Flux des sites DIP

The latest issue of the IPRax (Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts) has been published. The following abstracts have been kindly provided by the editor of the journal. S. Deuring, Gender and International Private Law – Comments on the New Article 7a of the German Introductory Act to the Civil Code Although the attribution of […]

This post has been written by Ekaterina Aristova, Leverhulme Trust Early Career Fellow, Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford. It is the sixth and final post in the EAPIL blog on-line symposium on Ekaterina Aristova, Tort Litigation against Transnational Corporations: The Challenge of Jurisdiction in English Courts (OUP 2024). The […]

This post has been written by Dalia Palombo, Assistant Professor of Human Rights Law, Department of Public Law and Governance, Tilburg University. It is the fifth post in the EAPIL blog on-line symposium on Ekaterina Aristova, Tort Litigation against Transnational Corporations: The Challenge of Jurisdiction in English Courts (OUP 2024). The others contributions, by Ekaterina Aristova, […]

This post has been written by Mukarrum Ahmed, Lecturer in Business Law, Lancaster University. It is the fourth post in the EAPIL blog on-line symposium on Ekaterina AristovaTort Litigation against Transnational Corporations: The Challenge of Jurisdiction in English Courts (OUP 2024). The others contributions, by Ekaterina Aristova, Peter Muchlinski and Geert Van Calster, can be […]

This post has been written by Geert Van Calster, Professor of Private International Law, KU Leuven and member of the Belgian Bar. It is the third post in the EAPIL blog online symposium on Ekaterina Aristova, Tort Litigation against Transnational Corporations: The Challenge of Jurisdiction in English Courts (OUP 2024). The others contributions, by Ekaterina Aristova […]

The inaugural conference of the Australasian Association of Private International Law will be held from Wednesday 16 to Thursday 17 April at the Ship Inn conference centre, Southbank, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, sponsored by Griffith Law School.

We are pleased to invite the submission of paper proposals for the conference, on any aspect of private international law, broadly understood.  This includes issues of jurisdiction, choice of law, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (including how they relate to cross-border issues within a federation), and all areas of private law that raise cross-border and transnational issues.

Paper proposals should be made on this form by Wednesday 29 January 2025. We also welcome panel proposals; please email aapril2025conference@gmail.com if you have a proposal for a panel. Proposed presenters on any panel will be required to submit paper proposals.

We welcome anyone interested in private international law, including from the judiciary, legal practice, government, and the academy, from any jurisdiction.  Attendees, including presenters, will be required to pay a registration fee. A conference dinner will be held on the evening of Wednesday 16 April, at an additional cost.

This post has been written by Peter Muchlinski, Emeritus Professor of International Commercial Law, The School of Law, Gender and Media, SOAS, University of London. It is the second post in the EAPIL online symposium on Ekaterina Aristova, Tort Litigation against Transnational Corporations: The Challenge of Jurisdiction in English Courts (OUP 2024). Dr Ekaterina Aristova’s […]

This post has been written by Ekaterina Aristova, Leverhulme Trust Early Career Fellow, Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford. It is the first post in the EAPIL Blog Symposium on Ekaterina Aristova, Tort Litigation against Transnational Corporations: The Challenge of Jurisdiction in English Courts (OUP 2024). I am delighted that […]

On Thursday 5 December 2024, a group of private international lawyers gathered in Melbourne and online for the launch of the Australasian Association of Private International Law (AAPrIL).

AAPrIL was founded in 2024 by lawyers and academics in Australia and New Zealand who are engaged in private international law. AAPrIL’s aim is to bring together people committed to furthering understanding of private international law in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific region.

The launch was held at the offices of Corrs Chambers Westgarth in Melbourne. After networking and drinks, the formalities were opened by Cara North, Corrs Special Counsel and AAPrIL Treasurer, who would be known to many following the blog for her work on the HCCH Judgments Project. Cara introduced Jack Wass, New Zealand barrister and AAPRIL’s New Zealand Vice-President, who is co-author of The Conflict of Laws in New Zealand and who was Master of Ceremonies.

The event featured addresses from two of the most influential lawyers in private international law issues from either side of the Tasman Sea.

The Honourable Dr Andrew Bell, Chief Justice of New South Wales, gave a comprehensive pre-recorded address, speaking to the importance of the discipline and the growing number of judgments dealing with cross-border issues in Australia. His Honour has been deeply engaged in private international law for decades; he his author of Forum Shopping and Venue in Transnational Litigation and a co-author of Nygh’s Conflict of Laws in Australia, and acted as counsel in many of Australia’s most significant private international law cases until his appointment to the New South Wales Supreme Court.  Chief Justice Bell is the inaugural Patron of AAPrIL.

The Honourable David Goddard, Judge of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, then delivered a live online address that also spoke to the importance of the discipline. His Honour advocated for the continued modernisation of domestic laws to harmonise approaches to private international law problems between legal systems, encouraging governments to adopt instruments of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH).  Justice Goddard is perfectly placed to speak to the subject: he was the Chair of the Diplomatic Session of the HCCH that adopted the 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention, Vice-President of the Diplomatic Session that adopted the 2005 Choice of Court Convention, and a member of the drafting committee for that Convention.

A highlight of the launch was the speech of Professor Mary Keyes of Griffith University in Brisbane, who is Inaugural President of AAPrIL. She has kindly shared the text of her remarks:

Speech by Professor Mary Keyes, AAPrIL President, at the Launch of the Association

Good evening, distinguished guests, friends and colleagues here with us tonight, as well as those joining us online.  I acknowledge the traditional custodians of these beautiful lands, to pay my respects to elders, past and present, and to first nations friends and colleagues.

On behalf of the Australasian Association of Private International Law, I would like to extend a very warm welcome to this important occasion at which we will formally launch the association. On behalf of the executive and the membership, thanks to Corrs Chambers Westgarth for generously hosting us this evening. Particular thanks are due to the wonderful Cara North, who is also the inaugural treasurer of our association, for making the arrangements for this evening, and to the team at Corrs.

I also acknowledge the other members of the AAPrIL executive, all of whom I am delighted to say are here in person. Our New Zealand Vice President, Jack Wass, from Wellington, has already introduced himself to you. I would also like to introduce our Australian Vice President, Dr Michael Douglas, from Western Australia, our secretary, Professor Reid Mortensen, my fellow Queenslander, and Associate Professor Maria Hook, from New Zealand and Professor Richard Garnett, a local from Melbourne, who also serve on our executive. They have each devoted a considerable amount of their time, energy and expertise to the association and I am deeply grateful to each of them.

I would like especially to thank Reid, for his initiative and drive which were instrumental in establishing AAPrIL in July this year. This is truly indicative of his dedication to the advancement of private international law in Australia and the region.

The members of the executive came together to discuss forming the association this year because of our mutual love of private international law. We also shared a conviction that there was a need, in this region, for an organisation with its sole focus on the advancement of our field.

Private international law only grows in importance with every passing year. It is interesting to reflect on the incredible changes over the last 40 years which have transformed this field in New Zealand and Australia.  That transformation is evident in the significant increase in the number of cases coming before our courts and the range of issues which arise in those cases. Long gone are the days when lawyers, courts and academics were obliged to rely heavily and sometimes exclusively on foreign authorities because of a lack of local cases, legislation and commentaries addressing particular issues in cross-border litigation.

Those of you who have already read our constitution – which is available on our website – will know that the objectives of the association include:

1. The promotion of knowledge of and interest in private international law within the region
2. The provision of a forum for sharing information and views about private international law
3. The promotion and support of lectures, seminars, colloquia and conferences in our field, and
4. Contributing to the development of private international law.

Australasia has a proud tradition of contributing to the development of private international law both practically and academically. The membership of our association includes many of the current leaders in private international law from our region, from the judiciary, the profession, and the academy.

I am very pleased to report that the association currently has more than 70 members from New Zealand, Australia, and much further afield, including from Greece, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Singapore, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. This is a clear indication of the breadth of interest in private international law in this region. I encourage you, if you have not already done so, to consider joining the association. There are at least three excellent reasons to do so. First, be honest, can you really say that you are involved in many other organisations with members drawn from such a diverse range of countries? Second, if that isn’t a sufficient inducement, then until July 2025, membership in the association is free. Third, what could be more fun than getting together with such an enthusiastic and fun group of private international law nerds?

Shortly, you will hear from two of our most eminent members, our patron, Chief Justice Andrew Bell of the New South Wales Supreme Court, and Justice David Goddard of the New Zealand Court of Appeal. Neither of them is able to join in person this evening but if there is one thing we have learned from the unfortunate experience of Covid 19, it is that technology is a great enabler of getting together even when circumstances prevent our doing so in person. The use of technology is critical for an organisation that has such a broad geographical reach.

Having said that, this launch is our first at least partly in person event. It is wonderful to see friends and colleagues here tonight and we look forward to many more such occasions. Since the association was established in July, we have held two online seminars, and we are working on our seminar program for 2025. We have also begun planning for our inaugural conference, which we hope will be an annual event. The call for papers will be made shortly. Our conference will be held in Brisbane in April 2025. We very much hope that we will see some of you there.

The executive is always keen to hear from current and potential members generally and specifically in terms of suggestions for events and activities. Please feel free to contact us at any time. We look forward to seeing you at our events and working with you as members of our association.

In addition to our other activities, our New Zealand Vice President has secured funding to support the development of an online Trans-Tasman Civil Proceedings Handbook, which will be available online and open access, through our website.

In conclusion, on behalf of the executive, thank you for your interest in and support of the association, and for your attendance this evening.

By Zixuan Yang, a PhD student at Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg, Germany.

The Conference on Private International Law and Sustainability Development in Asia was successfully held at Wuhan University School of Law on 23rd November 2024. This international symposium was organized by Wuhan University Academy of International Law and Global Governance, Wuhan University School of Law and China Society of Private International Law. Following a Call for Papers of the Chinese Journal of Transnational Law (CJTL), the symposium provided an ideal platform for participants to critically and constructively engage with the functions, methodologies and techniques of private international law in relation to sustainable development from the Asian perspective. Distinguished legal experts and scholars from Japan, India, Vietnam, Singapore, Hong Kong SAR, Macao SAR, Taiwan, Mainland China, Germany and the Netherlands delivered presentations and participated in discussions on-site and online.

After Professor Zheng Tang opened the conference, vice President of the China Law Society, President of the China Society of International Law and President of the China Society of Private International Law, offered a welcome. This was followed by a joint keynote speech from Professor Ralf Michaels (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg), Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (University of Edinburgh), and Hans van Loon (former Secretary-General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law) on Private International Law and SDGs 2030. Together with Zheng Tang, they will serve as special editors of an issue in CJTL that brings the papers together.

The Conference itself was divided into five panels.

The first panel on Family/Equality was chaired by Ralf Michaels. Prof. Rong-Chwan Chen (National Taipei University) elaborated on Taiwan’s Path toward gender equality in private international law in the light of the recognizability of three judgements involving same sex marriage in Taiwan, including the role of ordre public, renvoi and local household registration. Stellina Jolly and Prakriti Malla (South Asian University) raised several key questions regarding the incorporation of gender considerations into the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in view of international child abduction jurisprudence in India and Nepal.

The second panel on Migration was chaired by Hans van Loon. In light of the phenomena of intra-regional temporary migration in Asia, Prof. Yuko Nishitani (Kyoto University) addressed different methods of recognition to guarantee the continuity, stability and certainty of migrants’ name and family status.  Zixuan Yang (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law) clarified the conceptual contexts of legal identity in Asian jurisdictions and discussed specific issues of  cross-border recognition of personal status in the Greater Bay Area.

Professor Ignacio de la Rasilla (Wuhan University) chaired the third panel on the Role of the State. Dr Ke Mu (Ocean University of China) analyzed the role of state-owned enterprise in international commercial and investment activities and raised the question whether the commitment to sustainability could be equivalent to the sovereign function. Mr Zihao Fan (Peking University) explored the roles of cities in transnational access to justice and the sustainable value through the systematic design of mainland China’s foreign-related jurisdictional regime as well as its special jurisdictional rules on cities’ level. Finally, Mr Jiabao Zhou (University of Amsterdam) suggested a potential role of private international law in the implementation of China’s foreign policy under China’s Foreign Relations Law, which arguably involves sustainable development as an essential value.

The fourth panel, chaired by Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, focused on Environment/Climate Change. Profs. Adeline Chong and Stefanie Schacherer (Singapore Management University) gave a comprehensive and systematic analyses of the private international law issues in the regional legal framework for governance of the cross-border haze pollution in Southeast Asia. Profs. Nguy?n Th? H?ng Trinh (Hue University) and Bùi Th? Qu?nh Trang (Thuongmai University) explored the current situation and future prospects of climate change litigation from the perspective of Vietnamese law. Prof. Anselmo Reyes (International Judge at the Singapore International Commercial Court) gave a report entitled The Impartial Judge, Climate Change and the Conflict of Laws, with a focus on the question of how judges could get prepared in the face of increasing climate change litigations.

The last panel on The International Framework was chaired by Zheng Tang (Wuhan University). Dr Gérardine Goh Escolar (HCCH), in a prerecorded presentation, highlighted the efforts of the Hague Conference on Private International Law to provide legal certainty for stakeholders in the digital global economy and the global circular economy, and stressed the need to establish a sound procedural and substantive legal framework and international cooperation. Dr Ning Zhao (HCCH) emphasised the importance of Hague Conventions in simplifying administrative procedures and stressed the role of information technology in improving efficiency and reducing formalities in the cross-border transactions; her presentation was also prerecorded. Finally (and in person), (Wuhan University) gave a report entitled Regulating Global Anti-Competitive Conduct and the Role of Private International Law: Lessons from China. He pointed out the practical challenges of private enforcement of competition law in China and argued for enhanced efforts in both institution and capacity building.

Zheng Tang brought the event to a successful conclusion. As the Editor-in-Chief of the Chinese Journal of Transnational Law, she expressed her hope for more cooperation and exchanges between the journal and the conference participants in the future. The conference was followed by a lovely tour of the beautiful campus at Wuhan University.

(Photo by Wentao XU)

 

 

 

 

On 25 April 2024, Oxford University Press published an important book in its Private International Law series: Ekaterina Aristova, Tort Litigation against Transnational Corporations: The Challenge of Jurisdiction in English Courts (OUP 2024). The blurb reads: There is an emerging trend of private claims being brought against parent companies of transnational corporations for their alleged […]

In Nanox Imaging PLC v David Schick 2024/GSC/043, Happold J at the Gibraltar Supreme Court dealt with applications for anti-suit, forum non conveniens and case management stays.

Claimant ‘Nanox Gibraltar’ is a Gibraltar registered company which until September 2019 carried on business in the field of medical imaging technology. Defendant is an electrical engineer and a US national resident in California. A Consultancy Agreement between them contains two jurisdiction clauses. The first, Clause 6.5 provides that:

“Both parties agree that any action, demand, claim or counterclaim  relating to this Agreement, or to its breach, shall be commenced in the state of Gibraltar in a court of competent jurisdiction. This Agreement and the validity, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of Gibraltar without giving effect to conflict of law principles” The second, in Clause 8 of Appendix B, is in different terms. It provides that: “This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Gibraltar without giving effect to the rules respecting conflict of law, and the competent courts of Gibraltar shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute between the parties.” Parties disagree as to the relevance of Clause 8 for the interpretation of Clause 6.  On 28 October 2021, Mr Schick brought proceedings before the US District Court for the Central District of California against current claimant, and Nano XImaging Inc. (‘Nanox Israel’), as well as Mr Ran Poliakine (the main beneficiary of the Nano Imaging vehicles) and eleven other defendants. Nanox Israel is a company registered in Israel to whom Nanox Gibraltar sold its assets in 2019, including its intellectual property rights. In July 2020, Nanox Israel IPOed on Nasdaq. Mr Shick argues he is entitled to outstanding fees for consultancy

services under the Consultancy Agreement as well as to a One Time Bonus. The Californian proceedings were dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. Israeli proceedings are still ongoing with there, too, contestation of jurisdiction. In order to hold in the fate of the Gibraltar proceedings, the first question is whether Clause 6.5 is an exclusive jurisdiction clause. Defendant argues Clause 6.5 is permissive, not mandatory, because it does not expressly refer to “irrevocable” submission to the Gibraltar courts, to those courts having “sole” or “exclusive” jurisdiction, or expressly prohibits proceedings being brought elsewhere; and because the term “shall” is not the language of obligation (that argument summarily dismissed if only on its ordinary meaning; as it should). In addition, Defendant says that Clause 8 of Appendix B is irrelevant to the interpretation of Clause 6. Happold J [15] disagrees and in my opinion he is right. I do think his succinct discussion [17] of Brussels Ia (! which continues to apply by virtue of the European Union Gibraltar Act 2019) could have come before his discussion of the language of the choice of court clause outside the Brussels Ia context. Per A25 BIa, all choice of court clauses are exclusive lest agreed otherwise. Therefore the engagement with the wording of the clause should not focus on whether there is language that indicates its exclusivity; rather, whether there is clear language that suggests it is not exclusive. A further most relevant point of discussion [19] ff is then whether despite Brussels Ia, a forum non conveniens stay might be possible in Gibraltar, despite s33 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1993. s33. This reads in relevant part Nothing in this Act shall prevent any court in Gibraltar from staying, striking out or dismissing any proceedings before it on the ground of forum non conveniens or otherwise, where to do so is not inconsistent with the 1968 Convention or, as the case may be, the Lugano Convention or the 2005 Hague Convention. The suggestion is that with Brussels Ia not mentioned in that list, it does not stand in the way of a forum non stay. Happold J justifiably as a matter of both statutory construction and the nature of BI and BIa as a directly applicable Regulation, holds [22] that a forum non stay is not possible, neither [23] is a case management stay see ‘otherwise’ in s33, above. In the discussion of anti-suit one would have expected discussion of CJEU Turner (less so: Starlight Shipping (The Alexandros T for that judgment was issued post Brexit). Instead, anti-suit is granted on common law principles despite Brussels Ia still applying. Am I missing something here?: does Gibraltar’s continued use of Brussels Ia exclude any and all CJEU case-law? An interesting case! Geert.

Dexia v Patrimonio del Trentino [2024] EWHC 2717 (KB) echoes Banca Intesa v Venezia  in some of its main issues. It features capacity of foreign corporations to enter into legal transaction, relevance of lex incorporationis, validity of choice of court clause, and the impact of Brexit, with the judge prima facie accepting resurrection of the 1964 bilateral UK-Italy convention. 

Dexia submits that ongoing Italian Proceedings were brought in breach of the English jurisdiction clause in the ISDA Master Agreement between Dexia and Trentino (itself governed by English law), and which Dexia also submits is, on its true construction, an exclusive English jurisdiction clause. There is an extant challenge by Dexia to the jurisdiction of the Italian court in the Italian Proceedings which is due to be heard in January 2025.

By its claim in the English Proceedings, Dexia is seeking declaratory relief in respect of an interest rate swap transaction (the “Transaction”) pursuant to an ISDA Master Agreement dated 7 October 2010 between Dexia and Trentino.

Trentino argue the jurisdiction clause is not valid. It originally sought to do so on two grounds (each relying on Italian law arguments): (1) It argued that the Jurisdiction Clause is void due to an alleged lack of capacity on the part of Trentino to enter into speculative derivatives (the “Speculation Ground”); and 2) It argued that Article 4 of Law No. 218/1995 (Law 218), which applies following the Brexit transition period, prohibits agreements involving so-called “non-disposable rights” from ousting the jurisdiction of the Italian courts (the “Non-Disposable Rights Ground”).

The second ground was abandoned. That leaves the Speculation Ground. As a matter of English (and indeed many a) law, the capacity of a foreign corporation to enter into any legal transaction is governed by the law of the country of incorporation of the entity in question (in this case, Italian law).

[61] The judge holds Any lack of capacity to enter into a particular derivative transaction cannot, and does not, equate to a lack of capacity to enter into an ISDA Master Agreement (see also Vestia). The Master Agreement is not itself a derivative contract and any alleged prohibition in relation to derivatives would not apply to the Master Agreement.

[64] In an attempt to circumvent the difficulty that Trentino did have capacity to enter into the Master Agreement and that the Master Agreement (containing the Jurisdiction Clause) is valid, Trentino then submits that the “single agreement” provision in Clause 1(c) of the Master Agreement means the Master Agreement is not a separate and distinct agreement. [65] This is held clearly to be a bad point, not least in circumstances where the Master Agreement came into place separate from, and long before, any particular transactions. Bryan J agrees on this point with the sentiments expressed by Foxton J in Banca Intesa.

[72] ff the judge obiter discusses the speculation argument. [74] ff he holds the Italian rules on speculative derivatives do not apply to Trentino, both because it is a joint-stock company and because the Province is a Region, which has a greater level of autonomy in such matters than local authorities.

[87] ff it remains open to Trentino to make its Stay Application and submit that the English Proceedings should be stayed on the basis that Italy is the appropriate forum and/or that the Italian proceedings constitute a lis alibi pendens if, but only if, Trentino is right that the Jurisdiction Clause is not an exclusive English jurisdiction clause. Then follows a very lengthy discussion on the meaning of the clause in light of the Brussels (and Lugano) regime ([124] seeing as the clause dates from before Brexit) with the judge concluding the clause is exclusive.

They stay application is discussed obiter [135] ff. [152] Trentino submits that there are two factors which were unforeseeable at the time of concluding the Transaction, firstly the likelihood of parallel proceedings (given that that was impossible under the Brussels I Regulation save in respect of Article 31 protective proceedings), and secondly the risk that an English judgment that would be readily enforceable under the Brussels I Regulation might now be unenforceable in Italy.

Re the first argument, [153] the fact that the Brussels I Regulation lis pendens rules no longer apply to prevent the possibility of parallel proceedings does not make Italy a more appropriate forum than England or vice-versa. Re the second argument, [161] the judge follows Dexia’s expert’s view that Law no. 280/1973 applies following Brexit, which permits reciprocal enforcement of English judgments in Italy pursuant to the 1964 Bilateral Convention between Italy and the UK. The Bilateral Convention was given effect in English law as the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Italy) Order 1973, extending the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 to Italy.

On any view there is a good arguable case that Law no. 280/1973 applies given the views expressed by Professor Rimini and the matters he relies upon in that regard.

I am not so sure there is such a good arguable case, see eg X v Juno Holdings in The Netherlands.

A 168 para judgment on a jurisdiction challenge- yet again a lot of energy, time and money invested.

Geert.

https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1852327803825373543

There is a gale force wind out there and the girls and I are housebound: so I thought I’ld clear the blog queue a bit. It is generally not good practice to post poorly drafted choice of court provisions yet once in a while it helps illustrate what I often say in class: that even in sophisticated contracts, choice of court and -law provisions can be drafted extremely sloppily.

Tradin Organic Agriculture BV v Gold Grain [2024] EWHC 1562 (KB) is such an example. It is an application for set-aside of a default judgment (I will not focus here on the issue of jumbled papers in the service of the claim form).

On 31 October 2019 Tradin and Gold Grain entered into a five-year exclusive supplier agreement (“ESA”). Tradin made Gold Grain their exclusive supplier of certain products from certain areas. Tradin then entered into a series of loan agreements with Gold Grain, the first to finance the purchase of a processing facility (the Mersin facility) and then five pre-finance loan agreements (“the loan agreements”). The repayments for the loan agreements were made by way of the goods supplied with a backstop that all the sums would be payable within 12 months of the date of the agreement. The goods were supplied under a series of purchase agreements.

The ESA was governed by English law. There is no jurisdiction clause. The Mersin agreement was governed by Swiss law and was subject to an arbitration agreement. The purchase agreements contained a Dutch choice of law clause.

The loan agreements contained the following clauses:

“Governing law: Submission to Jurisdiction

(a) This loan agreement and the obligations of the Borrower [Gold Grain] shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the governing jurisdiction of law in English law with the exclusion of the Vienna Sales Convention…

(b) The Borrower also agrees not to bring any action or other proceeding with respect to this loan agreement or with respect to any of its obligations in any other court unless such courts determine that they do not have jurisdiction in the matter”

(Note the exclusion of the CISG just to be sure: English law does not include it anyways).

Application to set aside judgment in default is brought on three grounds: (i) service was defective because the particulars of claim were not verified by a statement of truth, (ii) Gold Grain has a real prospect of success in challenging the jurisdiction of the English court or alternatively, without prejudice to the jurisdictional challenge, that there is a real prospect of success in defending the quantum of the claim, and (iii) Tradin failed to satisfy the duty of full and frank disclosure in their application for default judgment.

Prima facie, first note the poor title of the clause. There is an amazing amount of contracts with ‘choice of court’ articles which merely contain choice of law, and vice versa, thereby giving the judge a window to hold on express, if implicit, choice of court or law. The second part is simply puzzling: Borrower may only bring claims to a court where such claim will be ineffective due to lack of jurisdiction?

Gold Grain’s position is primarily that they have a real prospect of arguing that the claim should be stayed either on forum non conveniens grounds or through case management powers due to the parallel proceedings in the Netherlands. [20]

In respect of the forum grounds, the argument is that the choice of law clause is choice of governing law not a choice of jurisdiction clause. Clause (b), set out at paragraph 8 above, is confusing and contains a double negative such that it is not possible to understand what the parties intended from the paragraph alone. Even if it does connote forum, it is not an exclusive clause. If it is not an exclusive jurisdiction clause, it is governed by common law. Whilst the English courts will give effect to an agreement to submit to their jurisdiction, the court has a discretion. It is submitted that in this case, the claim proceeding in the Netherlands is inextricably linked to these proceedings which, it is said, gives rise to risks of inconsistent judgments and England is not the proper forum as none of the parties have any connection to England. These arguments mean a forum non conveniens challenge has a real prosect of success or alternatively that the court should grant a stay under its case management powers.

[26] Master Sullivan holds

On the substantive jurisdiction issues, there is no real prospect of success, the title before the relevant clauses in the loan agreements in issue is “Governing law: Submission to Jurisdiction”. It is clear this is a jurisdiction as well as a governing law clause. The drafting is infelicitous but the meaning is clear. It is an asymmetric exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of English courts.

That in my view is not at all convincing, Reminder, the clause reads

“Governing law: Submission to Jurisdiction

(a) This loan agreement and the obligations of the Borrower [Gold Grain] shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the governing jurisdiction of law in English law with the exclusion of the Vienna Sales Convention…

(b) The Borrower also agrees not to bring any action or other proceeding with respect to this loan agreement or with respect to any of its obligations in any other court unless such courts determine that they do not have jurisdiction in the matter”

The title of the clause is not that relevant and judges must look beyond it. Yet a) surely can only be read as choice of law in favour of English law; and for b) to be read as asymmetric choice of court, it would have to indicate which choice of court the lender is bound to; and it is difficult to overlook the incomprehensible double negative.

All in all this is one of these cases where parties’ fumbling in drafting cannot be rescued by a judge reconstructing what they might have meant. Despite the Etihad v Flóhter instruction that he approach to be adopted to construction is a “broad, purposive and commercially minded approach”, this clause in my view simply cannot be rescued.

Geert.

https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1806216674548588748

I reviewed Richard de la Tour’s Opinion in C-526/23 VariusSystems digital solutions GmbH v GR Inhaberin B & G here. The CJEU held at the end of November, essentially following it and being very brief in doing so. The operative part of the judgment reads

The second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters

must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘place of performance’ of a contract for the development and ongoing operation of software designed to meet the needs of a customer established in a Member State other than that in which the company that created, designed and programmed that software is established is the place where that customer accesses the software, that is to say, consults and uses it.

The Court [21] refers in particular to the European Commission’s submission that

With regard to a contract for the provision of software, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, it is necessary to find, in line with what has been set out by the European Commission in its written observations, that the design and programming of software do not constitute the obligation which characterises such a contract, since the service which is the subject of such a contract is not actually provided to the customer concerned until that software is operational. It is only from that moment, when the said software can be used and its quality can be inspected, that that service will actually be provided.

With respect, that is a nonsense. Is a banking service in the form of a loan (see CJEU Kareda) not provided until the money reaches my account and therefore becomes ‘operational’? Is my whisky merchant’s advice on single malt (see CJEU Maison du Whisky) not provided until I taste the malt with my own lips, hence ‘using the advice and inspecting it’?

This reference to use and inspection IMO is something the Court will come to regret: it is of very wide application and will undoubtedly upend the curt reference to BIa’s predictability [15]. The AG’s arguments were more focused and more convincing.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 2.425.

https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1862130498761310273

In Alame & Ors v Shell PLC & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 1500 Stuart-Smith LJ delivered the unanimous judgment on the appeal against a range of procedural issues which I have previously discussed here. Judgments appealed are [2024] EWHC 510 (KB) and [2023] EWHC 2961 (KB)

The Rome II evidence and procedure issue which I signaled in my earlier post does not feature in the appeal.

Essentially the issue in the case is the extent to which claimants in litigation viz diffuse, often legacy pollution, need to show a causal link between their damage and individual acts of pollution. The stricter that requirement, the stronger the polluter’s get out off jail free card.

The first instance judge had ordered a ‘global claims’ trial. Stuart-Smith LJ [17]:

the concept of “global claims” originates in decisions of the English and Scottish courts concerned with the proof of causation in contractual disputes relating to delay or disruption in the course of building projects. In broadest outline, it allows that causation may be established by showing that a loss is caused by multiple events, for all of which the Defendant is responsible, even if the loss attributable to individual events cannot be identified. … [I]t is inherent in the concept of “global claims” that causation will not be established on this basis if a material contribution to the claimant’s loss is made by an act or event for which the defendant is not responsible: it is in that sense an “all-or-nothing” approach to causation and liability.

As claimants’ solicitors, Leigh Day, put it

Under a Global Claim, the Bille and Ogale communities would have had to prove that Shell was responsible for 100% of the pollution that has impacted their environment. If there were any other sources of pollution for which Shell was not responsible, the claim would fail entirely.

In response to an earlier order, each individual claimant was to advance an SOI or Schedule of Information. [24] each SOI

i) Identifies all of the particular spills that the individual claimant relies upon, with such precision as they are presently able to achieve;

ii) Indicates that they rely upon the VPOCs (the Voluntary Particulars of claim in regard of Causation); or

iii) Identifies one or more spills or possible spills without limiting their claim to those spills and while also relying on the VPOCs.

“Claimants explain their inability to provide further particularisation of their case on causation as being not least because of (a) the difficulties imposed by the migration of oil, which renders the attribution of damage to particular spills “invariably not straightforward and in many instances impossible without specialist expert analysis and assistance”; and (b) the Claimants being “members of a rural Nigerian fishing community with limited resources, a lack of expertise, and the absence of a contemporaneous record of the dates, locations and volumes of all spills which have occurred in Bille.” ” [23] further detail is given on some elements of the particulars of claim (POC): 

“7. For the avoidance of doubt, the Claimants do not advance a “global claim”. The Claimants’ position is that the principles described in construction law cases … have no application to their claims because, inter alia:

a. As a matter of English law, the concept of a global claim is unique to contractual disputes in the context of construction law, and it has no application to common law tort claims concerning environmental damage;

b. The claims are governed by Nigerian law and to the Claimants’ knowledge the concept of a “global claim” has never been referred to in Nigerian case law; and

c. The Claimants do not, and have never purported to, rely upon the concept of a global claim.”

(Point b, nota bene, is where Rome II comes in).

[30] Mr Richard Hermer KC (now attorney-general) had argued that further particulars would be given once the necessary disclosure obtained and once expert evidence procured. [31] the first instance judge, while rejecting Shell’s application to strike out the claims,

“was satisfied that the Claimants’ cases were “not at present sufficiently underpinned by information which enables the court or the parties to link the event(s) to breach and breach to loss, even by inference.” Having expressed concern (at [39]) that the Claimants’ route to selecting cases would not reliably cover all the issues arising on an events-based claim she turned at [41] to the suggestion that the Claimants’ claims should proceed as “global claims”, tracing some of the relevant authorities as she did so. She concluded (at [42]) that there was no relevant distinction to be drawn between construction claims and environmental claims and that “on the present state of the pleadings and associated information” all bar 5 of the Claimants’ cases were “global claims.” “

The Court of Appeal had to hold on a variety of issues advanced by both claimants and defendants, all of them procedural in nature. Arguably the most eye-catching issue is the one on the global claim. [77] Claimants intend to assert and prove a link between their loss and damage and a specific event for which the Defendants are alleged to be responsible. However [78] they

openly acknowledge and assert that they cannot plead (let alone prove) such a case at the moment. That does not mean that they are pursuing a global claim. What it means is that the Claimants cannot progress this very substantial litigation on the basis of the information they have. They assert that there is reason to believe that there is further information in existence that is not at present available to them but which, if they had it and had the benefit of appropriately supportive expert evidence, would enable them to plead and prove a case adopting conventional principles of causation. It may be that they will never be in a position to do so, in which case this litigation will fail. It is easy to see that there are formidable logistical and evidential difficulties for the Claimants to overcome; but that is the route they have chosen.

[79] the Court of Appeal swiftly sets aside the first declaration by the first instance judge that “the Claimants’ claims are to be progressed on the basis that they are “global claims”, i.e. “all-or-nothing” claims.”  It does so on the basis of the continuously pleaded and written assertion by claimants that they are not advancing the claims as such a ‘global claim’. And, [75]

There is a short and direct route to the conclusion that this declaration must be set aside. No judge or court is entitled to require a party to establish their case by a particular method. A party should be permitted to formulate their claims as they wish, not forced into a straitjacket (or corner or cul-de-sac) of the judge’s or their opponent’s choosing. It will be for the trial judge to determine whether the party can establish their claim:

As a result the status of “global claims” in English law and whether such an approach could ever appropriately be applied to environmental claims such as those being brought by the Claimants, is not held on, “Still less would it be appropriate in this judgment to address the question whether such an approach could have validity under Nigerian law.”

[Note [98] Males LJ (who like Bean LJ, is in agreement with Stuart-Smith LJ), flagging the interesting causation issue that will follow at trial:

What the Claimants will need to prove in order to make good their claims must depend on the relevant principles of Nigerian law, including the applicable principles relating to causation. There was some debate before us as to the principles of causation which would apply under English law. We were referred, for example, to an interesting article by Professor Jane Stapleton suggesting that in a case where an indivisible loss is caused by multiple factors, an “extended but-for test” may now apply, so that a claimant need only prove that the factor for which the defendant is responsible made a contribution to the loss (Unnecessary and Insufficient Factual Causes, Journal of Tort Law (2023)). It is, as I understand it, the Claimants’ position that this is all they need to prove in the present case, but whether that position is sound as a matter of Nigerian law remains to be decided.]

The second declaration on which the appeal was allowed, was the first instance judge’s declaration that Claimants’ pleaded case precluded the case management of the litigation being organised by reference to the selection of lead claimants.

Here the Court of Appeal emphasises the inherent inequality of arms in the litigation, despite both parties having excellent counsel throughout: [81]:

Despite the Claimants having the benefit of legal representation of the highest calibre, there is a substantial inequality of arms in the litigation. Two particular aspects of that inequality can be mentioned specifically here. First, there is a major inequality in access to information. The evidence submitted by the Claimants suggests that the Defendants have considerable quantities of relevant information that are not available to the Claimants. The Defendants’ primary response is to shield behind the submission that the Claimants have not particularised their case properly. Ultimately all future case management decisions are for the High Court and not for this Court on these appeals. However, the evidence advanced by the Claimants can be relied on in these appeals as demonstrating significant inequality of arms in access to information. Second, the Claimants cannot fund the litigation out of their own resources and have to rely upon their lawyers being prepared to act on CFA terms. The inequality that flows from this is best illustrated by the £7 million that the Claimants have had to expend on the SOIs. It is a very substantial sum for the Claimants; but it would be relatively (I emphasise the word “relatively”) trifling for the Defendants as part of a global organisation such as Shell.

[82] Stuart-Smith LJ emphasises the importance of disclosure, and [83]

while the Court should always be alert to disallow applications that are nothing more than “fishing expeditions”, in a case such as the present where the case that the Claimants wish to bring has been clearly articulated in their pleadings and associated documents, the Court should scrutinise with care any suggestion that the Defendants do not know the nature of the case they have to meet for the purposes of disclosure because it has not yet been pleaded with sufficient particularity. In principle, at least, the Court’s approach to the Claimants’ assertion that they need further disclosure should be informed more by the explanations they have given about why they need the disclosure before pleading a case with full particularity than by the present state of their pleadings. This is not to cast doubt for a moment upon the equally important principle that, before this litigation or any part of it can be brought to trial, the Claimants will be required to plead their case with sufficient particularity so that the Defendants know what case they have to meet and have a fair opportunity to meet it. That stage has evidently not yet been reached.

and [84]

this is a paradigm example of a case which can only be progressed by reference to lead cases and that the co-operative selection of lead cases by the parties (with the intervention of the Court if required) is an essential step that is required to break the circularity of the present impasse. It is not necessary to refer expressly to the multiple examples of complex litigation with wide-ranging factual and legal issues in many disparate fields that have been successfully case-managed using lead cases as the vehicles for determining important issues. I echo and endorse what was said by the Court in Municipio de Mariana v BHP Group (UK) Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 951, [2022] 1 WLR 4691 at [139]:

“The courts have developed a wide range of case management tools in group litigation including, importantly, the selection of lead cases, the trial of preliminary issues and the adoption of a staged approach, either in parallel with other progress in the litigation or as a stand-alone procedure. These operate in what is now a digitalised environment which includes sophisticated e-disclosure, data sampling and algorithm mechanisms.”

Finally, Lord Justice Bean [102] emphasises the time issue:

I particularly wish to endorse the observations of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith that, in a case such as this where there is both a substantial inequality of arms and asymmetry of information between the parties, all case management decisions should be informed by the overriding objective, in particular by the court’s obligation to ensure so far as reasonably practicable that the parties are on an equal footing and can participate fully in the proceedings. I also agree that, because of the time taken up by the Defendants’ jurisdictional challenge and the distraction of the global claims issue, there is a compelling need for the litigation to be progressed promptly from now on.

A very important case which emphasises again how, when hopefully one can conclude in a few years time that English courts have been trailblazers in holding business to account for human rights, and environmental abuse, procedural judgments like these will have proven to be pivotal, as will the skill of the lawyers not losing sight of the ‘boring bits’ of such claims (civil procedure rules, claim financing, etc)

Geert.

 

https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1865056147461284280

On 5–6 December 2024, 18 private international lawyers from Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore came together at the University of Melbourne for the 2024 Asia-Pacific Colloquium of the Journal of Private International Law (JPIL).

The colloquium was the first since 2018, when it had been held in Japan. The 2024 event was expertly hosted by Professor Richard Garnett and Professor Ying Khai Liew of the University of Melbourne Law School, and held at University House at UniMelb’s Parkville campus.

The theme of the 2024 Colloquium was ‘Private International Law: Domestic Law or International Law?’. The organisers provided the following prompt to participants:

While private international law forms part of a country’s domestic legal system, it has also been influenced by international developments, such as foreign decisions, scholarly writings, conventions and other transnational instruments. Participants are encouraged to consider topics in private international law that address this theme: for example, some areas have remained wholly domestic in nature while others reveal clear evidence of cross- border harmonisation. Is ‘internationalisation’ of private international law always achievable or desirable?

In the tradition of the JPIL’s colloquia, each participant provided a draft paper which was circulated before the event. Participants took varying approaches to presenting their work: some provided a high-level summary of their paper; others focused on particular issues in their work, or unresolved questions. Each session allowed for plenty of time for discussion. The tone of the discussion was overwhelmingly positive: participants provided one another with constructive criticism and encouragement in a collegial manner.

The event was broken up by events on Thursday night: the launch of the Australasian Association of Private International Law at Corrs Chambers Westgarth (write-up to follow), then a delicious dinner at a very trendy Melbourne restaurant. (Well chosen, Richard and Ying.) A great time was had by all.

The event demonstrated the great value of bringing the private international law community together in person: an opportunity to enhance our writing, our understanding of the discipline, and our circle of friends. It got me excited for the 2025 JPIL conference in London. I hope my fellow southerners join us in the UK at UCL.

 

The 2024 Colloquium was attended by:

Associate Professor Ardavan Arzandeh, National University of Singapore

Dr Michael Douglas, Bennett – Litigation and Commercial Law

Professor Richard Garnett, University of Melbourne

Professor Ying Khai Liew, University of Melbourne

Associate Professor Maria Hook, University of Otago

Associate Professor Jeanne Huang, University of Sydney

Professor Mary Keyes, Griffith University

Dr Lemuel Lopez, RMIT University

Wilson Lui, University of Melbourne

Professor Reid Mortensen, University of Southern Queensland

Professor Yuko Nishitani, Kyoto University

Cara North, Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Professor Luke Nottage, University of Sydney

Associate Professor Sagi Peari, University of Western Australia

Dr Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit, University of Tasmania

Assistant Professor Marcus Teo, National University of Singapore

Associate Professor Dicky Tsang, Chinese University of Hong Kong

Jack Wass, Stout Street Chambers, New Zealand Bar

 

Paola Nabet, who is a senior lecturer at the University of Metz/Lorraine, is the editor of a book on the requirement of internationality in private international law (L’internationalité du litige – de l’élément d’extranéité en droit international privé). The book, which was published with Legitech earlier this year, collects the proceedings of a conference hosted […]

On 3 December I held a talk at University College, London, on ‘Muscles from Brussels‘, at the invitation of prof Ugljesa Grusic. The text of that talk is here.

It was an interesting evening! Many thanks to Ugljesa for hosting.

Geert.

 

The readers of tis blog are aware that the second edition of the EAPIL Winter School on private international law will take place in Como between 10 and 15 February 2025. Organised by the University of Insubria, in cooperation with the Jagiellonian University in Kraków and the University of Murcia, the 2025 edition is about multistate […]