Flux des sites DIP

On 16 November 2020, the JURI Committee of the European Parliament will vote on the draft recommendations for second reading on the proposed directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers, the proposed regulation amending Regulation No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, and the proposed regulation amending Regulation No 1393/2007 on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters.

During the afternoon session, the JURI Committee will hold a Workshop on ”The 40th Anniversary of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction”, in the presence of the EP Coordinator of Children’s’ Rights, Ms Ewa Kopacz.

The workshop will mark the 40th anniversary of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and is aimed at examining assessing the success and importance of the Convention in ensuring the prompt return and thus the best interests of the abducted children. Against this background, the workshop will bring together Members of the European Parliament and a number of experts, practitioners and academics with a view to presenting the functioning of the Convention from the child’s rights dimension and pointing out ongoing issues with its implementation. The programme and two in-depth analysis on the topic can be downloaded here.

Both the voting and the workshop will be webstreamed.

By Stephen G.A. Pitel, Western University

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave in H.M.B. Holdings Limited v Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda.  Information about the appeal is available here. The decision being appealed, rendered by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, is available here.  In the usual course the appeal will be heard in the late spring or early fall of 2021.  The grant of leave is notable because Canada’s top court only hears a small handful of conflict of laws cases in any given year.

In 2014 the Privy Council rendered a judgment in favour of HMB against Antigua and Barbuda for over US$35 million including interest.  In 2016 HMB sued at common law to have the Privy Council judgment recognized and enforced in British Columbia.  Antigua and Barbuda did not defend and default judgment was granted in 2017.  HMB then sought to register the British Columbia decision (not the Privy Council decision) under Ontario’s statutory scheme for the registration of judgments of other Canadian common law provinces.  This required the Ontario courts to engage in a process of statutory interpretation, with one of the central issues being whether the scheme applied to the recognition and enforcement judgment or only to what have been called “original judgments”.

The procedure used by HMB for getting the Privy Council decision enforced in Ontario might seem odd.  The Ontario application judge referred to the process as involving a “ricochet judgment”.  As to why HMB did not bring a common law action on the Privy Council judgment in Ontario, as it had done in British Columbia, there appears to be some issue that such an action could be outside the applicable limitation period.  British Columbia (10 years) has a longer limitation period than Ontario (2 years) for common law actions to enforce foreign judgments.

The Ontario courts held that the scheme did not apply to the British Columbia judgment or, in the alternative, if it did, Antigua and Barbuda were entitled to resist the registration on the basis that it was not “carrying on business” in British Columbia (which is a defence to registration under the Ontario scheme).  The majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, perhaps proceeding in an inverted analytical order, held that because Antigua and Barbuda was not carrying on business in British Columbia it did not need to address the (more fundamental) issue of the scope of the scheme.  The dissenting judge held Antigua and Barbuda was carrying on business in British Columbia and so did address the scope of the scheme, finding it did apply to a recognition and enforcement judgment.

In my view, it is unfortunate that all of the Ontario judges focused quite particularly on the language of various provisions of the statutory scheme without greater consideration of the underlying policy question of whether the scheme, as a whole, truly was meant to allow knock-on or ricochet enforcement.  Ontario’s scheme is explicitly limited to allowing registration of judgments of other Canadian common law provinces.  It strikes me as fundamentally wrong to interpret this as covering all foreign judgments those other provinces themselves choose to enforce.  Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court of Canada resolves the appeal solely on the basis of the intended scope of the registration scheme or instead devotes significant attention to addressing the meaning of “carrying on business”.

The CJEU held yesterday in C‑433/19 Ellmes Property Services.

On the application of Article 24(1) Brussels Ia rights in rem it confirms Szpunar AG’s Opinion which I discussed here: the erga omnes charachter or not of the rights relied upon needs to be confirmed by the referring court for A24(1) to be engaged.

I suggested the forum contractus analysis was the more exciting one. The Advocate General advised it be determined by the Italian judge following the conflicts method per CJEU 12/76 Tessili v Dunlop, with little help from European harmonisation seeing i.a. as the initial co-ownership agreement dates back to 1978.

The Court held at 39 that the fact that a downstream co-owner was not a party to the co-ownership agreement concluded by the initial co-owners has no effect on there being a contract per A71(a)  BIa, per Ordre des avocats du barreau de Dinant and Kerr. 

Unlike the AG, however, the CJEU does not hold that the Tessili Dunlop looking over the fence test is required. It comes seemingly uncomplicated to the conclusion of the locus rei sitae as the forum contractus. At 44, yet linking it to the intention of the contractual obligations:

It seems that that obligation is thus intended to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the property subject to co-ownership by the owner of that property. Subject to verification by the referring court, that obligation relates to the actual use of such property and must be performed in the place in which it is situated.

This may however harbour more uncertainty than first meets the eye. The CJEU here seems to suggest the original contractually designed ‘peaceful enjoyment by the owner’ , which indicates the contractual performance as being one of ‘actual use’ as determining the forum contractus.  A claim relating to a more immaterial use of the property, such as arguably letting the property for financial gain, or indeed an intention to divest the property, would in this perception not necessarily be linked to the locus rei sitae – which brings one back to the discussion entertained by the AG: depending on who brings which claim and how that claim is formulated (an echo from De Bloos, whose usefulness is currently sub judice in Wikingerhof), forum contractus will vary.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.6.1 (cited by the AG) and Heading 2.2.11.1.

(Third edition forthcoming February 2021).

Tobias Lutzi (University of Cologne) is the author of Private International Law Online – Internet Regulation and Civil Liability in the EU, published by Oxford University Press in the Oxford Private International Law Series.

The abstract reads:

‘Private International Law Online’ is a dedicated analysis of the private international law framework in the European Union as it applies to online activities such as content publishing, selling and advertising goods through internet marketplaces, or offering services that are performed online. It provides an insight into the history of internet regulation, and examines the interplay between substantive regulation and private international law in a transaction space that is inherently independent from physical borders.

Lutzi investigates the current legal framework of the European Union from two angles: first questioning how the rules of private international law affect the effectiveness of substantive legislation, and then considering how the resulting legal framework affects individual internet users. The book addresses recent judgments like the Court of Justice’s controversial decision in Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook, and the potential consequences of global injunctions, including the adverse effects on freedom of speech and the challenges of coordinating different national laws with regard to online platforms. It also considers the European Union’s new Copyright Directive, and the way private international law affects the ability of instruments such as this to create a coherent legal framework for online activities in the European Union.

Based on this discussion, Lutzi advocates an alternative approach and sets out how reform might provide a more effective framework, and develops individual elements of the approach to propose new rules and how those rules might adapt to accommodate more recent phenomena and technologies.

For more information see here.

By Jack Wass (Stout Street Chambers, Wellington, New Zealand)

 

In the recent decision of Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co Ltd v Shi,[1] the High Court of New Zealand was faced with an argument that a money judgment of the Higher People’s Court of Hebei should not be enforced because the courts of China are not independent of the political arms of government and therefore do not qualify as “courts” for the purpose of New Zealand’s rules on the enforcement of foreign judgments.

The High Court rejected that argument: complaints of political interference may be relevant  if a judgment debtor can demonstrate a failure to accord natural justice in the individual case, or another recognized defence to enforcement, but there was no basis for concluding that Chinese courts were not courts at all.

As the court noted, complaints about the independence or impartiality of foreign courts might arise in two circumstances. Where the court was deciding whether to decline jurisdiction in favour of a foreign court, it would treat allegations that justice could not be obtained in the foreign jurisdiction with great wariness and caution.[2] Where the issue arose on an application to enforce a foreign judgment, the enforcement court has the benefit of seeing what actually happened in the foreign proceeding, and can assess whether the standards of natural justice in particular were met. Simply refusing to recognize an entire foreign court system would give rise to serious practical problems,[3] as well as risk violating Cardozo J’s famous dictum that courts “are not so provincial as to say that every solution of a problem is wrong because we deal with it otherwise at home.”[4]

The judge found that Chinese courts were distinct from the legislative and administrative bodies of the state, and that although there was evidence to suggest that Chinese judges sometimes felt the need to meet the expectations of the local people’s congress or branch of the Communist Party, this did not justify refusing to recognize the court system as a whole. In a commercial case resolved according to recognizably judicial processes, where there was no suggestion of actual political interference, the judgment could be recognized.

[1] Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Co Ltd v Shi [2020] NZHC 2992. The decision arose on an application to stay or dismiss the enforcement proceeding at the jurisdictional stage.

[2] Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7, [2012] 1 WLR 1804.

[3] The judge noted that the House of Lords had rejected the argument that it should not recognize the courts of the German Democratic Republic (Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner &  Keeler Ltd (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 853), and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was not persuaded that justice could not be done in Venezuela (Blanco v Banco Industrial de Venezuela 997 F 2d 974 (2nd Cir 1993)). By contrast, a Liberian judgment was refused recognition in Bridgeway Corp v Citibank 45 F Supp 2d 276 (SDNY 1999), 201 F 3d 134 (2nd Cir 2000) where there was effectively no functioning court system.

[4] Loucks v Standard Oil Co 224 NY 99 (1918).

AG Hogan delivered today his opinion in case C‑729/19 (TKF v Department of Justice for Northern Ireland), which is about the Maintenance Regulation.

Context: the case “concerns the recognition and enforcement in the United Kingdom of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations given in Poland prior to its accession to the European Union on 1 May 2004 and prior to the date of application, namely 18 June 2011, of Regulation No 4/2009”.

Opinion: “1. The derogation from the temporal application of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 […], laid down in Article 75(2) of Regulation No 4/2009, is to be interpreted as applying only to decisions which were given by a court in States which were already members of the EU at the time those decisions were given.

2. It is not possible to obtain, on the basis of Article 75 of Regulation No 4/2009 or any other provision of that regulation, the recognition and enforcement of a decision made by a court of a State before its accession to the Union in accordance with the rules laid down in Regulation No 4/2009”.

Source: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=233586&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=13696852

On 11 November 2020, the ECJ decided in the case of Ellmes Property Services, C-433/19, on Article 24(1) and Article 7(1)(a) of the Brussels I bis Regulation (for our post on AG Szpunar’s Opinion on the case see here). The Court held that:

“1.      Point 1 of Article 24 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 an action by which a co-owner of immovable property seeks to prohibit another co-owner of that property from carrying out changes, arbitrarily and without the consent of the other co-owners, to the designated use of his or her property subject to co-ownership, as provided for in a co-ownership agreement, must be regarded as constituting an action ‘which has as its object rights in rem in immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that that designated use may be relied on not only against the co-owners of that property, but also erga omnes, which it is for the referring court to verify.

2.      Point 1(a) of Article 7 of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the designated use of immovable property subject to co-ownership provided for by a co-ownership agreement cannot be relied upon erga omnes, an action by which a co-owner of immovable property seeks to prohibit another co-owner of that property from carrying out changes, arbitrarily and without the consent of the other co-owners, to that designated use must be regarded as constituting an action ‘in matters relating to a contract’, within the meaning of that provision. Subject to verification by the referring court, the place of performance of the obligation on which that action is based is the place where the property is situated.”

The full text of the judgment is here.

The case

In a recent decision deposited 5 November 2020 (ordinanza 24632/20), the Italian Supreme Court has returned on the competent court in actions by passengers against air carriers following cancellation of flights.

The case is quite straightforward and can be summarized as follows: (i) passengers used a travel agency in Castello (province of Perugia) to buy EasyJet flight tickets; (ii) the Rome(Fiumicino)-Copenhagen fight was cancelled without any prior information being given in advance; (iii) passengers had to buy a different flight from another air carrier to Hamburg, and travel by taxi to their final destination – thus sustaining additional sensitive costs.

Before the Tribunal (Tribunale) in Perugia, the passengers started proceedings against the air carrier asking for both the standardized lump-sum compensation they were entitled under the Air Passenger Rights Regulation following the cancellation of the flight (art. 5 and art. 7), and for the additional damages sustained due to the cancellation.

 

 

The relevant legal framework: an overview

Passengers requested Italian courts to adjudicate two different set of claims, each of which has its own specific legal basis.

One the one side, the specific right for standardized lump-sum compensation in case of cancellation of flight is established by the EU Air Passenger Rights Regulation; on the other side, the additional damage for which they sought compensation did fall within the scope of application of the 1999 Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air.

As it has already been clarified by the Court of Justice of the European Union (see ex multis Case C-464/18, para. 24), the Air Passenger Rights Regulation entails no rule on jurisdiction – with the consequence that this is entirely governed by the Brussels I bis Regulation. On the contrary, to the extent the Brussels I bis Regulation and the 1999 Montreal Convention overlap in their respective scope of application, the latter is to be granted primacy due to its lex special character (under the lex specialis principle). Hence, the questions of jurisdiction for the two claims have to be addressed separately and autonomously one from the other – each in light of the respective relevant instrument (see CJEU Case C-213/18, para. 44).

 

 

The decision of the Italian court

Focusing on international civil procedure aspects of the decision, claimants did start one single proceedings against the air carrier before the Tribunale in Perugia, the place where the flight ticket was bought though a travel agency.

The air carrier contested this jurisdiction and competence (as the value of individual claims rather than the value of aggregated claims pointed to the competence rationae valoris of the Giudice di pace – Justice of the peace – of Castello in the province of Perugia) up to the Supreme court invoking the Brussels I bis Regulation.

The air carrier supported the view that the competent courts where either those having territorial competence over the airport of departure (i.e. the court in Civitavecchia, under art. 7, Brussels I bis) or arrival (in Copenhagen, always under art. 7 Brussels I bis; cf CJEU Case C-204/08), or courts in London (under art. 4 Brussels I bis).

The passengers insisted on their position invoking the 1999 Montreal Convention assuming that proceedings were brought at the “place of business through which the contract has been made”, one of the heads of jurisdiction under art. 33 of the Convention. Moreover, the passengers argued that the Convention only contained rules on international jurisdiction and not on territorial competence, this aspect being entirely governed by internal civil procedure.

 

a. On UK Companies

As a preliminary matter, the Italian Supreme court acknowledges ‘Brexit’ and the Withdrawal Agreement, yet proceeds without sensitive problems in the evaluation and application of EU law as the transition period has not expired at the time of the decision according to artt. 126 and 127 of the agreement (point 1, reasoning in law).

 

b. Autonomous actions: the proper place for starting proceedings

Consistently with previous case law (CJEU Case C-213/18, para. 44), the Italian Supreme court concludes for the autonomy of the legal actions brought before the courts, arguing that jurisdiction has to be autonomously addressed (point 3, reasoning in law).

Actions based on lump-sum standardized compensation in cases of cancellation of flights deriving from the Air Passenger Rights Regulation do entirely and exclusively fall under the scope of application of the Brussels I bis Regulation – art. 7 being applicable. In this case, the Italian territorial competent court is the one having territorial jurisdiction over the airport of departure – (Rome Fiumicino), i.e. the Giudice di pace of Civitavecchia.

Actions for additional damages connected to long delays or cancellation of flights, the right for compensation deriving from the Montreal Convention, remain possible before the courts identified under art. 33 of the 1999 Montreal Convention (point 3, reasoning in law).

Here, two elements are of particular interests.

In the first place, the Italian Supreme court apparently changes its previous understanding of the Convention as it concedes that rules on jurisdiction therein enshrined are not merely rules on international jurisdiction, but are also rules on territorial competence (point 6, reasoning in law; consistent with Case C-213/18; overrules Cassazione 3561/2020 where territorial competence was determined according to domestic law).

In the second place, the court dwells – in light of domestic law – on the notion of “place of business through which the contract has been made” ex art. 33 of the Convention, which grounds a territorial competence (point 6.3, reasoning in law). Distinguishing its decision from cases where passengers directly buy online tickets from the air carriers, it is the court’s belief that a travel agency operates under IATA Sales Agency Agreements, hence as an authorized “representative” of the air carrier business for the purposes of the provision at hand. According to the court, the fact that a travel agency may be considered as a ticket office of the air carrier for the purposes of art. 33 of the 1999 Montreal Convention is nothing more than a praesumptio hominis; yet such a circumstance was not challenged by the air carrier and thus, under Italian law, considered proven and final. This, with the consequence that competence for damages related to the cancellation of the flight, other than the payment of compensation under the Air Passenger Rights Regulation, is reserved to the Justice of the peace (giudice di pace) competent rationae valoris of the place where the travel agency (in Castello, near Perugia) is located, as this place is the “place of business through which the contract has been made”.

 

c. Connected actions

The Italian Supreme court acknowledges the impracticalities that may follow from the severability of closely related actions grounded on same facts (point 6.3, reasoning in law), in particular where compensation for damages granted from one court under the 1999 Montreal Convention must deduct compensation already granted by another court under the Air Passenger Rights Regulation. In this sense, in fine the court mentions the possibility to refer to art. 30 Brussels I bis Regulation, presumably having in mind also art. 30(2).

 

 

Open questions

Whereas the decision of the Italian Supreme court largely follows indications of the Court of Justice of the European Union, some passages appear to leave room for discussion.

Firstly, even though correctly primacy to the 1999 Montreal Convention over the Brussels I bis Regulation is granted, the proper disconnection clause is not analyzed at all in the decision. In a number of previous decisions, the court did address the disconnection clause, arguing in favor of the lex specialis invoking art. 71 Brussels I bis Regulation – a provision that grants priority to international conventions in specific matters to which Member States are party to (cf Cass 18257/2019, and Cass 3561/2020). However, given that the EU has become part to the 1999 Montreal Convention by way of a Council Decision in 2001, other courts have invoked art. 67 to solve the coordination issue – as this provision is destined to govern the relationship between Brussels I bis and rules on jurisdiction contained in other “EU instruments” (cf LG Bremen, 05.06.2015 – 3 S 315/14). A position, the latter, that appears consistent with art. 216(2) TFEU, according to which “Agreements concluded by the Union are binding upon the institutions of the Union and on its Member States”. In this sense, the Italian Supreme court could have dwelled more on the proper non-affect clause to be applied when it comes to the relationships between the Brussels I bis Regulation and the 1999 Montreal Convention.

Secondly, the final remarks of the Italian Supreme court on related actions in the Brussels I bis also should impose a moment of reflection. In the case at hand there were no parallel proceedings, so the “indications” of the court were nothing more than that.

However, recourse to the rules on related actions of the Brussels I bis Regulation should be allowed only so far no specific rule is contained in the lex specialis. Again, an evaluation on the existence of such rules is completely missing in the decision.

More importantly, even though it is generally accepted that Brussels I bis rules on coordination on proceedings can be subject to a somewhat “extensive” interpretation (as current art. 30 on related actions has been deemed applicable regardless of whether courts ground their jurisdiction on domestic law or on the regulation itself – cf Case C-351/89, para. 14), it remains that art. 30 refers to parallel proceedings pending “in the courts of different Member States”. A circumstance that would not occur where proceedings are pending before two courts of the same Member State, as the one dealt with by the Italian supreme court in the case at hand.

 

 

The present research is conducted in the framework of the En2Bria project (Enhancing Enforcement under Brussels Ia – EN2BRIa, Project funded by the European Union Justice Programme 2014-2020, JUST-JCOO-AG-2018 JUST 831598). The content of the Brussels Ia – EN2BRIa, Project, and its deliverables, amongst which this webpage, represents the views of the author only and is his/her sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.

 

Troke & Anor v Amgen Seguros Generales Compania De Seguros Y Reaseguros SAU (Formerly RACC Seguros Compania De Seguros Y Resaseguros SA) [2020] EWHC 2976 (QB) is an appeal against a decision of the country court at Plymouth. It has a case-name almost as long as the name some Welsh villages (that’s an observation, I mean no disrespect. I live in a country which has names such as Erps-Kwerps; but I stray).

For brevity’s sake I suspect it is best shortened to Troke v Amgen. The case involves only the rate of interest awarded on what were otherwise agreed awards of damages against the defendant insurer  to the  claimant, victims of a road traffic accident in Spain.

Spanish law is lex causae. Rome II like Rome I excludes “evidence and procedure…”. The extent of this exception is not settled as I have discussed before. Of particular recurring interest is its relation with Article 15 ‘scope of the law applicable’ which reads in relevant part for the case

 “15. The law applicable to non-contractual obligations under this Regulation shall govern in particular: (a) the basis and extent of liability… (…) (c) the existence, the nature and the assessment of damage or the remedy claimed; (d) within the limits of powers conferred on the court by its procedural law, the measures which a court may take to prevent or terminate injury or damage or to ensure the provision of compensation;”

Griffiths J refers in particular to Actavis v Ely Lilly and to KMG v Chen, and at 45 holds obiter that were the interest a contractual right, it would clearly not be covered by Rome I’s exclusion for procedural issues seeing as it would then clearly amount to a substantive right under the contract.

At play here however is Rome II. Griffiths J first refers to a number of inconclusive precedent on the interest issue under various foreign applicable laws, to then note at 65 ff that the judge in the county court whose findings are being appealed, was informed in the expert reports that the interest sought under Spanish law were not mandatory ones but rather discretionary ones: the terminology used in the expert report which determined that decision was ‘contemplates’.

This leads Griffiths J to conclude ‘I reject the argument that the Expert Report was describing a substantive as opposed to a procedural right to interest. It follows that the Judge was right not to apply the Spanish rates as a matter of substantive right to be governed by the lex causae.’

This is most odd. It could surely be argued that a discretionary substantive right is still a substantive right, and not a procedural incident. Whether the right is mandatory or discretionary does not in my view impact on its qualification as being substance or procedure.

The judge’s findings

It follows that I agree with the Judge that the award of interest in this case was a procedural matter excluded from Rome II by Article 1(3); that there was no substantive right to interest at Spanish rates to be awarded to the Claimants under the lex causae; that interest could be awarded under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 as a procedural matter in accordance with the law of England and Wales as the lex fori; and that he was entitled to award interest at English and not Spanish rates accordingly.

in my view surely therefore most be appealable.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 4, Heading 4.8.

Third edition forthcoming February 2021.

What law governs the award of interest in relation to a tort sued upon within this jurisdiction but committed in another jurisdiction.
Whether procedural issue hence lex fori under Rome II. https://t.co/nnnkYczvz2

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 9, 2020

Giancarlo Frosio (University of Strasbourg) has posted Enforcement of European Rights on a Global Scale on SSRN.

The abstract reads:

This chapter reviews global enforcement of European rights. Global extra-territorial enforcement of miscellaneous rights has emerged as a consistent trend in recent online regulation, both at international and EU level. In considering this trend, this chapter focuses on case law and policy making that face the riddle of extra-territorial application of online intermediaries’ obligations. This chapter describes first the historical origins of global enforcement and the complex issues that Internet jurisdiction brings about. It then offers a panoramic overview of emerging global enforcement at the international level. Later, this chapter reviews to which extent global enforcement has been endorsed by the European legal system, both at EU and national level, with special emphasis on recent decisions from the Court of Justice of the European Union, such as Google v CNiL and Glawischnig v Facebook. Finally, after a review of the political complexities surrounding global enforcement, the standards that might be applied for issuing global enforcement orders are discussed.

The paper is forthcoming in the Handbook of European Copyright Law (Eleonora Rosati ed., Routledge).

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑433/19 (Ellmes Property Services Limited v SP), which is about Articles 24.1 and 7.1 Brussels I bis in relation to immovable property:

“1. Point 1 of Article 24 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that an action by which a co-owner of immovable property seeks to prohibit another co-owner of that property from carrying out changes, arbitrarily and without the consent of the other co-owners, to the designated use of his or her property subject to co-ownership, as provided for in a co-ownership agreement, must be regarded as constituting an action ‘which has as its object rights in rem in immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that that designated use may be relied on not only against the co-owners of that property, but also erga omnes, which it is for the referring court to verify.

2. Point 1(a) of Article 7 of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the designated use of immovable property subject to co-ownership provided for by a co-ownership agreement cannot be relied upon erga omnes, an action by which a co-owner of immovable property seeks to prohibit another co-owner of that property from carrying out changes, arbitrarily and without the consent of the other co-owners, to that designated use must be regarded as constituting an action ‘in matters relating to a contract’, within the meaning of that provision. Subject to verification by the referring court, the place of performance of the obligation on which that action is based is the place where the property is situated”.

Source: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=E10A5086D2E9CBE2886CE0C4AE8886E4?text=&docid=233541&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=12753411

On Friday, November 13, at 11:oo Brasilia time (i.e. 15:00 in Hamburg and 9:oo a.m. in New York)  this book will be launched via zoom. The book emerges from a 2019 conference in Brasilia, which brought together scholars from several countries, and in several languages (Portuguese, Spanish, English). It demonstrates the vibrancy of private international law in Latin America.
Sign up for the event here.

Emmanuel Guinchard (Northumbria University) edited Rome I and Rome II in Practice, just published by Intersentia.

The publisher’s blurb reads as follows.

This book is devoted to the applicable law to contractual and non-contractual obligations in the European Union. The Rome I and II Regulations provide uniform conflict of laws rule in order to avoid undue forum-shopping. In theory all national courts of EU Member States (excluding Denmark) apply the same rules determining the applicable law. Rome I and II in Practice examines whether the theory has been put into practice and assesses difficulties that may have arisen in the interpretation and application of these Regulations. Such study appears invaluable as the Rome I and II Regulations may be seen as a critical stepping stone towards the construction of a true and far-reaching European Private International Law. Providing clear and detailed insights into the national case law of most EU Member States, as well as the case-law of the Court of Justice, and followed by a comparative analysis, this book is a valuable resource for practitioners, the judiciary, and academics who are interested in understanding how EU law is applied on national level.

The individual country chapters were written by Marie-Elodie Ancel (University Paris II Panthéon-Assas), Apostolos Anthimos (Attorney-at-Law, Thessaloniki), Davor Babić (University of Zagreb), Laura Maria van Bochove (Leiden University), Petr Bříza (Charles University, Prague), Geert Van Calster (KU Leuven), Marcin Czepelak (Jagiellonian University, Kraków), Aleksandrs Fillers (University of Antwerp), Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan), Emilia Fronczak (Avocat à la Cour, Luxembourg), Aleš Galič (University of Ljubljana), Uglješa Grušić (University College London), Tomáš Hokr (Partner at Bříza & Trubač law firm, Prague), Csongor István Nagy (University of Szeged), Elena Judova (Matej Bel University, Banská Bystrica), Inga Kačevska (University of Latvia), Thomas Kadner Graziano (University of Geneva), Jerca Kramberger Škerl (University of Ljubljana), Miloš Levrinc (Matej Bel University, Banská Bystrica), Christiana Markou (Attorney-at-Law, Cyprus), Valentinas Mikelėnas (University of Vilnius, Lithuania), Nikolay Natov (Sofia University St Kliment Ohridski), Máire Ní Shúilleabháin (University College Dublin), Vassil Pandov (Sofia University St Kliment Ohridski), Afonso Patrão (University of Coimbra), Michel José Reymond (Attorney-at-Law, Geneva), Diana Sancho-Villa (Westminster University), Stephan Walter (University of Bonn), Matthias Weller (University of Bonn), Dora Zgrabljić Rotar (University of Zagreb).

More information, including the book’s table of contents, available here.

This Thursday 12 and Friday 13 November, the 2020 International Conference of the Korean Judicial Policy Research Institute (JPRI) will take place. The conference is co-organised by the JPRI, the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

This year’s conference theme is “International Commercial Litigation: Recent Developments and Future Challenges”, with sessions spanning a variety of topics, including international commercial contracts, secured transactions and insolvency, recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, e-litigation and e-service, and the enforcement of arbitral awards and mediation settlement agreements. The full programme is available here.

The sessions will be streamed on the JPRI YouTube Channel.

This post is published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference of Private International Law (HCCH).

On 21 May 2020, the Piraeus Court of Appeal ruled that a judgment on a family maintenance matter, issued by the Tribunal of Rotterdam in 2007, did not qualify for recognition in Greece (ruling No 383 of 2020, unreported).

The Court reached this conclusion on the basis of Article 34(2) of Regulation 44/2001 (the Brussels I Regulation).

According to the latter provision, a judgment that was given in default of appearance should not be recognised “if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so”.

Proceedings in the Netherlands

In 2007 a claim for maintenance was filed by a mother on behalf of her minor child, both living in the Netherlands, against the father, a resident of Greece. The claim was filed on 5 January 2007 before the Tribunal of Rotterdam. The hearing was scheduled for 8 August 2007. The defendant failed to appear. The Tribunal issued its ruling on the day of the hearing. It then set a three-month deadline for appeal and declared that the judgment was immediately enforceable.

Proccedings in Greece – First instance

In February 2009, an application for a declaration of enforceability of the Dutch judgment was filed before the Piraeus Court of First Instance. The court stayed its proceedings, and ordered the applicant mother to produce evidence concerning the service of the claim to the father [ruling No 3511 of 2009, unreported].

The case was rescheduled to hear the applicant. The application, however, was dismissed. The court stated that the sole document produced was a letter by the Tribunal of Rotterdam, dated 2 April 2007, declaring that the claim had been served on the defendant. Still, no evidence of receipt by the defendant was submitted. The Court concluded, accordingly, that his rights of defence were violated [ruling No 358 of 2012, unreported].

Proceedings in Greece – Second instance

The mother appealed before the Piraeus Single Member Court of Appeal. She complained that the Court of First Instance had acted ultra vires, arguing that, pursuant to Regulation 44/2001, first instance courts are allowed to assess the conditions for recognition and enforcement of a judgment, not the grounds for refusing such recognition.

The matter was referred to a Chamber of the same court [ruling No 455 of 2018, unreported]. The Chamber allowed the appeal and quashed the first instance ruling on the grounds invoked by the appellant. It stated however that, as a second instance court, it had the powers under the Regulation to examine any grounds for refusal.

The Service of Process Issue

The Piraeus Court of Appeal devoted a lengthy analysis to the issue whether the act instituting the Dutch proceedings had been properly served on the defendant. The main findings may be summarised as follows:

(a) The certificate issued under Articles 54 and 58 of Regulation No 44/2001 by the competent body of the Rotterdam Tribunal states that service took place on 2 April 2007. The registered letter sent to the defendant bears the same date.

(b) That just cannot be possible: the sending and delivery of a letter sent from Rotterdam to Athens cannot occur on the same day.

(c) The appellant failed to produce an acknowledgment of receipt by the defendant.

(d) The claim was not officially translated from Dutch to Greek. There was a translation attached, however not signed by an authorized person to that cause. This happened only in April 2010, i.e. after the proceedings were stayed by the Piraeus CFI in 2009.

(e) No evidence was given of the fact that the defendant failed to challenge the judgment in the Netherlands, although it was possible for him to do so: he received neither the document instituting proceedings, nor the judgment itself.

(f) By reviewing the Dutch ruling, the Piraeus Court of Appeal noticed that the Rotterdam Tribunal failed to examine the timeliness of service on the defendant; it simply confirmed his non-appearance at the hearing in Rotterdam.

In light of above, the Piraeus Court dismissed the appeal.

Assessment

As a starter, the judgment demonstrates that courts are still confronted with exequatur issues, in spite of its abolition almost a decade ago.

In addition, judges and lawyers should be wary of the proper applicable law. In the case at hand, the courts were right in resorting to Regulation 44/2001, in light of Article 75(2)(b) of the Maintenance Regulation. Nevertheless, the core of the matter remains the same (lack of proper service is a ground for refusing recognition also in accordance with Article 24(b) of the Maintenance Regulation).

The reversal of the first instance ruling was correct. Article 42 of Regulation 44/2001 is adamant about it, so is Article 30 of the Maintenance Regulation.

The referral in second instance is demonstrative of a typical lack of cohesiveness between the text of the Regulation and national declarations of the Member States. As evidenced in Annex III of the Regulation 44/2001, Greece declared that the Court of Appeal is competent to try appeals pursuant to Article 43(2) of the Regulation. At that time (2001) and for many years after, a court of appeal consisted exclusively of three judges. In 2015 the law changed. Pursuant to the new Article 19 of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, the competent court for examining appeals against judgments rendered by a Single Member Court of First Instance is the relevant Single Member Court of Appeal. In the case at hand, the Piraeus Single Member Court of Appeal considered that the three-member chamber should remain competent, because the Hellenic Republic did not amend its declaration. Legal scholars have already expressed a different view. The fact of the matter is that those problems affect procedural economy, especially in sensitive cases, such as maintenance claims.

Finally, in regards to the central issue of service, the following remarks may be made.

First, the court correctly found that the conditions for service of the claim to the defendant were not met, as it was not proven that the document was received or translated from Dutch into Greek. However, the judgment lacks sufficient reasoning with respect to the defendant’s ability to challenge the foreign decision in the state of origin.

Secondly, no reference is made to judgment of the Court of Justice in the Lebeck case, where the Court stated that   “proceedings to challenge a judgment” referred to in Article 34(2) of Regulation 44/2001 must be interpreted as also including applications for relief when the period for bringing an ordinary challenge has expired. Hence, the margin of the court’s test should have been expanded to the time of expiry declared by the Netherlands under Article 17(4) and 23(1) of the Service Regulation.

Finally, and most importantly, the Piraeus court omitted any reference to the ruling in ASML, where the Court ruled that

Article 34(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 is to be interpreted as meaning that it is ‘possible’ for a defendant to bring proceedings to challenge a default judgment against him only if he was in fact acquainted with its contents, because it was served on him in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence before the courts of the State in which the judgment was given.

Therefore, service of the default judgment after the expiry of time for appeal or an application for relief does not suffice, and the defence under Article 34(2) of Regulation 44/2001 is still active.

Concluding Remarks

One additional point worth noticing is the duration of the proceedings in Greece, which for maintenance standards is utterly unbearable. It is very fortunate that sooner or later Section 1 of Chapter 4 (Articles 17 et seq.) of the Maintenance Regulation will prevail in practice.

Admittedly, the abolition of exequatur will not solve all problems, bearing in mind the second set of remedies available to the judgment debtor in the state of destination. It is hoped that a common approach could be achieved even in the last mile, i.e. the national law on enforcement.

 

I. Introduction

In my last blog post, I made mention of a Nigerian Court of Appeal decision that applied the principle of contract law exclusively to a foreign jurisdiction clause.[1] In that case, applying the principles of Nigerian contract law, the Nigerian Court of Appeal held that the alleged choice of court agreement in favour of Benin Republic was unenforceable because the terms were not clear and unambiguous in conferring jurisdiction on a foreign forum.[2]

The purpose of this blog post is to analyse a more recent Nigerian Court of Appeal decision where the court gave full contractual effect to the parties’ choice of court agreement by strictly enforcing a Dubai choice of court agreement.[3]

II. Facts

Damac Star Properties LLC v Profitel Limited (“Damac”)[4] was the fall out of an investment introduced to the 1st plaintiff/respondent by the 2nd respondent allegedly on behalf of the defendant/appellant wherein the 1st plaintiff/respondent paid a deposit of 350,000.00 US Dollars for 9 apartments in Dubai and being 20% of the total cost of the apartments. The contract between the 1st plaintiff/respondent and defendant/appellant contained an exclusive choice of court clause in favour of Dubai. There was a dispute between the parties as to some of the terms of the contract. This resulted in the defendant/appellant selling the apartments to another buyer. The 1st plaintiff/respondent requested for a refund of the deposit that was paid to the defendant/appellant, but its request was declined. As a result of this, the 1st plaintiff/respondent initiated a suit for summary judgment in High Court, Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria, against the defendant/appellant, and got an order to serve the defendant/appellant through the 2nd respondent, its alleged agent in Nigeria. At this stage, the defendant/appellant did not appear and was unrepresented in proceedings at the High Court. The High Court proceeded to hear the suit and entered judgment against the defendant/appellant with an order to refund the sum of 350,000.00 US Dollars with 10% interest from date of judgment till the judgment sum was fully liquidated. The defendant/appellant applied to the High Court to set aside the judgment, but the court dismissed the application.

III. Decision

The defendant/appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal. The Court of Appeal held on the basis of the exclusive choice of court agreement in favour of Dubai – which it regarded as valid – the lower court should not have assumed jurisdiction.

IV. Judicial Statements in support of Damac

As stated in my last blog post, there is now a trend among appellate Courts in Nigeria (Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) to give choice of court agreements a contractual function. Damac Star Properties LLC (supra) is one of the cases where the Court of Appeal simply gives a choice of court agreement a contractual function without considering whether the choice of court agreement ousted the jurisdiction of the Nigerian courts, or whether Nigeria was the forum conveneins for the action.[5] This point is important, as it appears that there is now some movement in Nigerian jurisprudence towards giving choice of court agreements a contractual function. Given that Nigeria is a common law jurisdiction, it is worth quoting statements from some Nigerian Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges that have given a choice of court agreements a contractual function.

Nnamani JSC opined that: “I think that in the interest of international commercial relations courts have to be wary about departing from fora chosen by parties in their contract. There ought to be very compelling circumstances to justify such a departure.”[6]

Tobi JSC observed: “The bill of lading contains the contractual terms [foreign jurisdiction clause] between the parties and therefore binding on the parties. Parties are bound by the conditions and terms in a contract they freely enter into… The meaning to be placed on a contract is that which is the plain, clear and obvious result of the terms used… When construing documents in dispute between two parties, the proper course is to discover the intention or contemplation of the parties and not to import into the contract ideas not potent on the face of the document… Where there is a contract regulating any arrangement between the parties, the main duty of the court is to interpret that contract and to give effect to the wishes of the parties as expressed in the contract document… The question is not what the parties to the documents may have intended to do by entering into that document, but what is the meaning of the word used in the document… While a contract must be strictly construed in accordance with the well-known rules of construction, such strict construction cannot be aground for departing from the terms which had been agreed by both parties to the contract… It is the law that parties to an agreement retain the commercial freedom to determine their own terms. No other person. Not even the court, can determine the terms of contract between parties thereto. The duty of the court is to strictly interpret the terms of the agreement on its clear wordings… Finally, it is not the function of a court of law either to make agreements for the parties or to change their agreements as made.”[7]

In Conoil Plc v Vitol SA,[8] the Supreme Court Justices were unanimous on the contractual effect of a choice of court agreement. Nweze JSC in his leading judgment stated that: “In all, the truth remains that if parties, enter into an agreement, they are bound by its terms.”[9] Okoro JSC concurred that: “The law is quite’ settled that parties are bound by the contract they voluntarily enter into and cannot act outside the terms and conditions contained in the said contract. When parties enter into a contract, they should be careful about the terms they incorporate into the contract because the law will hold them bound by those terms. No party will be allowed to read into the contract terms on which there has been no agreement. Any of the parties who does so violates the terms of that contract…. Having agreed that any dispute arising from the contract should be settled at the English court, the appellant was bound by the terms of the contract.”[10] Eko JSC also concurred that: “Where parties, fully cognizant of their rights, voluntarily elect and nominate the forum for the resolution of any dispute arising from their contract, with international flavour as the instant, the courts always respect and defer to their mutual wishes and intention. The courts only need to be satisfied that, in their freedom of contract, the parties negotiated and agreed freely to subject their dispute to the laws and country of their choice.”[11]

Owoade JCA held that: “…it is pertinent to observe that as a general rule in the relationship between national law and international Agreements, freely negotiated private international agreement, unsullied by fraud, undue influence or overwhelming bargaining power would be given full effect. This means that, where such contract provides for a choice of forum, such clause would be upheld unless upholding it would be contrary to statute or public policy of the forum in which the suit is brought.”[12]

In Beaumont Resources Ltd v DWC Drilling Ltd,[13] the Court of Appeal Justices were unanimous on the contractual effect of a choice of court agreement. Otisi JCA held that: “…it is settled that, in the absence of fraud, misrepresentation and illegality, parties to an agreement or contract are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract they signed… It is also well established that the Court cannot make contracts for the parties, rewrite the contract or go outside the express terms of the contract to enforce it…”[14] Sankey JCA concurred that: “The Court of law, on the other hand, must always respect the sanctity of the agreement of the parties – the role of the Court is to pronounce on the wishes of the parties and not to make a contract for them or to rewrite the one they have already made for themselves. The judicial attitude or disposition of the Court to terms of agreement freely entered into by parties to contract is that the Court will implement fully the intention of the contracting parties. This is anchored on the reasoning that where the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous, the duty of the Court is to give effect to them and on no account should it re-write the contract for the parties. In the absence of fraud, duress or misrepresentation, the parties are bound to the contract they freely entered into.”[15]

The above judicial statements are replete with applying the principles of Nigerian contract law to the terms of a choice of court agreement. In essence, parties are bound by the clear and unambiguous terms of a choice of court agreement, which the Nigerian court will strictly enforce.  On this score, Damac is on strong footing and unassailable.

 V. Judicial decisions that might be against Damac

Some of the above stated judicial cases, though giving a choice of court agreement a contractual function also considered whether such agreements oust the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court, and whether Nigeria was the more appropriate forum to resolve such disputes despite the presence of a choice of court agreement. Damac is one of the few Court of Appeal cases that exclusively give a choice of court agreement a contractual function without a consideration of whether it is an ouster clause or the Nigerian Court is the forum conveniens.[16]

           A. Ouster Clause

In the early case of Ventujol v Compagnie Francaise De L ’ Afrique Occidentale,[17] Ames J held that in a contract of employment which was entered into in France to be performed in Nigeria, where the defendant also had agents (in Nigeria), the clause for submission of disputes to a Tribunal de Commerce de Marseilles (a French Court at that time) was an agreement to oust the jurisdiction of the court and of no effect. Similarly, in Allied Trading Company Ltd v China Ocean Shipping Line,[18] the plaintiff sought to recover damages for non-delivery of goods. The defendant entered an unconditional appearance, admitted the goods were lost, and denied liability on the grounds, inter alia, that the court had no jurisdiction since the parties had agreed that all disputes arising under or in connection with the bill of lading should be determined in the People’s Republic of China. It was held, inter alia, that this provision purported to oust the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court entirely and was therefore contrary to public policy. In Sonnar (Nig) Ltd v Partenreedri MS Norwind[19]  Oputa JSC opined  that as a matter of public policy Nigerian Courts “should not be too eager to divest themselves of jurisdiction conferred on them by the Constitution and by other laws simply because parties in their private contracts chose a foreign forum … Courts guard rather jealously their jurisdiction and even where there is an ouster clause of that jurisdiction by Statute it should be by clear and unequivocal words. If that is so, as is indeed it is, how much less can parties by their private acts remove the jurisdiction properly and legally vested in our Courts? Our courts should be in charge of their own proceedings. When it is said that parties make their own contracts and that the courts will only give effect to their intention as expressed in and by the contract, that should generally be understood to mean and imply a contract which does not rob the Court of its jurisdiction in favour of another foreign forum.”[20]

If the above judicial postulations were given literal effect by the Court of Appeal in Damac the exclusive choice of court agreement in favour of Dubai would be regarded as null and void. In effect, treating a choice of court agreement as an ouster clause has the effect of making a choice of court agreement illegal, unlawful or at best unenforceable. Recently, Nweze JSC has interpreted the concept of ouster clause to the effect “that our courts will only interrogate contracts which are designed to rob Nigerian courts of their jurisdiction in favour of foreign fora or where, by their acts, they are minded to remove the jurisdiction, properly and legally, vested in Nigerian courts.”[21] I will interpret Nweze JSC’s statement to mean that where a Nigerian court as a matter of state interest is exclusively vested by statute, the constitution or common law with a subject matter, then no foreign court can have jurisdiction in such matters.[22] Under common law, a clear example of this is a matter relating to immovable property, where the Nigerian court has exclusive jurisdiction. So the implication of this is that the concept of ouster clause has very limited effect in Nigerian jurisprudence. In effect, the choice of court agreement in Damac will likely not be regarded as an ouster clause by the Nigerian Supreme Court.

        B. Brandon Tests

Damac did not consider the application of the Brandon tests in Nigerian jurisprudence. The Brandon test is a form of application of forum non conveniens to choice of court agreements.

Brandon J, in The Eleftheria,[23] delivered a brilliant decision on this subject. The decision provided comprehensive guidelines that the English court should take into account in deciding whether to give effect to a foreign jurisdiction clause. This is often referred to as “the Brandon test” in Nigerian jurisprudence. Nigerian courts have regularly referred to the Brandon test and utilised it with approval in decided cases.[24] The test is stated hereunder as follows (as it has been referred to and applied) in the Nigerian context: 1. Where plaintiffs sue in Nigeria in breach of an agreement to refer disputes to a foreign court, and the defendants apply for a stay, the Nigerian court, assuming the claim to be otherwise within the jurisdiction is not bound to grant a stay but has a discretion whether to do so or not. 2. The discretion should be exercised by granting a stay unless strong cause for not doing it is shown. 3. The burden of proving such strong cause is on the plaintiffs. 4. In exercising its discretion the court should take account of all the circumstances of the particular case. 5. In particular, but without prejudice to (4), the following matters where they arise, may be properly regarded: (a) In what country the evidence on the issues of fact is situated, or more readily available, and the effect of that on the relative convenience and expense of trial as between the Nigerian and foreign courts. (b) Whether the law of the foreign court applies and, if so, whether it differs from Nigerian law in any material respects. (c) With what country either party is connected and how closely (d) Whether the defendants genuinely desire trial in the foreign country, or are only seeking procedural advantages. (e) Whether the plaintiff s would be prejudiced by having to sue in the foreign country because they would (i) be deprived of security for that claim; (ii) be unable to enforce any judgment obtained; (iii) be faced with a time-bar not applicable in Nigeria; or (iv) for political, racial, religious, or other reasons be unlikely to get a fair trial (v) the grant of a stay would amount to permanently denying the plaintiff any redress.

The only reported cases where the plaintiff(s) have successfully relied on the Brandon test is where their claim is statute barred in the forum chosen by the parties.[25] Indeed, the burden is on the plaintiff to show strong cause why Nigerian proceedings should be stayed in breach of a choice of court agreement; if not Nigerian courts will give effect to the choice of court agreement.[26]

In Damac, the plaintiff did not demonstrate strong reasons why the choice of court agreement should not be enforced. So even if the Brandon test was considered by the Court of Appeal, the claimant will not have succeeded.

VI. Some Reservations

There are three reservations I have about the Court of Appeal’s decision in Damac. First, the Court of Appeal should have ordered a stay of proceedings rather than holding that the lower court did not have jurisdiction. This is what is done in other common law countries. There is wisdom in this approach. If it turns out that the claimant cannot institute its claims in Dubai, the Nigerian forum should remain available to promptly institute its actions against the defendant in this case.

Second the Court of Appeal held that jurisdiction can be raised for the first time on appeal. This statement only applies to substantive jurisdiction. Procedural jurisdiction cannot be raised on appeal for the first time. Thus, if it is established that the defendant/appellant did not promptly raise the issue of choice of court in favour of Dubai at the High court, this might be a ground upon which the defendant/appellant can successfully challenge the decision of the Court of Appeal. This is because the issue of choice of court is a procedural matter and a claimant that wants to raise the issue of choice of court agreement must do so promptly, or it will be deemed to have waived its right by submitting to the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court.

Finally, the Court of Appeal made wrong reference to choice of venue rules[27] as applicable, assuming the choice of court agreement in this case is invalid. Choices of venue rules are only applicable to determine the judicial division to institute a matter for geographic convenience. For example, Lagos State has four judicial divisions: Lagos, Ikeja, Epe and Ikorodu. In the event there is a dispute as to which of the judicial divisions should hear a matter, the rules of court are to be relied on.[28] Choice of venue rules do not apply to determine private international law matters as in this case.

VII. Conclusion

Damac is a recent trend among Nigerian courts to give a choice of court agreement a contractual function. Indeed, Damac is one of the few cases where issues of ouster clause and forum non conveniens no longer feature in the judgment of the court. There are good reasons why a choice of court agreement should be strictly enforced contractually. It promotes certainty and enhances the efficacy of international commercial transactions. However, giving contractual enforcement to a choice of court agreement should only be regarded as a general rule and not an absolute rule. Nigerian courts should retain its discretion not to enforce choice of court agreements in deserving cases such as in the interest of justice and the protection of economically weaker parties.

[1]Kashamu v UBN Plc (2020) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1746) 90.

[2] Ibid  114-6.

[3] Damac Star Properties LLC v Profitel Limited (2020) LPELR-50699(CA).

[4] Ibid.

[5]For an extended analysis see generally CSA Okoli and RF Oppong, Private International Law in Nigeria (Hart, 2020) 107 – 125.

[6]Sonnar (Nig) Ltd v Partenreedri MS Norwind (1987) 4 NWLR 520, 541.

[7] Nika Fishing Company Ltd v Lavina Corporation (2008 ) 16 NWLR 509, 542-3.

[8] ( 2018 ) 9 NWLR 463, 489.

[9] Ibid

[10]Ibid 500-1.

[11]Ibid 502.

[12] Captain Tony Nso v Seacor Marine ( Bahamas) Inc ( 2008 ) LPELR-8320 (CA) 12-3.

[13]( 2017 ) LPELR-42814.

[14] Ibid 30.

[15]Ibid 49-50.

[16] See also Megatech Engineering Limited v Sky Vision Global Networks Llc (2014) LPELR-22539 (CA); Kashamu v UBN Plc (2020) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1746) 90; Unipetrol Nigeria Ltd v Prima Alfa Enterprises (Nig) Ltd ( 1986 ) 5 NWLR 532.

[17] (1949) 19 NLR 32.

[18] (1980) (1) ALR Comm 146.

[19](1987) 4 NWLR 520.

[20] Ibid 544-5.

[21] Conoil Plc v Vitol SA ( 2018 ) 9 NWLR 463, 489

[22]See generally CSA Okoli and RF Oppong, Private International Law in Nigeria (Hart, 2020) 117 – 124.

[23]The Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board the Ship or Vessel ‘ Elftheria ’ v ‘ The Elftheria ’ (Owners), ‘ Th e Elft heria ’ [1969] 1 Lloyd ’ s Rep 237.

[24] See generally GBN Line v Allied Trading Limited ( 1985 ) 2 NWLR (Pt. 5) 74 ; Sonnar (Nig) Ltd v Norwind (1987) 4 NWLR 520 ; Nika Fishing Company Ltd v Lavina Corporation ( 2008 ) 16 NWLR 509 ; Captain Tony Nso v Seacor Marine ( Bahamas ) Inc ( 2008 ) LPELR-8320 (CA) ; Beaumont Resources Ltd v DWC Drilling Ltd ( 2017 ) LPELR-42814 (CA) .

[25] Sonnar (Nig) Ltd v Norwind (1987) 4 NWLR 520.

[26] Nika Fishing Company Ltd v Lavina Corporation (2008) 16 NWLR 509.

[27] In applying the choice of venue rules of Abuja on matters of contract, it considered where the contract was made, place of performance and residence of the parties as prescribed in the rules of court.

[28] Order 4 of the High Court of Lagos (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 (formerly Order 2 of the High Court of Lagos (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012).

Jie (Jeanne) Huang, University of Sydney Law School, Australia

 

Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co, Ltd. v. Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII is a recent case decided by the Supreme Court of California on April 2, 2020. The certiorari to the Supreme Court of the US was denied on 5 October 2020. It is a controversial case concerning the interpretation of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters of November 15, 1965 (the “Hague Service Convention”) for service of process in China.

1. Facts:

Changzhou SinoType Technology Co. (SinoType) is based in China. Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII (Rockefeller) is an American investment firm. In February 2008, they signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) which provided that:

“6. The parties shall provide notice in the English language to each other at the addresses set forth in the Agreement via Federal Express or similar courier, with copies via facsimile or email, and shall be deemed received 3 business days after deposit with the courier.

7. The Parties hereby submit to the jurisdiction of the Federal and State courts in California and consent to service of process in accord with the notice provisions above.

8. In the event of any disputes arising between the Parties to this Agreement, either Party may submit the dispute to the Judicial Arbitration & Mediation Service in Los Angeles for exclusive and final resolution pursuant to according to [sic] its streamlined procedures before a single arbitrator who shall have ten years judicial service at the appellate level, pursuant to California law, and who shall issue a written, reasoned award. The Parties shall share equally the cost of the arbitration. Disputes shall include failure of the Parties to come to Agreement as required by this Agreement in a timely fashion.”

Due to disputes between the parties, in February 2012, Rockefeller brought an arbitration against SinoType. SinoType was defaulted in the arbitration proceeding. According to the arbitrator, SinoType was served by email and Federal Express to the Chinese address listed for it in the MOU. In November 2013, the arbitrator found favorably for Rockefeller.

Instead of enforcing the award in China according to the New York Convention,[1] Rockefeller petitioned to confirm the award in State courts in California. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1290.4(a) provides that a petition to confirm an arbitral award “shall be served in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice.” Therefore, Rockefeller transmitted the summons and its petition to SinoType again through FedEx and email according to paragraph 7 of the MOU. SinoType did not appear and the award was confirmed in October 2014. SinoType then appeared specially and applied to set aside the judgment. It argued that the service of the Californian court proceeding did not comply with the Hague Service Convention; therefore, it had not been duly served and the judgment was void.

2. Decision

The California Supreme Court rejected SinoType’s argument.

The Court discerned three principles for the application of the Hague Service Convention. First, the Convention applies only to “service of process in the technical sense” involving “a formal delivery of documents”. The Court distinguished “service” and “notice” by referring to the Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention, published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (‘Handbook’). The Court cited that

“the Convention cannot—and does not—determine which documents need to be served. It is a matter for the lex fori to decide if a document needs to be served and which document needs to be served. Thus, if the law of the forum states that a notice is to be somehow directed to one or several addressee(s), without requiring service, the Convention does not have to be applied.”[2]

Second, the law of the sending forum (i.e. the law of California) should be applied to determine whether “there is occasion to transmit a judicial or extrajudicial document for service abroad.”

Third, if formal service of process is required under the law of the sending forum, the Hague Convention must be complied for international transmission of service documents.

The court held that the parties have waived the formal service of process, so the Hague Service Convention was not applicable in this case.[3]

3. Comments

The Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co, Ltd has a number of interesting aspects and has been commented such as here, here and here.

First, the Hague Service Convention is widely considered as ‘non-mandatory’ but ‘exclusive’.[4]  Addressing the non-mandatory nature of the Convention, the Handbook states that “the Convention can not—and does not—determine which documents need to be served. It is a matter for the lex fori to decide if a document needs to be served and which document needs to be served.”[5] However, this statement does not necessarily mean, when judicial documents are indeed transmitted from a member state to another to charge a defendant with notice of a pending lawsuit, a member state can opt out of the Convention by unilaterally excluding the transmission from the concept of service. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v Schlunk decided by the Supreme Court of the US and Segers and Rufa BV v. Mabanaft GmbH decided by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (Hoge Raad) are the two most important cases on the non-mandatory nature of the Convention. Both cases concentrate on which law should be applied to whether a document needed to be transmitted abroad for service.[6] However, Rockefeller is different because it is about which law should be applied to determine the concept of service when the transmission of judicial documents takes place in the soil of another member state. The Handbook provides that the basic criterion for the Convention to apply is “transmission abroad” and “place of service is determining factor”.[7] When judicial documents are physically transmitted in the soil of a member state, allowing another member state to unilaterally determine the concept of service in order to exclude the application of the Convention will inappropriately expand the non-mandatory character of the Convention. This will inevitably narrow the scope of the application of the Convention and damage the principle of reciprocity as the foundation of the Convention. The Hague Convention should be applied to Rockefeller because the summons and petitions were transmitted across border for service in China.

Second, as part of its accession to the Hague Convention, China expressly stated that it does not agree to service by mail.  Indeed, the official PRC declarations and reservations to the Hague Convention make it clear that, with the limited exception of voluntary service on a foreign national living in China by his country’s own embassy or consulate, the only acceptable method of service on China is through the Chinese Central Authority. Therefore, although China has recognized monetary judgments issued in the US according to the principle of reciprocity, the judgment of Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co, Ltd probably cannot be recognized and enforced in China.

The California Supreme Court decision has important implications. For Chinese parties who have assets outside of China, they should be more careful in drafting their contracts because Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co, Ltd shows that a US court may consider their agreement on service by post is a waiver of China’s reservation under the Hague Service Convention. For US parties, if Chinese defendants only have assets in China for enforcement, Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co, Ltd is not a good case to follow because the judgment probably cannot be enforced in China.

 

 

[1] China is a party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Jun. 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, 330 U.N.T.S. 38 (“New York Convention”).

[2] Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention (4th ed. 2016) par. 54, p. 23, fn. Omitted.

[3] The Court emphasized that their conclusions should be limited to Section 1290.4, subdivision (a): “Our conclusions as to California law are narrow. When parties agree to California arbitration, they consent to submit to the personal jurisdiction of California courts to enforce the agreement and any judgment under section 1293. When the agreement also specifies the manner in which the parties “shall be served,” consistent with section 1290.4, subdivision (a), that agreement supplants statutory service requirements and constitutes a waiver of formal service in favor of the agreed-upon method of notification. If an arbitration agreement fails to specify a method of service, the statutory service requirements of section 1290.4, subdivisions (b) or (c) would apply, and those statutory requirements would constitute formal service of process. We express no view with respect to service of process in other contexts.”

[4] Martin Davies et al., Nygh’s Conflict of Laws in Australia 36 (10th ed. 2020).

[5] Paragraph 54 of the Handbook.

[6] Ibid., paragraphs 31-45, and 47.

[7] Ibid., paragraph 16.

Forum non conveniens featured not just in Municipio de Mariana at the High Court yesterday but also in Qatar Airways Group QCSC v Middle East News FZ LLC & Ors [2020] EWHC 2975 (QB).

Twenty Essex have good summary of the background and decision. Context is of course the blockade on Qatar, led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Qatar Airways Group (QAG) sue on the basis of tort, triggered by a rather chilling clip aired by Al Arabiya which amounted to a veiled threat against the airline.

Saini J at 27 notes what Turner J also noted in Municipio de Mariana and what Briggs LJ looked at in horror in Vedanta, namely the spiralling volume and consequential costs in bringing and defending a jurisdictional challenge. (Although at least for Vedanta and Municipio de Mariana the issues discussed are matters of principle, which may eventually settle once SC (and indeed CJEU) authority is clear).

The judgment recalls some principles of international aviation law under the Chicago Convention (with noted and utterly justifiable reference a 77 ff to an article on the opiniojuris blog by prof Heller) which is important here because (at 61) it is the starting point of QAG’s case that anyone who had taken steps to inform themselves of the legal position would have known that contrary to what (it argues) is the message of the Video, there was no real risk of any internationally legitimate interception, still less legitimate shooting at or down, of a QAG scheduled service in flight along one of the defined air corridors. At 88 Saini J concludes on that issue that there is an arguable case as to meaning and falsity.

On good arguable case, reference is to Kaefer v AMS, Goldman Sachs v Novo Banco, and Brownlie.

At 164 ff the judge discusses the issue of pleading foreign law at the jurisdictional threshold of making a good arguable case. Here, Saini J holds on the basis of the assumption that malicious falsehood is not covered by Rome II, which is the higher threshold for the purposes of establishing jurisdiction. He does suggest that it is likely that in fact malicious falsehood is covered by Rome II and not by the exception for infringement of personality rights (at 166: ‘Malicious falsehood is not a claim for defamation, and what is sought to be protected is not Qatar Airways’ reputation or privacy rights, but its economic interests’).

As for applicable law for conspiracy, that is clearly within the scope of Rome II and poses the difficulty of determining locus damni in a case of purely economic loss. Here, at 169 Saini J suggests preliminarily that parties agreed “damage” for the purposes of Article 4(1) of Rome II to have been suffered in the place where the third parties (that is, potential passengers) failed to enter into contracts with QAG (which they otherwise would have done) as a result of the video. Location of purely economic damage under Rome II as indeed it is under Brussel Ia is however not settled and I doubt it is as simple as locating it in the place of putative (passenger) contract formation.

Of long-term impact is the judge’s finding that for jurisdictional threshold purposes, he is content for claimant to proceed with a worldwide claim for tort on the basis of any foreign law that might be applicable having the same content as English law. 

Of note in the forum non analysis is that not just the obvious alternative of the UAE was not good forum, but neither would the DIFC be. At 374:’the UAE is not an appropriate forum is what I would broadly call “access to justice” considerations in what has clearly become a “hostile environment” for Qataris in the UAE.’ And at 379, re the DIFC: ‘The DIFC courts are a sort of “litigation island” within the UAE, created to attract legal business by their perceived superior neutrality, and higher quality, compared to the local courts. But as such, they have no superiority compared to the English courts, also a neutral forum. The English courts have the other connections to the case, which the DIFC courts do not.’

Geert.

 

 

409 paras of jurisdictional challenge based on serious issue to be tried and forum non conveniens.
Dismissed (with summary judgment re one of the defendants).
Discussion of international aviation law (with reference to article on @opiniojuris). https://t.co/Qz2GpqgLoF

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 9, 2020

I am instructed for claimants in the case hence my post here is a succinct report, not a review and it must not be read as anything else.

Turner J yesterday struck out (not just: stayed) the case against the companies jointly operating the facilities that led to the 2015 Brazilian dam break and consequential human and environmental loss in Município De Mariana & Ors v BHP Group Plc & Anor [2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC). I reported on the case before here.

Eyre J’s earlier Order had identified the threefold jurisdictional challenge: 1. Forum non conveniens for non-EU defendants; 2. Article 34 Brussels IA for the EU-based defendants; 3. Abuse of process, case management for both.

In his judgment Turner J makes abuse of process the core of the case, hinging his subsequent obiter analysis of forum non and of Article 34 on his views viz abuse. At the centre of his abuse analysis is his interpretation of AB v John Wyeth & Brother (No.4), also known as the benzodiazepine litigation, with the points he takes from that judgment (even after the subsequent CPR rules wre issued) summarized at 76.

At 80 ff is a discussion (see e.g. my earlier review of Donaldson DJ in Zavarco) on the use of case-management powers, including abuse, against EU-domiciled defendants post CJEU Owusu (the ‘back-door analogy per Lewison J in Skype technologies SA v Joltid Ltd [2009] EWHC 2783 (Ch) ).

At 99 ff Turner J pays a lot of attention to the impact of accepting jurisdiction on the working of the courts in England, discusses some of the practicalities including language issues, and decides at 141 in an extract which has already caught the attention of others, that ‘In particular, the claimants’ tactical decision to progress closely related damages claims in the Brazilian and English jurisdictions simultaneously is an initiative the consequences of which, if unchecked, would foist upon the English courts the largest white elephant in the history of group actions.’

At 146 ff follow the obiter considerations of the remaining grounds, Article 34 Recast, forum non conveniens and case management stay. On Article 34 viz BHP Plc, the issue of ‘relatedness’ is discussed with reference of course to Euroeco and the tension between that case and Privatbank, as I flag ia here, holding at 199 in favour of Privatbank as the leading authority (hence focus on desirability of hearing cases together rather than on practical possibility). On relatedness, Turner J does not follow the approach of either Zavarco or Jalla, both of course first instance decisions.

At 206 Turner J takes the instructions of recital 24 Brussels Ia’s ‘all circumstances of the case’ to mean including circumstances which would ordinarily be part of a forum non consideration, despite Owusu, and at 231 Jalla is distinguished (at least practically; Jalla is not authority for the judge here) and i.a. at 221 Turner J lists his reasons for allowing an Article 34 stay (again: these are obiter views). As already noted, these echo his findings on abuse of process.

The forum non conveniens analysis viz BHP Ltd at 235 ff, applying Spiliada, delivers inter alia on an inherent implication of Lord Briggs’ suggestions in Vedanta: that a commitment of defendants voluntarily to submit to the foreign alternative jurisdiction, hands them the key to unlock forum non. At 241: ‘In this case, both defendants have offered to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of Brazil. Thus the force of any suggestion that there may be a risk of irreconcilable judgements against each defendant is attenuated.’

Conclusions, at 265:

(i) I strike out the claims against both defendants as an abuse of the process of the court;

(ii) If my finding of abuse were correct but my decision to strike out were wrong, then I would stay the claims leaving open the possibility of the claimants, or some of them, seeking to lift the stay in future but without pre-determining the timing of any such application or the circumstances in which such an application would be liable to succeed;

(iii) If my finding of abuse were wrong, then I would, in any event, stay the claim against BHP Plc by the application of Article 34 of the Recast Regulation;

(iv) If my finding of abuse were wrong, then I would, in any event, stay the claims against BHP Ltd on the grounds of forum non conveniens regardless of whether the BHP reliance on Article 34 of the Recast Regulation had been successful or not;

(v) If my findings on the abuse of process point were wrong, then a free-standing decision to impose a stay on case management grounds would probably be unsustainable.

Appeal is of course being considered.

Geert.

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

3rd ed. forthcoming February 2021.

Jurisdiction denied in core #bizhumanrights case on the basis of abuse of process, Article 34 Brussels Ia and /or forum non conveniens.
For background to the case see https://t.co/CzkMFH98yH https://t.co/h9AjvJ6JIR

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 9, 2020

The third issue of 2020 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP, published by CEDAM) was just released. It features:

Ilaria Viarengo, Professor at the University of Milan, Planning Cross-Border Successions: The Professio Juris in the Succession Regulation (in English)

• This article addresses the role of party autonomy in Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 in the context of estate planning, Against this backdrop, the interface between the law governing the succession and property aspects of marriage or of a registered partnership, as provided in the Regulations (EU) No 2016/1103 and 2016/1104, is also analysed. This article also proceeds to examine the optio juris functioning and, in particular, it focuses on, respectively, the object of the choice, the determination of the nationality, whose law may be chosen, and the formal and substantial validity of the agreement. Finally, the protection of close family members in connection with the freedom of choice is taken into account, as the choice of law could be in contrast with the legitimate expectations of family members on the applicability of certain provisions on forced heirship and lead to a law that actually undermines their position.

The following comment is also featured:

Edoardo Benvenuti, PhD Candidate at the University of Milan, La tutela collettiva risarcitoria dei consumatori nelle controversie transfrontaliere: diritto interno e prospettive di armonizzazione (‘Cross-Border Consumer Collective Redress: Domestic Law and Prospects for Harmonisation’; in Italian)

• This article examines some developments in the area of consumer collective redress in the EU, especially in the light of the recent proposal for a Directive on representative actions. In Italy, Law No 31 of 12 April 2019 introduces a new type of class action which triggers some reflections and, in particular, doubts about its congruence with the Directive. The Author examines whether the principles set forth in the proposed Directive are consistent with the protection of consumer collective interests and whether, in matters with cross-border implications, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 is an efficient instrument. Even though some CJEU decisions seem to promote a flexible interpretation of this latter Regulation, its provisions do not encompass collective redress; therefore, a reform is desirable.

In addition to the foregoing, this issue features the following book review by Francesca C. Villata, Professor at the University of Milan: Chris Brummer (ed.), Cryptoassets: Legal, Regulatory and Monetary Perspectives, Oxford University Press, New York, 2019, pp. XIII-441.