosa González (University of Murcia), Anatol Dutta (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich), Thomas Kadner Graziano (University of Geneva), Tobias Lutzi (University of Augsburg), Satu Heikkilä (Administrative Law Judge), Silvia Marino (University of Insubria), Nadia Rusinova (The Hague University, attorney at law), Geert van Calster (KU Leuven) and Anna Wysocka-Bar (Jagiellonian University).

The webinar will also offer an opportunity to provide information about the EAPIL Winter School.

Join the free seminar to discover what awaits you during the Winter School week, and…if you want to know more, enrol and come to Como in February!

Those interested in attending the webinar shall write at eapilws@gmail.com in order to receive the Teams link.

More information on the Winter School is found here. To enrol in the Winter School, please fill in this form.

The latest issue of the RabelsZ (Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht) has been published. The following abstracts have been kindly provided to us by the editor of the journal. Holger Fleischer and Heike Schweitzer, Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker † 22 April 2024 (Open Access) Klaus Ulrich Schmolke, Das Prinzip der beschränkten Gesellschafterhaftung – Ein Streifzug […]

The University of Luxembourg will host an event to present a newly released book, European Account Preservation Order – A Multi-jurisdictional Guide with Commentary, published by Bruylant/Larcier. Co-edited by Nicolas Kyriakides (University of Nicosia), Heikki A. Huhtamäki (Huhtamäki Brothers Attorneys Ltd), and Nicholas Mouttotos (University of Bremen), the book offers a detailed analysis of Regulation […]

As foreign law assumes an increasingly significant role in judicial practice, the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law is pleased to announce a Workshop on Providing Information on Foreign Law to Courts, which will take place in Lausanne on November 26.

Renowned experts, both individuals and institutions, will delve into practical challenges and share insights, comparing practices from various countries, including England, France, Germany, Poland, Switzerland and USA.

Presentations will be conducted in English, in German or in French.

For further information, please contact: marie-laure.lauria@isdc-dfjp.unil.ch

The program for the workshop is available below or can be accessed here.

 

INDIVIDUAL EXPERTS

9.30-11.00

Chair: Dr. Lukas Heckendorn, Deputy Director, Swiss Institute of Comparative Law

• Experiences in Poland and Germany compared

Prof. Arkadiusz Wudarski, European University Viadrina Frankfurt

• A Common Law Experience

Prof. Franz Werro, University of Fribourg and Georgetown University

• French Experiences

Prof. Gustavo Cerqueira, Université Côte d’Azur

Discussion

11.00-11.30: Coffee break

 

INSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS

11.30-12.30

Chair: Dr. Ilaria Pretelli, Legal Adviser, Swiss Institute of Comparative Law

• The German Approach: The Max Planck Guidelines

Jan Peter Schmidt, Priv.-Doz., Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg

• The Swiss Approach: experience of SICL

Lukas Heckendorn Urscheler, Deputy Director, Swiss Institute of Comparative Law

Discussion

12.30-13-30 : Lunch

BARCAMP

13.30-16.00

Moderator: Prof. Nadjma Yassari, Director, Swiss Institute of Comparative Law

A Barcamp session is an open and interactive format that encourages collaboration and idea-sharing. Since all participants join every session, the process is highly collaborative, ensuring focused, inclusive, and enriching discussions for everyone involved.

• Proposing Topics: Any participant can suggest a topic, which will be guided by a moderator.
• Moderated Discussions: A designated moderator ensures the session stays focused and that everyone has the chance to contribute.
• Flexible Structure: Sessions can take the form of a short presentation, group discussion, or collaborative brainstorming.
• Open Exchange: Everyone is encouraged to actively contribute their ideas, perspectives, and questions.
• Shared Learning: The goal is to exchange knowledge, explore new approaches, and learn from each other.

16.00: closure of event

On 7 November 2024 the Court of Justice handed down its judgement in Hantoch case (C‑291/23) in which it interpreted jurisdictional rules of Article 10 of the Succession Regulation. The preliminary question originated from Germany, from Landgericht Düsseldorf. Background of the Case and the Doubt of the Referring Court The deceased lived and worked for […]

Issue 4 of Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2024 was just published. It contains the following articles, case notes, and book review:

Katherine Reece-Thomas,  “State Immunity and Sunken Treasure: Finders will not Always be Keepers”

Anthony Kennedy, “Unanswered Questions”

Michael F Sturley†, “The Centenary of the Hague Rules: Celebrating a Century of International Conventions Overmining the Carriage of Goods by Sea”

2024 marks the centenary of the Hague Rules, which still play a central role in allocating the risk of cargo loss or damage. To celebrate that milestone, it is valuable to review the history, beginning with the pre-existing risk allocation. When maritime nations applied widely accepted principles differently, efforts began in the late nineteenth century to achieve uniformity by international agreement. Those efforts failed until domestic legislation exacerbated the problem and created greater pressure for a solution. Even after agreement was reached in 1924, however, another fourteen years passed before the Convention was widely in force. Since then, international uniformity has been challenged in multiple ways, and the story continues to this day.

 

Marcus Teo, “Foreign Law as Fact”

In English law, “foreign law”, as applied under choice-of-law rules, is a question of fact. This “fact doctrine”, however, faces scepticism for three reasons: it remains unclear whether foreign law is truly treated as a question of fact, why it is so treated, and what the precise fact-in-issue is. This article addresses these concerns. It demonstrates that, today, foreign law is treated like any other question of fact. It then argues that foreign law should be classified as a question of fact, and should refer to foreign legal rulings, because this facilitates the accurate prediction of foreign decisions.

 

Adrian Briggs, “Book Review – Dicey+100. Albert Venn Dicey: A Centennial Commemoration”

 

 

This post was written by Verena Wodniansky-Wildenfeld. On 28 November 2024, the University of Vienna, in cooperation with the Association Henri Capitant (German and Belgian branches) and the Interdisciplinary Association of Comparative and Private International Law (IACPIL), will host a conference on The Reform of Belgian Property Law and Law of Obligations. The event will […]

The University of Luxembourg is proud to host a special event to present the newly released book, European Account Preservation Order – A Multi-jurisdictional Guide with Commentary, published by Bruylant/Larcier.

Co-edited by leading experts Dr. Nicolas Kyriakides (University of Nicosia), Dr. Heikki A. Huhtamäki (Huhtamäki Brothers Attorneys Ltd), and Dr. Nicholas Mouttotos (University of Bremen), this comprehensive guide offers a detailed analysis of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014, with contributions from 26 Member States.

The first panel will explore practical challenges in the use of EAPO in Luxembourg and France, moderated by Dr. Elena Alina On?anu (University of Tilburg) and featuring insights from Dr. Laurent Heisten (Moyse & Associates Law Firm, Luxembourg), Alexandra Thépaut (Étude Calvo & Associés, Luxembourg) and Lionel Decotte (SAS Huissiers Réunis, France). The second panel will examine future developments and reforms, moderated by Dr. Nicholas Mouttotos (University of Bremen), with contributions from Prof. Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg) Dr. Carlos Santaló Goris (University of Luxembourg) and Dr. Nicolas Kyriakides (University of Nicosia).

The event will take place on December 3rd, 2024 at Room A401, University of Luxembourg – Weicker Building, from 11:00 to 13:15 CET.

See more details and registration.

On Tuesday, December 3, 2024, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 2:45 p.m. – 4:15 p.m. (CET). Professor Stéphanie Francq (UCLouvain) will speak, in English, about the topic

“Overriding Mandatory Rules in Family Matters and Personal Status, Are Belgians the Only Ones?”

 

Are we really witnessing the occurrence of overriding mandatory rules in family matters and personal status? A new phenomenon seems indeed to surface in this area with examples of substantive rules or values, announced by the lawmaker, together with a clear intention to apply in identified international situations. Belgian law offers a series of examples. But are Belgian the only ones using this method? German law has also offered a better known and rather unfortunate illustration with the Act to prevent child marriage. These rules, their upsides and downsides, deserve close consideration. First and obviously for technical reasons: are we indeed facing overriding mandatory rules, similar to those concerning business transactions? Or is this some new form of public policy exception? Are these rules carefully designed legal objects or rather clumsy attempts to secure the application of the lex fori? Beyond the technicalities, the presentation will tend to investigate potential reasons behind this new phenomenon.

It turns out that these rules might have something to tell us about the current state of conflict of laws, its politics and its theories, and its need to look beyond its own borders.

 

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

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

This post is authored by Antonio Leandro, Professor of Public and Private International Law at the University of Bari. On 14 November 2024, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the Oilchart case (C-394/22 Oilchart International NV v O.W. Bunker (Netherlands) BV, ING Bank NV), which deals with the ‘insolvency exception’ provided in Article […]

On 3 December 2024, at 6 pm UK time, Geert Van Calster (KU Leuven) will give a talk on Muscles from Brussels at the Faculty of Laws, University College London. The event will be delivered in a hybrid format and the readers of the blog are welcome to join either in person or on line. […]

In Jaffe & Anor Greybull Capital LLP & Ors [2024] EWHC 2534 (Comm) one of the issues was the applicable law for misrepresentation about the source of funds being injected into a company. Cockerill J, applying Article 4 Rome II and referring to earlier judgments all reviewed on the blog, in the end [300] holds for German law:

In terms of direct damage, damage occurred when those misrepresentations took effect in the minds of those attending the meeting in Germany and were subsequently relied upon. The alleged key decisions were said to have been taken at the November meeting of Wirecard’s Management Board; and this seems to have taken place in Germany. The direct links to Germany are simply much stronger than any links to this jurisdiction.

This echoes Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v Shetty’s ‘in the case of a misrepresentation or fraud, the locus damni is held to be the place where that misrepresentation is acted upon’ (not a direct quote, rather my summary at the time). I believe this is the right conclusion. It is a stronger justification than [299]’s inclusion of the place where the loss is ultimately held, for instance:

Overall – and despite the clear and careful arguments advanced for the Claimants, I conclude that the preferable analysis is that the applicable law is German Law. There are many immediate factors linking the case to Germany both in terms of direction, causation and ultimate feeling of the loss. By contrast Wirecard is forced to rely on the effects of Side Letter 7. But Side Letter 7 did not immediately cause Wirecard damage and would not inevitably do so. It took a further contingency (administration) and the application of the relevant rules to manifest the chargebacks. The links to England are too derivative (described by the Claimants in closing as manifesting at “the fourth and fifth stages” of the analysis) and too poorly evidenced.

Geert.

https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1844671980462575965

 

‘Digital Assets in Scots Private Law: Innovating for the Future‘ is a research project led by the University of Aberdeen with collaborators from the University of Edinburgh, University of Dundee (formerly from Edinburgh Napier University) and international law firm CMS. The third workshop of the project examined the Intra-UK and International Dimensions of Digital Assets […]

The Lindemann Fellowship, generously funded by the Lindemann Foundation, is a newly established initiative aimed at supporting promising academics in the field of private international law. The Fellowship’s primary goal is to provide early-career researchers with the opportunity to build a network with academics from all over Europe. Fellows will, in principle, be accepted for […]

I reported on the jurisdictional issues in the Brasilian orange juice cartel before. In Viegas & Ors v Estate of Jose Luis Cutrale & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 1122 the Court of Appeal has now held on a claim amendment issue viz the continuing claim against some of the defendants (the claim against others having failed the jurisdictional test).

The issue of interest to the blog is first of all the situs of ‘choses in action’, that is, per P. Torreman’s Cheshire, North and Fawcett ‘the right of proceeding to obtain a sum of money or to claim damages’ or an enforcement right vis-a-vis an object (French: ‘une chose’ hence the odd use of ‘choses in action’ in the common law). That situs is fairly easily located if the enforcement relates to a physical object. Things are slightly more complicated when the object is immaterial, such as shares, or financial interests such as investments— which also incidentally explains why the issue often comes up in investment arbitration (the locus of the investment there, determining the applicability or not of a specific BIT or MIT).

In the case at issue, parties agreed on the situs: [77]

“It was common ground before us that the claims which the claimants are seeking to pursue are to be regarded as situate in this jurisdiction. In this connection, the defendants submitted that choses in action such as the claims “generally are situate in the country where they are properly recoverable or can be enforced” (see Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws, 16th ed., at rule 136) and that the bringing of a claim in a particular jurisdiction reduces it into possession in that jurisdiction. The defendants relied in this respect on Trendtex Trading Corporation v Credit Suisse [1980] QB 629 (affirmed: [1982] AC 679), where Lord Denning MR said at 652:

“The right of action of Trendtex against C.B.N. was a chose in action. It was reduced into the possession of Trendtex by the issue of the writ in the High Court in England. It was situate in England.”

In the course of his oral submissions, [counsel for claimant] confirmed that he accepted that the claims which the claimants are seeking to advance in these proceedings are to be considered to be situate (sic) here.”

Further of interest to the blog is the standing of those claimants which are heirs of the original victims and the relevance of characterisation for same. 639 of the claimants listed across the claim forms bring claims as heirs on the basis that they are entitled to do so under Brazilian law. Some of these are expressly stated in the claim forms to be representing the estates of deceased persons, but in many other instances the claim forms simply give the claimants’ names. Three claimants were granted letters of administration in England and Wales on 11 July 2023, but that long post-dated the issue of the claim forms. None of the relevant claimants had obtained a grant of representation in England and Wales when the claims were instituted.

The first instance judge had concluded that the heirs could not pursue their claims in this jurisdiction in the absence of grants of representation here. “Insofar as the claim is brought before the distribution of assets to the beneficiaries”, she said [198], “this stage is the administration of the estate and an English grant is required in order for the heirs to bring the claim and collect the assets on behalf of those entitled to the assets of the estate”. Claimants challenge the Judge’s conclusions. 

This issue is where characterisation comes in: assigning the situation to a specific legal category so as to apply the relevant connecting factor and consequently the correct jurisdictional and applicable law consequences. Characterisation is done by the lex fori (except of courts where it is harmonised, such as, not always successfully, in EU law or the Hague instruments). Reference is made in the judgment to professor Briggs’ ‘pigeon holing’ analogy: [82]

the available categories are those created by the common law rules of private international law; and the placing within one or more of them is done according by reference to the same rules – for those who find analogies helpful, English law designs the pigeonholes, and an English sorter decides which facts belong in which pigeonhole.

Claimants essentially argue that  what matters for the purpose of characterisation is that the heirs’ claims are not brought as representatives of the estate, but as personal claims of the heirs in respect of the deceased person’s losses. The mere fact that the claim is being pursued in England should not be treated as giving rise to an estate in England so that the pursuit of the claim would have to be treated as being the administration of the estate – which would have required an English grant of representation.

This led on appeal [90] ff to consideration of classic civil law v common law distinctions on the passing of an estate, the need for probate in England etc.

[118]

for the purposes of characterisation, the law of England and Wales distinguishes between, on the one hand, the administration of an estate and, on the other, succession. It is clear, too, that under the law of England and Wales “succession to the movables of an intestate is governed by the law of his or her domicile at the time of his or her death”. If, therefore, the relevant issue is one of succession, Brazilian law must be applicable. The deceased persons from whom the heirs claim to have inherited causes of action were domiciled in Brazil, the causes of action represent “movables” and [counsel for claimants] confirmed that the deceased persons did not make wills extending to those causes of action.

Newey LJ [120]:

In broad terms, it seems to me that, under the law of England and Wales, matters relating to the collection of a deceased person’s assets and the payment of debts are considered to relate to the “administration of estates” and the distribution of assets after that is considered to relate to “succession”.

and [123-124]

If, as I consider to be the case, the collection of a deceased person’s assets and the payment of debts must be distinguished from the distribution of assets after that, the question whether the heirs have title to sue must, I think, fall to be treated as one relating to the administration of the deceased persons’ estates rather than one of succession. While a person’s assets are immediately and automatically transmitted to his heirs under Brazilian law and, on the Judge’s findings, an heir can bring proceedings relating to the estate, an heir does not acquire an “individualised interest” until “sharing”. Up to that point, any claim that an heir makes is “in defence of the common patrimony”, “the common heritage” and “the whole inheritance” …. Heirs can doubtless be expected to bring proceedings in their own interests, but “the proceeds awarded to the heir in the legal proceedings will not be considered, automatically, as personal patrimony of that heir” (in [expert’s] words). A particular heir may find that the fruits of a claim pass to one or more other heirs or are used to discharge debts. It is only when the “sharing” is carried out that an heir obtains an “individualised” absolute interest in an asset which had belonged to the deceased person. It is only then, too, that in the eyes of English law there is “succession” rather than the “administration of estates”.

In the present case, there is no suggestion that any relevant cause of action of a deceased person has been the subject of a “sharing”. As matters stand, therefore, the heirs are, for the purposes of characterisation, to be viewed as seeking to administer the estates of the deceased persons, not as having succeeded to any causes of action of the deceased persons. It follows that Brazilian law is not applicable and that the heirs cannot advance the claims in this jurisdiction without obtaining letters of administration here.

The appeal therefore fails, also nota bene on the question of whether the heirs should be given extension of time to obtain the required letters of administration.

I am not sure I agree. A cause of action of a deceased person, passed on to the heirs, is an asset, whether or not can successfully be acted upon. But I don’t suppose I had the benefit or all the expert evidence etc. Whatever the outcome, the case is an interesting example of the relevance of characterisation.

Geert.

https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1844653916232774051

This post was contributed by Fabien Marchadier, who is a professor of private international law at the University of Poitiers. On 4 October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgment in Case C-633/22 Real Madrid Club de Fútbol v. Société éditrice Le Monde. The judgment explores the relationship between the public policy […]

I signaled the preliminary reference and background here and Kokott AG Opined end of September in C‑393/23 Athenian Brewery SA, Heineken NV v Macedonian Thrace Brewery SA.

Can a person damaged by an infringement of the competition rules sue the company which committed that infringement at the seat of its parent company in another Member State?

The case clearly has echoes of the economic unit theory in EU competition law see eg ENI. On the other hand the CJEU in a MOL v Mercedes Benz, in a judgment issued before the Opinion, did not resort to the economic unit theory in the inverse sense, holding that a mother corporation cannot simply claim its registered office as locus damni in Article 7(2) Brussels Ia jurisdiction when one of its subsidiaries suffered damage resulting from a breach of competition law. (The AG in Athenian Brewery only refers to the Opinion of Emiliou AG in MOL).

(37) ff the AG points to Article 8(1)’s condition of joinders being possible of there is a risk of irreconcilable judgments arising from diverging judgments on the same situation of law and fact, existing in all likelihood where mother and daughter have both been found to have infringed competition law. However less clear (41) is

whether a close connection within the meaning of Article 8(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation may be present even if the joint liability of the parent company and the subsidiary for the infringement has not yet been established. This may arise in particular in the case of stand-alone actions, which, unlike follow-on actions, cannot be based on a (binding) decision of a competition authority, be this the Commission (Article 16(1) of Regulation No 1/2003) or a national authority (Article 9 of Directive 2014/104).

(43) ff

“the fact in support of the presumption of control that the parent company holds (almost) all of the capital in the subsidiary is such a strong indication of the existence of a close connection between the actions directed against the parent company and the subsidiary for the purposes of Article 8(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation that no further evidence of the existence of that close connection is usually required (see in this regard section a). That interpretation does not infringe the requirement as to the foreseeability of the court having international jurisdiction… What is more, it ensures the practical effectiveness of Article 8(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation without leaving open the possibility of the applicant’s being accused of abusive behaviour…”

The AG explains all these elements in turn and I agree with her analysis.  (60) for instance she supports the ‘good forum shopping’ implications of the anchor defendant mechanism:

 It is not a circumvention of the rule of jurisdiction for the injured party to sue the Greek subsidiary too in the place where the Netherlands parent company is domiciled and thereby to remove the former from the jurisdiction of the Greek courts. If, after all, the defendants are domiciled in different Member States, Article 8(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation allows the applicant to select the place before the courts of which it brings its claim. That freedom of choice includes the possibility for the applicant to bring the dispute only before the court that best suits its interests.

I do wish the CJEU would also recognise the alternative: the misuse of forum shopping using A7(2)’s forum delicti rule, by corporations committing infringement of competition law, as I discuss ia here.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 2.516.