GAVC

First Advocate General Szpunar Opined last week in Case C-86/23 E.N.I., Y.K.I. v HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG – let’s call that case HUK-Coburg. The case concerns the application of Article 16 Rome II’s lois de police aka lois d’application immédiate aka overriding mandatory provisions.

A claim is issued for compensation submitted by private individuals, who are Bulgarian nationals, in accordance with compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, against an insurance company for non-material damage caused by the death of their daughter in a road traffic accident in Germany.

The core issue to determine by the CJEU is the concept of overriding mandatory provisions in Article 16 Rome II and in particular the determination of the criteria for classifying rules safeguarding individual rights and freedoms as ‘overriding mandatory provisions’. This echos the discussion in Unamar, where the Brussels Court of Appeal eventually held that the relevant Belgian provisions only serve the interests of private parties, not of the Belgian public legal order, hence there can be no question of application of the lois de police exception (current Opinion suggests ‘only’ as the key word in the Court of Appeal’s analysis). The current discussion by the AG also echoes the facts in Lazar.

Contrary to German law (28), Bulgarian law (lex fori) (29) provides that compensation for non-material damage is determined by the court giving judgment on the basis of fair criteria. That court points out that, under Bulgarian law, compensation is payable for all mental pain and suffering endured by parents on the death of their child as a result of an unlawfully and culpably caused road traffic accident. It is not necessary for the harm to have resulted indirectly in pathological damage to the health of the victim.

(32) The mere fact that, by applying the lex fori, there would be a different outcome with regard to the amount of compensation from that which would have been reached by applying the lex causae is not sufficient to conclude that the Bulgarian provision at issue may be classified as an ‘overriding mandatory provision’ within the meaning of Article 16 of the Rome II Regulation, provided, the AG adds,  that the application of the lex causae is compatible with considerations of justice.

(36) Over and above CJEU Unamar, the Court also in Da Silva Martins explored the concept and the criteria. (42) ff the AG recalls the general principles, and (56) he points to recital 32 Rome II’s reference to ‘‘considerations of public interest’. The AG is absolutely right in opining that safeguarding individual interest may absolutely contribute to the protection of public interest. His argument (60) is common sense and absolutely right:

A first argument is linked to the interplay of collective and individual interests. Thus, in the field of tort law, the rules that a Member State establishes in order to protect a category of persons who have sustained damage, by modifying, in particular, the burden of proof or by establishing a minimum threshold for compensation, could have the principal objective to restore the balance between the competing interests of private parties. Indirectly, they could therefore also contribute to safeguarding the social and economic order of the Member State by reducing the impact of accidents on public resources.

On the basis of CJEU authority as outlined, the AG concludes that the case at issue may absolutely lead to the court seised applying Bulgarian law however only if

it finds, on the basis of the existence of sufficiently close links with the country of the forum and a detailed analysis of the terms, general scheme, objective and context of the adoption of that directive, that it is of such importance in the national legal order that it justifies a departure from the applicable law designated pursuant to Article 4 [Rome II].

A good opinion which I hope will be followed by the Court.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 4.87 ff.

First AG Szpunar this morning in C‑86/23 HUK-Coburg
Applicable law
Criteria for classifying rules safeguarding individual rights and freedoms as ‘overriding mandatory provisions’ viz A16 Rome II
citing ia @KrzysztofPacula, Bonomi, Wauthelet, Francqhttps://t.co/M0qXbb8aCu

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 21, 2024

In his Opinion in C-774/22 JX v FTI Touristik, Advocate General Emiliou in my opinion is spot on for both core elements of the case. A consumer domiciled in Germany issues a claim against a tour operator also established in Germany in relation to a contract for a package of travel services booked by that consumer for a trip abroad. Does Brussels Ia apply and does the consumer title of the Regulation assign territorial as well as national jurisdiction?

The trip is sold as a package holiday. That is relevant, for the consumer title does not apply to mere contracts of transport. The consumer in the case at issue suggests that the operator failed in its duties under the Package Travel Directive to inform ia re visa requirements and brings a case in his domicile, Nuremberg (as opposed to Munich, the defendant’s domicile).

The AG is absolutely right to spend a mere two paras on the territorial jurisdiction issue. The answer follows from the very wording of the consumer title. (18):

The referring court’s doubts concerning the function of the forum actoris rule for consumers call for a swift response. It stems from the very wording of Article 18(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. A comparison of the two provisions it contains is enlightening in that regard. The forum rei rule refers to the ‘courts of the Member State’ in which the professional is domiciled. By contrast, the forum actoris rule refers to the ‘courts for the place’ where the consumer is domiciled. That terminological difference is not trivial. It is designed precisely to indicate that, whereas the first rule merely confers international jurisdiction on the courts system of the designated State, taken as a whole, the second rule gives both international and territorial jurisdiction to the court for the locality of the consumer’s domicile, irrespective of the allocation of jurisdiction otherwise provided for by the rules of procedure of that State.

On the next issue, the international element, the AG refers to the discussion in German scholarship on ‘false internal cases’ (unechteInlandsfälle). Does the foreign destination of the trip give the contractual relationship an international character? (29) ff he finds support in the broad conception of the international element in BIa generally. Owusu of course, Lindner, ZN v Bulgarian Consulate, IRnova and most recently Inkreal are all relevant authority.

(33) The AG refers to some clear examples of what the majority view would call unechteInlandsfälle which without a doubt however are caught by Brussels Ia:

For instance, where a court of a Member State is called upon to determine a case which, on the one hand, involves two litigants domiciled in that State but, on the other, relates to a tort that took place abroad, or the tenancy of an immovable property located in another country, the Brussels I bis Regulation applies.

Emiliou AG is not a fan of ZN v Bulgarian Consulate not because it viewed the case as being international but rather because it relies too much on the definition of ‘international’ in the European Order for Payment Regulation 1896/2006 (respective domiciles of the parties and the seat of the court seised). (38-39)

On the one hand, Regulation No 1896/2006 was adopted to tackle the difficulties faced by creditors seeking to recover uncontested claims from debtors in other Member States. It is aimed at simplifying and speeding up the recovery of such claims, through the creation of a uniform procedure allowing a creditor to obtain, from a court of a Member State, a judicial decision on such a claim, which can easily be enforced in the Member State where the debtor’s assets are located, while guaranteeing a level playing field in terms of rights of defence throughout the European Union. The definition of ‘cross-border case’ given in that regulation – based on the respective domiciles of the parties and the seat of the court seised – has a certain logic in that context. Where the parties are domiciled in the same State, the remedies provided by the courts of that State, under its procedural law, are usually sufficient to ensure that the creditor swiftly recovers his or her claim. Therefore, the procedure laid down in that regulation is not necessary.

On the other hand, the Brussels I bis Regulation purports to unify the rules of conflicts of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters. That definition is too narrow and, thus, ill-suited for that purpose. As explained in points 32 and 33 above, questions of international jurisdiction may arise even where the litigants are domiciled in the same Member State and the courts of that State are seised. Moreover, that instrument also contains rules on recognition and enforcement of judgments given by the courts of the Member States. To be fit for purpose, those rules must apply whenever the authorities of a Member State are required to recognise or enforce a decision delivered by a court of another Member State, even where it concerns an internal dispute between two persons domiciled in the latter State. That definition also does not accommodate that situation.

(41) the AG insists the CJEU no longer refer to the OFP Regulation in interpreting Brussels Ia:

I urge the Court to refrain, in the future, from referring to Regulation No 1896/2006 in that context. Should the Court wish to draw inspiration from, and to ensure consistency with, other instruments on that issue, [Rome I and Rome II] fit the bill better, as will be seen below.

(I have in the past voiced concern with too much BIa /RI and II parallel as has the CJEU itself in Kainz).

More in general though and away from purposive construction in light of other PIL instruments, the AG opines straightforwardly that the destination of the trip constitutes a relevant ‘international element’ for the purposes of BIa.

The place of destination of the trip is also the place where, under the package travel contract, (most of) the services were provided or should have been provided to the traveller (the flight would land nearby, the hotel be situated there, and so on). In other words, that contract was, or should have been, essentially performed there. In my view, where a court of a Member State is called upon to determine a dispute related to the performance of a contract, and the place of performance is in a foreign country, that factor is ‘such as to raise questions relating to the determination of the international jurisdiction of that court’. (Reference to Richard de la Tour AG in Inkreal).

CJEU Lindner at the jurisdictional level echoes in (45) in the AG’s reference to Rome I:

An analogy can also be made, in my view, with the Rome I Regulation and the relevant case-law of the Court. Similar to the Brussels I bis Regulation with respect to jurisdiction, that instrument determines the law applicable to a contract where the situation ‘involv[es] a conflict of laws’. In that regard, it stems from the case law of the Court that the rules of the Rome I Regulation are applicable to any contractual relationship with a ‘foreign element’. Indeed, it is only where such a contract has connections with a country (or countries) other than that of the court seised that that contract could potentially be governed by different, conflicting national laws, and that court may wonder which law to apply in order to resolve a dispute. Pursuant to the same case law, that concept of ‘foreign element’ is not limited to the respective domiciles of the contracting parties. The fact that the contract is to be performed in another country constitutes such an ‘element’.  A connection of that kind obviously ‘involv[es] a conflict of laws’. The court seised can contemplate the possibility that the law of the country of performance could apply instead of its own. [Much appreciated reference in footnote to the 2nd ed of the Handbook, 2016, GAVC]. Thus, the rules of that regulation are necessary to resolve that conflict.

The somewhat convoluted reasoning by which the CJEU came to international element in Maletic (where the Court could just as well simply had referred to the foreign destination of the trip) is explained by the AG (49) by the fact that the real difficulty in that case was on which party to anchor the forum solutionis analysis.

(56) In further support comes Article 18(1)s’ ‘regardless of the domicile of the other party’, clearly designed with third States parties in mind, is broad enough to capture  the situation where the supplier is domiciled in the same the Member State as the consumer.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed 2024, 2.22 ff and 2.233 ff.

1/2 Emiliou AG Thurs in C‑774/22 JX v FTI Touristik
Both spot on imo:
consumer title Brussels Ia applies to contract btw consumer and tour operator domiciled in same MS but with trip abroad;
consumer title forum actoris determines national as well as territorial jurisdiction

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 9, 2024

In competition law there is a strong presumption of attributability of daughter’s action to the mother corporation as I discussed ia in my post on CJEU C-508/11 P ENI (references to further case-law there). In general in competition law there is a strong emphasis on the concept of an ‘economic unit’ which readly looks beyond the legal fiction of separate corporate personality.

In C‑425/22 MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v Mercedes-Benz Group AG (let’s shorten that to ‘MOL v Mercedez-Benz) Emiliou AG opined that for the purposes of Article 7(2) Brussels Ia jurisdiction a parent company cannot rely on the competition law concept of an economic unit in order to establish the jurisdiction of the courts where it has its registered seat to hear and determine its claim for damages for the harm suffered by its subsidiaries.

(14) Applicant is a company established in Hungary. It has a controlling interest in companies belonging to the MOL group. It is either the majority shareholder or holds another form of exclusive controlling power over a number of companies, such as MOLTRANS, established in Hungary; INA, established in Croatia; Panta and Nelsa, established in Italy; ROTH, established in Austria; and SLOVNAFT, established in Slovakia. During the infringement period identified by the relevant Commision Decision (the Trucks Cartel)

The AG of course refers to Bier, Dumez France (direct damage in one person rules out an extra A7(2) forum for the third party (mother corporation) victim of indirect damage), and other core cases on A7(2) which this blog frequently refers to and /or has discussed:

C‑352/13 CDC: A7(2) locus delicti commissi for cartels is the court of the place where the cartel was definitively formed, confirmed in flyLAL and criticised by me inter alia here;

C‑352/13 CDC (holding ia that A7(2) locus damni for infringement of cartel is the victim’s registered seat); that solution too as the AG notes (44) was met by criticism both by Bobek AG in his Opinion in flyLAL and by scholarship;

C-30/20 Volvo: more emphasis Emiliou AG suggests on the link between the market affected by the anticompetitive conduct and the place where the claimants allege to have suffered harm; in my post on the case I point out the CJEU’s fuzziness on the issue;

He also distinguishes CJEU Tibor Trans‘ distinct view on (in)direct damage as follows (36-37) – footnotes omitted:

36. It is true, as the applicant notes, that in the judgment in Tibor-Trans (which related to the same collusive behaviour as that established in the Commission Decision at issue in the present case), the Court distinguished that case from the scenario in Dumez. The particularity of the facts in Tibor-Trans was that the applicant in that case, an end user of the trucks, did not purchase any trucks from the defendant directly, but did so through a dealership. However, that did not prevent the Court from finding that the applicant’s claim in that case concerned direct damage, because that damage was found to be the immediate consequence of an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, given that the overcharge resulting from the collusive agreement was passed on to that applicant by the dealers.

37. Such passing-on may occur within a supply chain where the alleged victim acquires the goods (or services) which have been subject to a cartel. That, however, is not claimed to have occurred in the case in the main proceedings. Instead, the applicant appears to present the initial harm suffered by its subsidiaries as its own.

(52) The AG points out that the distinguishing feature here is that the applicant’s registered seat is situated outside the affected market. (57) Applicant seeks to extend the application of the registered seat connecting factor to establish jurisdiction in relation to its claim in which it seeks compensation for harm suffered solely by other members of its economic unit.

Emiliou AG does not believe the competition law concept can simply be extended for jurisdictional services, referring also to Szpunar AG’s Opinion in C‑632/22 (service of documents) on which see prof Matthias Weller here. For his extensive arguments based on A7(2)’s requirement of proximity, predictability of forum, Gleichlauf (less convincing imo), and that BIa’s jurisdictional rules guarantee efficient enforcement (particularly in A4 domicile jurisdiction), see the Opinion.

His final conclusion is that (98)

the term ‘the place where the harmful event occurred’, within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012, does not cover the registered office of the parent company that brings an action for damages for the harm caused solely to that parent company’s subsidiaries by the anticompetitive conduct of a third party, and where it is claimed that that parent company and those subsidiaries form part of the same economic unit.

As my colleague Joeri Vananroye summarises the Opinion:

“In corporate law terms: yes to outsider veil piercing, no to insider reverse veil piercing. Outsiders may disregard legal structure and go for economic reality; but not those who set up that structure. See also: rules on derivate damages.”

Blame Bier /Mines de Potasse d’Alsace for this complex set of rules and distinguishing.

Geert.

EU private international law, 4th ed. 2024, 2.438 ff.

Emiliou AG, A7(2) BIa
Parent company cannot rely on competition law concept of economic unit to establish jurisdiction where it has its registered seat, re claim for damages for the harm suffered by its subsidiaries.

MOl v Mercedes-Benz https://t.co/MC376UYiX0

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) February 14, 2024

Project Lietzenburger Strabe Holdco, Re [2024] EWHC 468 (Ch) would seem to heed my prediction when I reviewed AGPS BondCo (“Strategic Value Capital Solutions Master Fund LP & Ors v AGPS BondCo PLC (Re AGPS BondCo PLC) [2024] EWCA Civ 24) here: that the English jurisdictional basis for schemes of arrangement and restructuring plans for corporations without English anchor prior to the restructuring, is less certain than court practice suggested.

Prior to AGPS Bondco and as I report in many posts which readers can find using the ‘scheme of arrangement’, in the event of a non-E&W incorporated debtor whose debt was being restructured, the classic technique is to insert a newly incorporated English company as a substitute obligor or co-obligor of debt owed by a foreign company in order to engage the jurisdiction of the English court. That technique in itself has not changed, but the court’s fairly ready acceptance of jurisdiction arguendo is now coming under some pressure.

As I reported in the past, the arguendo technique’s smoot riding through the courts first if all was assisted by the general absence of challenge by creditors. Even those not entirely convinced of the economic soundness of the restructuring at issue would eventually give up opposition when push came to shove. Further, pre-Brexit the assumption that a scheme or a plan would be readily recognised across the EU as a ‘judgment’ under Brussels Ia, despite question marks over the soundness of that ia viz the definition of ‘judgment’ and the application of BIa’s ‘insolvency’ exception, similarly lubricated passage through the courts. Post Brexit and absent UK Lugano membership, things have not necessarily changed from the content point of view; however they have certainly changed from the perception point of view.

In the case at issue, Richards J refers to AGPS Bondco and discusses COMI shift of the Plan corporation at length [69] ff.

The plan company having its COMI in E&W is one of the jurisdictional routes available. The Insolvency (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are the main port of call, and Re Swissport Holding International SARL [2020] EWHC 3556 (Ch) (unreported), which I flagged  in my discussion of Barings v Galapagos here is the lead judgment referred to on the principles of COMI. One of the issues in Barings is the question of ‘permanency’ of COMI move, an urgent issue in Barings but perhaps less immediately concerning in current case (the judge does briefly address it [85]).

The judge having decided that COMI was indeed located in E&W then [86] ff discussed whether this move of COMI might have been in breach of Luxembourg law. The structure of this analysis is not entirely clear. Whether COMI moved in breach of applicable lex societatis is not in itself I would suggest relevant to the COMI move itself and indeed this is not how the judge seems to approach it. One assumes his analysis on this point is part of his consideration of whether the courts at Luxembourg would recognise the Plan, alongside [103] ff where the potential of exclusive Luxembourg jurisdiction is considered. Consideration including by the experts is made of CJEU C-723/20 Galapagos BidCo Sarl, with the judge eventually by a slender margin deciding that the view is to be preferred that Lux courts would not consider themselves to have such jurisdiction.

On recognition proper (again I am not quite sure of the structure here). [112] ff consider the Re DTEK Energy BV test, with consideration in particular of the COMI move as fraude à la loi /fraus (additionally in the form of fraude au jugement) and on balance the judge holds that it is unlikely that the LUX courts would object on ordre public grounds (ia given EU law’s acceptance of COMI move for restructuring purposes.

The same ordre public test under German law with an important Brexit consequence [125]: “Both experts agree that an English judgment sanctioning the Plan would be recognised in Germany only if the Plan Company’s COMI is in England at the time of any order sanctioning the Plan. Without that, the German courts would not accept that the English courts have jurisdiction for the purposes of s343 of the InsO.” I am not an expert on German law but it seems prima facie implicit in that opinion that a Plan would have to be considered an insolvency and indeed [125] ff follows that discussion. Here the judgment takes an interesting turn with [130] the presence of cross-class cram-down in an English Plan leading to pro inspiratio an Annex A EU Insolvency Regulation notified German procedure, StaRUG, in implementation of EU Directive 2019/1023 on Preventive Restructurings (the “Restructuring Directive”), the Plan being considered one in insolvency.

Consider the competing reasons:

Professor Thole’s reasons for concluding that the Plan would be recognised and given effect to in Germany can be summarised as follows:

i) The Plan is similar in nature to a StaRUG. StaRUGs fall within the list of “insolvency proceedings” set out in Annex A.

ii) Proceedings set out in Annex A are “insolvency proceedings” for the purposes of the InsO. In official commentaries on German domestic legislation, the German legislature has stated that, in deciding whether non-EU proceedings constitute “insolvency proceedings”, it is helpful to consider their similarities with proceedings listed in Annex A.

iii) Since the Plan is similar to a StaRUG, which falls within Annex A, a German court would likely conclude that an order sanctioning the Plan would be an order in “insolvency proceedings” for the purposes of the InsO.

iv) That conclusion is not altered by the accepted fact that the Plan does not deal with all the Plan Company’s creditors (such as professional advisers). The requirement for “collective proceedings” is present by virtue of the fact that the Plan deals with the rights of the Plan Company’s financial creditors. That conclusion is supported by a comparison with StaRUGs which likewise do not need to deal with the claims of all creditors.

v) Accordingly, the Plan would be enforced and recognised under the terms of the InsO.

1. 1. 1. Professor Skauradszun’s reasons for reaching a contrary conclusion can be summarised as follows:

i) German legal literature categorises plans under Part 26A as “preventive restructuring frameworks” which are the province of the StaRUG Act rather than the InsO. Accordingly, a German court would consider that the question whether the Plan should be recognised and enforced in Germany should be answered by reference to the StaRUG Act, rather than by reference to the InsO.

ii) The StaRUG Act does not provide for preventive restructuring frameworks of a non-EU member state to be recognised or enforced in Germany. There is, therefore a “gap” in German domestic legislation which means that non-EU “preventive restructuring frameworks” are inherently incapable of being recognised in Germany. Since Germany has a civil law tradition, the courts would not seek to fill that gap by adopting a strained interpretation of the concept of “insolvency proceedings” so as to enable the Plan to be recognised under the InsO. Rather, a German court would look to the legislature to fill the gap if it saw fit.

iii) The Plan falls outside the definition of “insolvency proceedings” in the InsO applying orthodox principles of interpretation which are not affected by any wish to fill a perceived gap in the legislation. That is because the Plan lacks the requisite element of “collectivity” to satisfy the definition.

iv) The fact that the Plan is similar to procedures (such as a StaRUG) listed in Annex A is not relevant. While German legislation does indeed take into account similarities with EU insolvency proceedings, the InsO only requires a comparison to be made with proceedings listed in the EU Insolvency Regulation prior to it being recast in 2015. The German court would not apply an “always speaking” doctrine of statutory interpretation to “update” those references to include Annex A of the Insolvency Regulation Recast.

 These are interesting positions and in the end the judge sides by a very narrow margin with the former. 

Further consideration of the plan then lead to the judge suggesting a number of amendments but for the purposes of the blog, the findings on jurisdiction and recognition are as extensive as they are exciting.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 5.35 ff.

More on the blog soon
Refusal to sanction Restructuring Plan
Extensive review of LUX, DE expert opinion on jurisdiction, COMI, fraude à la loi (held i/t end E&W courts do have jurisdiction)

Project Lietzenburger Strabe Holdco, Re [2024] EWHC 468 (Ch)https://t.co/y4Mv0uDEE2

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 4, 2024

In Granville Technology Group Ltd v Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 13 (Comm) Pelling J deals with a follow-on damages claim in the context of the LCD cartel (an EC decision under Article 101 TFEU). In E&W these are characterised as tortious claims for breach of statutory duty, as they are in most EU jurisdictions, too.

The applicable law issues were dealt with under residual English law pre Rome II. The events with which this claim is concerned occurred before 11 January 2009, when Rome II came into effect. For the Brussels Ia and Rome II issues see my paper here. However the judge’s discussion of elements displacing the English law’s presumption of locus damni have important comparative context to EU law as I discuss below.

Claimants were English registered companies carrying on business in England and Wales in the manufacture and/or sale primarily of  desktop PCs sold with monitors and notebooks. They are now all in liquidation. The judge handily recalls the principles [18]] for those not familiar with follow-on actions

A claimant alleging a competition law infringement can bring a claim before the English courts either as a ‘standalone’ claim (in which case it must establish both the breach of competition law alleged and the loss which it alleges was caused thereby); or (as in this case) as a ‘follow-on’ claim, where the claimants rely on the findings of the relevant competition authority (in this case the Commission) to establish breach. The “follow on” option is available because  in law the High Court is bound by infringement decisions of the Commission, such as the Decision. However the claimant in a follow on claim must prove the loss it alleges it has been caused by the infringement relied on…

Damage of course is an issue and [27] in this case as in many similar ones, “complex economic evidence involving statistical modelling at various levels of complexity and sophistication was deployed by both parties but in particular by the defendant in an attempt to identify what part of the price increases in LCD panels over the Relevant Period was attributable to the cartel’s infringing activity.”

[34] Applicable issues of law that arise against some of the defendants, are:

i) Whether any losses that arise out of purchases by the claimants of LCD panels or LCD Products containing LCD panels which were first put onto the market outside the EEA fall outside the territorial scope of EU law and are therefore unrecoverable;

ii) whether the Claim in so far as it arises out of purchases by the claimants of LCD panels or LCD Products containing LCD panels which were first put onto the market in South Korea, Taiwan, China and Japan is governed by the laws of these countries; and if so whether the claims by the claimant to recover damages for breach of TFEU, Article 101 and/or AEEA, Article 53 is a cause of action within the laws of those states. The claimants have not attempted to prove the relevant laws of any of those states and rely on the presumption (“Presumption of Similarity”) that those laws are materially the same as English law unless the contrary is pleaded and proved. The defendants case is that the Presumption of Similarity is of no application applying the decision of the Supreme Court in Brownlie v FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC [2021] UKSC 45 per Lord Leggatt at [119] – [124]. If the defendants are correct on this issue, they maintain the claim fails to the extent that it is based on purchases by the claimants of LCD panels or LCD Products containing LCD panels which were first put onto the market in South Korea, Taiwan and China and Japan. The defendants estimate this at about 78% of the whole. There is a dispute as to the correct percentage in the event the defendants succeeds on the principle  In any event, the claimants submit that if I agree with the defendants on the issue of principle I should adjourn determination of the issue and give the claimants the opportunity to plead and prove the relevant foreign law. I return to that issue below; and

iii) Whether the claims against the third and fourth defendants are statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980 (“LA”). The claimants rely on LA, s.32 and maintain that they could not have with reasonable diligence discovered the relevant facts before publication of the Decision, particularly given that all the claimants are in liquidation and have acted at all material times by their liquidators and their support staff.

The foreign law issue is dealt with [292] ff. The relevant agreements, decisions  and concerted practices all occurred outside the EU in Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, as did the overcharge for the LCD panels incorporated into the goods which the claimants ultimately bought: this occurred when the LCD panels were first sold by the cartelists including the defendants to the manufacturers of screens that were then incorporated into monitors and notebooks. Loss to the claimants loss (subject to downstream pass on) happened in E&W, when they purchased monitors or notebooks with LCD screens incorporated into them or the parts necessary to enable them to assemble notebooks. Their losses on reduced sales were also suffered in E&W.

This is where PILA s11 and 12 come in: for their content and implications see my post on UKSC Zubaydah. This is where interesting comparative elements emerge with EU law.

[297]

Once the different elements of the events and the country in which they occurred have been identified, the court then has to make a ‘value judgment’ regarding the ‘significance’ of each of those ‘elements’ in relation to the tort in question – see Iiyama (UK) Ltd v Samsung Electronics Co Limited (ibid.) at [48]. In that case, it was conceded that “…in the modern world the place where a cartel agreement happens to be made is of little significance…” Neither party in this case suggests, and in particular the defendants do not suggest, otherwise. I agree. That being so, the primary considerations that remain by a process of elimination are (a) the place or places where the cartel was intended to be implemented; and (b) the place or places  where the damage resulting from the infringing activity was suffered.

In my aforementioned paper p.150 I criticise the CJEU’s approach for jurisdictional purposes) in C-352/13 CDC which it repeated in C-27/17 flyLAL. For locus delicti commissi, under Article 101 TFEU (cartels), with reference to CDC, the CJEU opted for courts for the place in which the agreement was definitively concluded: this truly is extraordinary for it allows for forum shopping by the cartel participants, and it is a far cry form the sentiment expressed in current judgment (for applicable law) that the place where a cartel agreement happens to be made is of little significance…. For Article 102 TFEU (abuse of dominant position) the picture is more fuzzy at the CJEU as I discuss in my post on flyLAL. I realise the analysis in current judgment is for applicable law, not jurisdiction and I also realise that on applicable law Rome II’s Article 6 is closer to a forum damni analysis (as befits the general DNA of Rome II) than the CJEU’s locus delicti commissi analysis for jurisdiction in CDC and flyLAL.

Parties still disagree however on where that place is where the cartel was first implemented. Defendants say this was at the time prices first incorporated the Overcharge, which was when LCD panels were sold to original equipment manufacturers in Taiwan, Japan, China  and South Korea.

The judge in this context discusses the territorial scope of EU competition law [299] ff:

….if and to the extent that the focus in relation to applicable law should be on the restriction on competition within the internal market, then concluding that EU competition law should not apply to infringing activity that has effect within the EU because the cartelists are based, or conspired, or first gave effect to their conspiracy outside the EU would have a chilling effect on the efficacy of EU competition law as an effective mechanism for protecting and enhancing fair competition for the benefit ultimately of all consumers within the EU.

Enter CJEU Woodpulp, Gencor and Intel. [308] “in my judgment the evidence available establishes that the cartel in issue in these proceedings was a worldwide cartel which was intended to produce and in fact produced substantial indirect effects on the EU internal market.”

[313]

I conclude that the claim is one that comes within the territorial scope of EU competition law Returning to the applicable law issue, these conclusions lead me to the further conclusion that applying PILA, s.11(2)(c),  the applicable law is that of England and Wales including the law of the EU that applied at the time of the events giving rise to this claim.  I reach that conclusion because the most significant elements of those events were (a) the place or places where the cartel was intended to be implemented, which for the reasons I have identified was materially the territory of the EU including the UK and, therefore, England and Wales ; and / or (b) the place or places where the damage resulting from the infringing activity was suffered which again materially was England and Wales. As the Commission makes clear in Article 331 of the Decision, while the effects of the cartel were experienced elsewhere as well that is entirely immaterial for present purposes, as is the fact that a number of sales were first put on the market outside the EU. That is so because the Commission has decided and the Decision establishes that the indirect sales of panels were targeted at the EU (including England and Wales) and were intended to and in the event had substantial effects on competition in the EU (including England and Wales).

Reference here is also made to Deutsche Bahn Ag & Ors v Mastercard Incorporated & Ors [2018] EWHC 412 (Ch) in which both a pre and a post Rome II scenario was at issue.

Obiter, [314]

…had I concluded that the general rule was that the applicable law in relation to sales that were first put on the market outside the EU was the law of the state where that had occurred, I would nonetheless have concluded that the significance of the factors referred to above which connect the tort to the EU and, therefore, England and Wales, so outweighed the factors connecting the tort to the states where LCD screens were first put on the market outside the EU during the Relevant Period so as to make it substantially more appropriate for the applicable law to be the law of England and Wales incorporating that of the EU as relevant. EU competition law is the most appropriate law to apply to a tort concerned with a breach of TFEU, Article 101 to the extent that it has effect within the EU because it comes within the territorial scope of EU competition law and English law is the most appropriate intra EU system of law to apply by reason of the effect on the market so far as the claimants are concerned being in England and Wales, the claimed losses having been suffered in England and Wales and the claimants having carried on business in England and Wales during the whole of the relevant period until they were each placed in administration. The geographical place of incorporation of each claimant is a minor consideration although the first and second claimants were registered in England and Wales and although OTC was registered in Jersey, it nonetheless carried on business in England and Wales and claims in respect of losses suffered there. To my mind it is also at least realistically arguable, given the cost and inconvenience of having to prove separately the competition law of each state where LCD screens were first put on the market outside the EU during the Relevant Period, that to decide otherwise would undermine the direct effect and/or the effectiveness principles.

Of note. Geert.

EU private international law, 4th ed. 2024, [2.447] ff, 4.53 ff.

CJEU Woodpulp claxon
Follow-on damages claim, LCD panels cartel
Applicable law under residual E&W law
Determination of locus delicti commissi, territorial reach of EU competition law

Granville Technology v Chunghwa Picture Tubes ea [2024] EWHC 13 (Comm)https://t.co/ymihdaLesC

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) February 9, 2024

I am mopping up the blog queue so forgive me for posting late on Deutsche Bank v RusChemAlliance [2023] EWCA Civ 1144, a successful appeal of SQD v QYP (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 2145 (Comm). (Regular readers of the blog know that I do tend to Tweet these cases with some direction of the blogpost’s direction of travel).

Nugee LJ [1]

A guarantee issued by a German bank in favour of a Russian company is governed by English law and provides for arbitration in Paris. When a dispute arises, the Russian company issues proceedings in Russia in apparent breach of the arbitration agreement. Should the English court grant an anti-suit injunction (“ASI”) to restrain those proceedings in circumstances where no such injunction could be obtained in France? That is the question raised by this appeal.

In short, the anti-suit injunction was now granted.

Bright J on the basis of the expert’s evidence, had considered at first instance [82]

My understanding from the evidence is that this is not because the grant of ASIs is an emerging doctrine under French law (cf. the incremental acceptance of freezing injunctions: English law was a relatively early adopter, making it natural and often helpful for the English courts to grant worldwide freezing injunctions in support of litigation in jurisdictions where there was no conceptual opposition to freezing injunctions, but the jurisprudence had not yet developed). It is, rather, that French law has a philosophical objection to ASIs.

[83]

“ASIs are not in the French legal toolkit, but this is not a mere omission. It is a deliberate choice. French law considers ASIs to “contradict the fundamental principle of freedom of legal action.” ASIs are a tool that French law does not like.”

That would not [85] stop a French court from recognising an ASI validly issued elsewhere, but this, Bright J had held, was not the scenario at issue: [86]

The facts of this case do not fall within that paradigm. The seat of the arbitration being Paris, the procedural law that the parties have agreed upon is French law. I therefore understand this to be a case where the French court would not enforce an interim ASI granted by this court, were I to grant one. On the contrary, if requested to do so in its capacity of court of the seat of the arbitration, the French court might well grant an anti-ASI.

I do not do this often but it is worthwhile in this case to copy the entire conclusion by the first instance judge seeing as it engages with the important question to what degree an English court should shot across the bow of the seat of arbitration hence across the curial law: [91 ff]

Ultimately, SQD had two main points. 

The first was that the agreement to arbitrate is subject to English law, and the English courts have an interest in securing the performance of contracts that are subject to English law. I accept this in principle, but the English courts will not act in every case where the relevant agreement is subject to English law. This is obvious (i) from the fact that CPR 6.36 does not give the English courts jurisdiction in every case concerning a contract subject to English law – it is always necessary for England and Wales to be the proper forum; and (ii) from the fact that The Angelic Grace acknowledges that there may be exceptional cases where as an ASI should not be granted even though the foreign proceedings are in breach of the agreement to arbitrate. Indeed, Enka at [177] suggests that it should make no difference if the governing law is English or some other law – which may imply that the seat is more important than the governing law.

The second was that the fact that an ASI cannot be obtained in France makes this court the proper forum. SQD said that the availability of ASIs in England and Wales was a legitimate juridical advantage – cf. Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460. However, this begs the question whether it is right to consider the juridical advantage that English jurisdiction offers legitimate, in circumstances where the law of the seat of the arbitration takes a different view.

I have in mind Lord Mustill’s repeated urging in Channel Tunnel of the need to be cautious. I also have in mind the concerns of the DAC report to avoid any conflict or clash, in particular a conflict or clash with the court of the seat of the arbitration. In the light of the evidence that I have received in relation to French law, I consider that England is not the proper forum and that this court should not grant the interim ASI and AEI that SQD seeks.

I have reached that view in two complementary ways. The first is that to grant an interim ASI would be inconsistent with the approach of the courts of the seat of the arbitration and (therefore) with the curial law that applies. This court should have deference to the approach of French law. To do otherwise would or at least might give rise to a conflict or clash.

The second is that the court should also have deference to the objective intention of the parties. The parties deliberately chose Paris as the seat of the arbitration. They must be taken to have done so knowing that the French courts will not grant ASIs. I do not accept as realistic the suggestion that the selection of English law as the governing law indicates an intention that there might be an application to this court, despite the express selection of a French seat.

In some countries, ASIs are readily available to support arbitration. In others, they are not. Each country is free to form its own policy on this point. Similarly, contracting parties are free to arbitrate where they like. If the parties choose to arbitrate in a country such as France, where the policy is that ASI will not be granted and will not generally be enforced, this court should acknowledge the significance of these circumstances. Vive la différence.

It is generally right for the courts of England and Wales to support arbitration in this jurisdiction. It is not the job of the courts of England and Wales to support arbitration in France by granting ASIs, given the fundamentally inconsistent approach in France on whether such support is appropriate or desirable. Indeed, it seems that the support of this court would be unwelcome.

In reaching this conclusion, I note that Lord Mustill appears to have held similar views: see Channel Tunnel at p. 368E-G.

The point that has made me pause longest is that based on Spiliada – i.e., that it would be a virtue, not an insult, for this court to step in where the French courts cannot. The best way of developing that point (I think) would be that, while it is true that the parties have chosen French law as the curial law/law of the seat, they have also chosen to adopt the ICC Rules – which (as I understand it) permit the arbitrators to grant conservatory and interim measures, including ASIs. The French courts cannot grant ASIs, but the arbitrators can (including an emergency arbitrator). Accordingly, even if French law objects to ASIs, the parties do not. All SQD is seeking is an interim ASI to maintain the status quo until the ICC arbitrators can take over and grant their own ASI.

This approach assimilates an ASI granted by this court to one granted by the arbitrators, on the basis that the injunction I am asked to me is an anticipatory and temporary version of the relief that will in due course be given by the arbitrators.

I consider this a false equivalence. There are real differences between orders granted by courts and those made by arbitrators – which is why parties are often astute to ask for relief from the court, where they can find a way to justify this. Above all: court orders are backed by the coercive powers of the state; arbitrators’ orders are not.

This is exemplified by the draft order presented to me by SQD. Prominent on its front page is a penal notice, which threatens the recipient with being held in contempt of court and being fined or having assets seized. The ultimate penalty is imprisonment. This is exactly what the French system regards as unacceptable. The fact that the parties have agreed to the arbitrators being able to make orders for interim measures does not mean that they have implicitly accepted the availability of a court order such as that presented to me in draft.

Ultimately, therefore, I therefore am unmoved by this point and by SQD’s other arguments. SQD’s application is dismissed.

The Court of Appeal reversed and completed the analysis itself. It held that France does not so much have a philosophical objection to ASI, rather lacks the procedure to grant it. [32]

Bright J was hampered by having limited evidence of French law whose import was far from clear, and it is not perhaps surprising that he read that evidence as suggesting that French law had a philosophical objection to the use of ASIs, even to the extent of countenancing an anti-ASI injunction. But the evidence before us, as can be seen, is to a different effect. It is that although a French court does not have the ability to grant an ASI as part of its domestic toolkit, it will recognise the grant of an ASI by a court which does have that as part of its own toolkit, provided that in doing so it does not cut across international public policy.

That last bit is not in fact different from Bright J’s suggestion I believe.

[34] ff Nugee LJ first considers the jurisdiction of the E&W courts. [36]

…It is natural to regard the grant of an ASI to restrain proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement as intimately connected with the arbitration (whether already on foot or proposed), and one can point to statements of high authority to the effect that where the seat of the arbitration is in England, the practice of the English court in readily granting ASIs is part of the “supervisory” or “supporting” jurisdiction of the English court: see, for example, West Tankers Inc v Ras Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtá SpA (The Front Comor) [2007] 1 Ll Rep 391 (“West Tankers (HL)”) at [21] per Lord Hoffmann; and Enka at [174] and [179] per Lords Hamblen and Leggatt. At first blush it might be thought to follow that the natural (and hence “proper”) place in which to bring any claim for an ASI would be the courts of the seat of the arbitration, and hence that where the seat is not in England, England is not the proper place for such a claim.

But he then [37] refers to Briggs LJ’s speech in Vedanta, and his mentioning of

that the task of the Court is to “identify the forum in which the case can be suitably tried for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice”.

[38]

There is no difficulty in identifying what English law regards as required by “the ends of justice” in a case such as the present. It is the policy of English law that parties to contracts should adhere to them, and in particular that parties to an arbitration agreement, who have thereby impliedly agreed not to litigate elsewhere, should not do so. The English court, faced with an English law governed contract containing a promise by a party not to do something and a threat by that party to do the very thing he has promised not to do, will readily and usually enforce that promise by injunction.

(reference ia to Enka).

1. 1. 1. The only claim in the present case is a claim for interim injunctive relief based on these well-established principles of English law. Such relief, regarded by English law as a valuable tool to uphold and enforce the arbitration agreement, can only in practice be obtained in England and not in France. Bright J, as explained above, thought, on the basis of the evidence before him, that that was because French law had a philosophical objection to the grant of ASIs. The evidence before us is to a different effect and strongly suggests that while French law does not have the ability to grant an ASI as part of its procedural toolkit, it has no objection in principle to (and will recognise) the grant of an ASI by a court which can by its own procedural rules grant one, at any rate where the basis for the ASI is the parties’ contractual agreement to submit disputes to a particular forum.
      2. In those circumstances it seems to me that the forum in which the claim for an interim ASI can be suitably tried for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice is the English court, on the simple basis that such a claim cannot be given effect to in France. I do not think it necessary to consider what the position would have been had Bright J’s understanding been correct – that is, if the French court would regard the grant of an ASI by the English court as inappropriate and unwelcome – which raises questions of some difficulty and on which we have heard very little argument. On the position as it appears to us, the choice is between the English court where an ASI can be granted and a French court where it cannot, not because of any hostility to the concept, but because of a lack of domestic procedural rules permitting them. Since it is not to be supposed that DB would take the futile step of applying to a French court for an ASI which it has been repeatedly and clearly advised the French court cannot grant, the real choice is not between two competing forums, but between the English court entertaining the claim and the claim not being brought at all. Seen in this light, I would hold that the English court is indeed the proper place to bring the claim. I would therefore grant DB permission to serve the claim out of the jurisdiction.

Having decided on the existence of ASI jurisdiction, only two paras are then spent to conclude that one must so granted in the circumstances, along with an anti-enforcement injunction AEI should a judgment be obtained in any Russian proceedings.

Compare nb also Commerzbank AG v RusChemAlliance LLC [2023] EWHC 2510 (Comm), and see Unicredit Bank GmbH v Ruschemalliance LLC [2024] EWCA Civ 64 which overturned G v R (In an Arbitration Claim) [2023] EWHC 2365 (Comm) and which is notable because here the ASI is final rather than interim and uncontested.

Note not everyone is happy with the E&W cours becoming the world’s ‘arbitral policeman’ – however the underlying contract being one with English law as the lex contractus would seem to be emerging as a natural boundary to the English courts’ intervention.

Geert.

Comparative CPR claxon
Successful appeal of https://t.co/NSvc3DfxVI
Anti-suit injunction granted
Considers ia France not so much having philosophical objection to ASI, rather lacks procedure to grant it
Deutsche Bank v RusChemAlliance [2023] EWCA Civ 1144https://t.co/sclNF45Ape

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 12, 2023

I am currently trying to have the Leuven conflict of laws students appreciate Article 7(1) Brussels Ia’s looking over the fence aka conflicts method. On Thursday we shall be reviewing CJEU Tessili v Dunlop and I wonder how many of the students will have seen this post (I am guessing perhaps 2 or 3 out of the 540 in class) for it might help them appreciate the exercise.

For contracts not caught by one of the passe-partout contracts listed in Article 7(1)b, per inter alia Jaaskinen AG (as he then was) in Cormans Collins, the CJEU Tessili v Dunlop formula still applies:  in the 4th ed of the Handbook 4.424 I put it like this

“For each specific obligation (later, as noted, subject to the Shenavai ‘principal obligation’ correction) the court(s) seised would establish ‘place of performance’ and hence jurisdiction on the basis of its own, residual private international law rules for applicable law. It applies its choice of law rules to determine which law governs the contract, and then uses that law to specify the place of performance, ultimately ruling whether it itself has or does not have jurisdiction, or has jurisdiction over only part of the claims. This is referred to as the ‘conflicts (of laws)’ method for deciding jurisdiction, also known as ‘looking over the fence’, seeing as the court looks over the fence between jurisdiction and applicable law in order to decide jurisdiction on the basis of applicable law. Per Tessili v Dunlop (para 13):

[the national court] must determine in accordance with its own rules of conflict of laws what is the law applicable to the legal relationship in question and define in accordance with that law the place of performance of the contractual obligation in question.

Prior to the 1980 Rome Convention, later the Rome I Regulation (see chapter three on applicable law for contracts), there was no harmonisation on deciding applicable law for contracts. This meant that, depending on which court is seised, the result of the looking over the fence exercise could and did have very different outcomes. (Even the Rome I Regulation, however (even more so under the Rome Convention), has gaps in its harmonising approach to the applicable law identification exercise, as I discuss in chapter three.)”

In current case, the agreement is one for the loan of a sum of money between a father and a son, albeit for an interest rate of 5% pa. Repayment of amounts due is now being pursued by a sibling, following the death of the father.

While loan agreements in the professional context arguably are services within A7(1)(b), in a family or friendship context arguably they are not. The Dutch court in current case [2.8] without expressing the family context issue follows Butcher J in Winslet & Ors v Gisel [2021] EWHC 1308 (Comm). As in Winslet, the court here then invited the parties (in an interlocutory judgment) to clarify their position on the conflicts method.

A first stop is Article 3 Rome I because the pursuing sibling argues [2.10] implicit choice of law was made for Dutch law.

The judge further points parties to Article 4(2) (the agreement not being covered by any of the default categories of Article 4(1) Rome I) Rome I’s

Where the contract is not covered by paragraph 1 or where the elements of the contract would be covered by more than one of points (a) to (h) of paragraph 1, the contract shall be governed by the law of the country where the party required to effect the characteristic performance of the contract has his habitual residence.

and holds [2.11] that the characteristic performance in a loan agreement is carried out by the party loaning the sums. Defendant then argues that the father’s habitual residence at the time of the loan was in Sweden, making Swedish law the lex causae and leading to that law having to determine the place of performance for the purposes of A7(1). Claimant argues the father had already moved to The Netherlands.

In the later judgment once the further arguments of parties received, the judge refuses to entertain the question of implicit choice of court, seeing as the validity of a crucial document is uncertain, but does hold that the father was habitually resident in The Netherlands. Under Dutch law, the retained lex contractus, the payment of a sum of money owed to another, needs to be carried out at the creditor’s domicile at the time the payment is due. Claimant’s domicile (like the defendant’s) being in Sweden, that is where the forum solutionis is located.

Fun with conflicts….

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 2.424.

Gr8 example of looking over the fence, CJEU Tessili v Dunlop to determine forum contractus, loan agreement
Interlocutory ruling inviting parties' arguments on implicit choice of law A3 I and /or default lex contractus A4 Rome I
1st instance Den Haag, X v Y https://t.co/q850EHBjEe

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 12, 2024

Thank you very much confrère Lucian Ilie for sharing copy of the hitherto unreported Thomas Hilton Matthews v Mutuelle Assurance des Commercants et Industriels de France [2023] EWHC 2175 (KB) – Matthews v MACIF for short.

Maître Ilie successfully secured a High Court judgment (Ritchie J sitting on appeal) overturning registration with a view to enforcement under Brussels I (old: Regulation 44/2001) of a Paris Court of Appeal 2 April 2013 judgment, as his chambers report here.

The summons for the Court of Appeal proceedings (as Justice Ritchie’s judgment sets out in detail) had not reached Mr Matthews due to his return to England and the subsequent judgment, reducing an earlier pay-out (which had already been transferred to Mr Matthews) by insurance company MACIF for his injuries etc following collision with a car whilst cycling, was issued in his absence. MACIF unsuccessfully attempted to serve the Court of Appeal judgment on Mr Matthews at his previous location in France, and for 9 years no contact with the Matthews’ in England was made. (From the witness statements Ritchie J accepted that the fact that a copy of the judgment was left with Mrs Matthews’ father in France was not mentioned to the couple, let alone received). MACIF in June 2022 then obtained an Annex V Brussels I certificate of the judgment (which only mentioned that the amount to be paid out to Mr Matthews was now ‘less favourable’, without mentioning numbers) and waited another 9 months before seeking ex parte (judged by Ritchie J [34] to be ‘not right or fair’ in the circumstances) registration of the judgment in England, in language [34] not reflecting any of the background to the case and unlike the Annex V certificate, mentioning an exact amount. The application was granted.

Upon appeal the questions agreed [9] by parties were summarised by the judge as follows [10]

(1) Service: Was the Appellant sufficiently served with notice of (1.1) the start of the appeal and (1.2) the Paris Judgment, such that he could defend the appeal from the Tribunal Judgment and/or appeal the Paris Judgment?

(2) The EC Regulation: Is the Order made by the Master one which he was entitled to make in the light of the assertions that:

(2.1) it does not match the wording of the Annex V certificate summarising the Paris Judgment, the words of which made the Respondent the judgment debtor, not the Appellant and did not order any sum to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent;

(2.2) the Appellant has recently appealed against the Paris Judgment so is it currently enforceable? The Appellant asserts that the Paris Judgment is a default judgment and not enforceable due to non-service;

(2.3) the Appellant asserts that the Respondent does not have an interest in the Paris Judgment as a creditor and that the Appellant was not ordered to pay anything;

(2.3) (sic) for public policy reasons due to the behaviour of MACIF it should not have been registered.

On the issue of service Ritchie J refers to first instance English judgments which however are backed up by continental scholarship and some indications in CJEU authority: the procedural rules of the lex fori are an indication of valid service but not decisive, and taking into account other points of departure listed [43], he holds that service was not valid, hence triggering Article 34 Brussels I, now Article 45 Brussels Ia (not materially different for the case at issue): lack of service in the Member State of origin shall (not just may) lead to refusal of recognition.

Obiter, the judge also refuses recognition on four more grounds

on form: the presentation of the foreign judgment was obiter held [49] to have amounted to re-writing;

seeing as the Paris Court of Appeal judgment is no longer enforceable in France pending the Mathews’ now launched appeal, it cannot be enforceable in the UK either [50];

[51] MACIF is not a judgment creditor under the Paris judgment: that judgment reduces the amount which Mr Matthews is to receive however it does not directly at least hold title for MACIF to receive payment from Mr Matthews;

[52] the delay in seeking enforcement causing substantial prejudice to Mr Matthews, the unfaithful transcription of the Annex V certificate, the insufficient efforts to locate Mr Matthews; the registration proceedings in E&W which really should have been conducted inter partes  also would have led to a refusal on ordre public grounds.

A rare and extensive Article 34 BI/45 BIa discussion and for that alone, of much note.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 2.600 ff.

Emiliou AG opined the day before yesterday in C‑339/22 BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB. I flagged the case and discussed its context here.

The case in essence concerns two issues: the extent of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Article 24(4) court in infringement (as opposed to direct invalidity actions); and the question whether A24 works reflexively: ie whether the surrender of jurisdiction should also be applied in cases where the A24(4) court is not in an EU Member State.

The AG’s extensive contextualisation has the merit of summarising established authority on Article 24(4). This allows the AG for instance to reflect on the oddity of GAT v Luk. Despite the ‘object of the proceedings’ often being infringement of intellectual property rights, the CJEU held in that case that the moment the validity of the patent (or other relevant intellectual property rights) is at issue, exclusive jurisdiction of the A24(4) court is triggered. The CJEU rather unsuccessfully attempted to justify the distinction with its approach on the remainder of A24 eg in CJEU BVG.

The AG justifiably signals his disapproval with the fall-out of the GAT v Luk authority, seeing ia that (54)

the judgment in GAT makes the consolidation of infringement claims concerning the different ‘parts’ of a European patent before those courts an unattractive option. It encourages patent holders to start separate proceedings in the various States of registration of those ‘parts’ instead, since, at least, it is certain that the courts of those States are competent to rule on both the infringement and validity of ‘their part’ (as explained in points 26, 28 and 29 above). This creates, in turn, a risk that different courts take contradictory views on the same infringement dispute.

Also note (59) the strong rebuke of the GAT v LUK line in terms of the very nature of private international law

…such considerations do not reveal why, with respect to proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents, those courts should have jurisdiction to the exclusion of all others. In particular, the patent law of the State of registration is not so unique that only the courts of that State would have the ability to comprehend it. While it may be harder for them to do so, the courts of another Member State are perfectly capable of applying such a foreign law. To imply the contrary would be tantamount to questioning the very foundations of the Brussels regime (and the entire field of private international law). …

Ia (64) the AG however points out that unfortunately any call for the CJEU to reverse is futile seeing as Brussels Ia has codified it.

The extent of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Article 24(4) court in infringement proceedings.

Ia (37) the remaining unclarity therefore lies in the GAT v Luk consequences. National practice varies. Some courts practice a stay of the infringement proceedings until the A24(4) court holds on validity, and then insist on a return to the ‘infringement’ court: the “narrow reading” of GAT v LUK. Others carry out a complete referral of the case, including infringement, to the A24(4) court: the “broad” reading”.

In both of these scenarios the stay or referral decision is precarious (73) for there is no procedure under EU law for such referral or mutually respected temporary stay: there is no guarantee the court referred to will act as the first seized court might prefer.

The AG is in favour of the narrow reading: (69) this fits with the exceptional nature of A24; (71) it serves predictability (an echo of A24(2) in BVG): in the broad reading the reach of the jurisdiction of the court seized would depend on the invalidity  raised or not raised as a defence; (73) the possibility under national civil procedure rules to raise an invalidity defence even for the first time upon appeal would lead to a constant threat of torpedoing and once the proceedings stayed, the court first seized loses all grip on the claim and (74) by the time the case returns at all, claimant’s case in infringement proceedings started afresh may meet with statutes of limitation.

(77) ff bifurcation or as the AG calls it the ‘split’ in the proceedings is far from ideal, as (78) is the general implication of GAT v LUK that it forms an exception to the principle that points of defence ought not to impact on jurisdiction, or the reliance on national CPR, the delays etc. Yet the AG calls this route even if ‘less than ideal’, the ‘lesser of two evils’.

He then offers practical guidelines, seeking to give these a foundation in (88) the TRIPS Agreement, the finding in CJEU C‑365/88 Hagen that national CPR must not impact the effet utile of EU law, the TRIPS Agreement, Directive 2004/48, on the patent holder side the right to an effective remedy and, on the alleged infringer’s side, the rights of defence, both protected under Article 47 of the Charter.

(92) the AG suggests in particular that courts should only consider granting a stay where that challenge has a genuine prospect of success (taking into account the presumption of validity following the patent office’s assessment).

In general I have much sympathy for the AG’s narrow reading of GAT v LUK (and one would have hoped the review of Brussels Ia might trigger a proposal to solidify it in the Regulation). I am also genuinely curious to see how far the CJEU will go in picking up some of the guidelines.

The reflexivity issue.

The CJEU 3 judge chamber in IRNova f FLIR was very brief on this question and answered it promptly in the negative. The AG (97) agrees the answer is obvious in the sense that BIa cannot instruct third States courts to hear specific cases.

Unlike the AG however in my view the answer to the question that ‘in essence’ (98) is implied (whether A24(4) deprives Member State courts of the power to adjudicate the validity of third-State patents in the same way that those courts are deprived with respect to patents registered in other Member States) is, rebus sic stantibus, also obvious. Namely that unless the conditions of Articles 33-34 (the forum non conveniens “light” regime) are fulfilled, Article 4 domicile jurisdiction simply stands. Or as the Commission puts it (113), the Courts are “bound” to exercise A4 jurisdiction save in a narrow set of circumstances (i.e. the A33-34 set).

The AG (108) refers to IRNova to suggest A24-25 BIa cannot apply, as such, to dispute having connections of the kind envisioned therein with third States.

The AG posits ia that (117) BIa was not designed to take into account circumstances such as these and that the CJEU therefore should fill the gap. First of all I believe this is incorrect. A4 BIa arguably is a well documented express policy choice to accept EU courts jurisdiction in principle even over matters prima facie strongly linked with territory etc out off the EU. Further, that only A33-34 (and then only in the recital of the Regulation) entertain the possibility to take into account exclusive non-EU courts jurisdiction is a very strong a contrario statutory argument against CJEU freewheeling. The suggestion (118) borrowed from Briggs and Mills that “nothing in the wording of those provisions or in the related recitals indicates that they are meant to regulate exhaustively the possibility for Member State courts to decline jurisdiction in favour of the courts of third States”, echoes Ferrexpo and  imho is simply wrong, and neither Coreck Maritime (121) nor Mahamdia (122) have displaced Owusu.

The AG’s link (128) to public international law and the general appeal of the Moçambique rule are interesting but really just to remote in my view from Brussels Ia’s travaux and statutory provisions and the AG does not I believe properly present A33-34’s travaux or intention (139) ff.

The “implicit derogation from the mandatory effect of Article 4(1)” BIa which the AG posits (147) ff for both A24 and A25 (choice of court) jurisdiction, even construed as a “narrow discretion” (159) ff, is a most optimistic view on inviting the CJEU to rewrite Brussels Ia.

In conclusion, while the CJEU is likely to follow the AG on the narrow reading of A24(4), I would wager it will succinctly reject the arguably contra legem reflexive effect construction. But then as I have said before, I am not a betting man.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 2.217 ff.

1/2 ! Emiliou AG on 'reflexive effect' of exclusive jurisdictional rule (EU courts declining jurisdiction where third States would have had exclusive jurisdiction, had they been in the EU)https://t.co/naD1t51NQb
C‑339/22 BSH Hausgeräte

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) February 22, 2024

In Various parties obo minors v Anglo-American South Africa Limited and Others (2020/32777) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1474, the High Court of South Africa has refused to certify two class actions against Anglo American South Africa Limited (‘Anglo’). The proposed class action seeks monetary compensation for two classes from the Kabwe district in Zambia, who have been injured by lead exposure: children and women of childbearing age.

Kabwe is the capital of the Zambian Central Province and home to 225 000 people. Members of the proposed classes are estimated to make up approximately 140 000 members of this population. Kabwe is one of the most lead-polluted locations on the planet.

If forum non conveniens is now a classic hurdle for these kinds of cases in England and Wales (watch this space however for Lugano developments), then class certification presents itself in this judgment as a hurdle to an issue that in my view certainly should go to trial.

Windell J sets the scene [12]: (all footnotes in the quotes from the judgment have been omitted)

The application is unique. The applicants, who are citizens of Zambia and peregrini of this court (i.e, people neither domiciled nor resident in South Africa), are seeking redress in a South African Court, for a wrong committed in Zambia. They seek to hold Anglo liable for lead pollution that occurred during its involvement in the Mine from 1925 to 1974, beginning and ending 97 and 47 years ago respectively (the relevant period). The applicants’ cause of action is based on the tort of negligence. The parties agree that Zambian law will govern the substantive issues (the lex causae) and procedural matters will be governed by South African Law — the lex fori (the domestic law of the country in which proceedings are instituted).

[13] the main points of enquiry under Zambian law are laid out (and agreed)

The Zambian law mirrors the relevant English common law principles, which is part of Zambian law by virtue of section 2(a) of the English Law (Extent of Application) (Amendment Act 2011, Chapter 11). This means that English common law principles form part of Zambian law and are binding on Zambian courts, whereas the decisions of English courts are highly persuasive, even though not absolutely binding. Mr Musa Mwenye SC, the former Attorney General of Zambia, and the applicants’ Zambian law expert, opines that in deserving cases, Zambian courts may depart from English decisions if there are good and compelling reasons to do so but will not depart from established principles. The elements of the tort of negligence are therefore well-established. The Zambian Supreme Court has held that it requires proof of a duty of care; a breach of that duty through negligent conduct; actionable harm; a causal connection between the negligent conduct and the harm, involving both factual and legal causation; and damages.

[15] the criteria for the class action enquiry under South African law are listed:

In determining whether a class action is the appropriate procedural vehicle for the claims, the overarching requirement is the interest of justice (See Mukkadam v Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd. In Trustees for the time being of Children’s Resource Centre Trust and Others v Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd and Others (CRC Trust) the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) identified certain factors to be considered. First, there is a class or classes which are identifiable by objective criteria; Second, a cause of action raising a triable issue; Third, the right to relief depends upon the determination of issues of fact, or law, or both, common to all members of the class; Fourth, the relief sought, or damages claimed, must flow from the cause of action and be determinable and ascertainable; Fifth, if the claim is for damages, there is a suitable procedure for allocating the damages to members of the class; Sixth, the proposed representatives of the classes are suitable to be permitted to conduct the action and represent the class; Seventh, a class action is the most appropriate means of determining the claims of class members, given the composition of the class and the nature of the proposed action.

[19] the conclusion is summarised:

Anglo opposes the application on various grounds. Some of the grounds are valid, while others are not. Hence, I will commence with the three issues that do not pose an insurmountable obstacle to the certification of the class action. They are:  Suitability of the class representatives; Commonality and the Funding Agreements. Following that, I will then determine whether there is a cause of action raising a triable issue, which aspect, in my view, is fatal to the application. Finally, I shall discuss ‘Anglo’s alternative case’ which includes the damages claims, the suitability of an opt-out procedure and the class definitions.

In this blog post, in line with the blog’s general interests (here: the business and human rights angle), I will focus on the ‘triable issue’ analysis seeing as it engages with quite a few cases previously reported on the blog.

I do however also want to draw readers’ attention to the discussion [44] ff of the funding arrangements in light of my research grant (and also here) (research now conducted by Charlotte de Meeûs), with as conclusion

[81] As remarked in the interlocutory application, this court, ‘as the guardian of the child’s best interests, has a heightened duty to scrutinise the funding arrangements. Because the purported claims of thousands of Zambian children may be rendered res judicata by an action in a foreign jurisdiction, it is the duty of the court to ensure that these claims are adequately pursued by way of funding arrangements that are not only sufficient, but that do not deliver extortionate profits for third party funders at the cost of the children and that insulates the classes and their lawyers from undue influence from Kabwe Finance.

[82] Anglo’s concerns are without merit because the necessary safeguards developed by our class action jurisprudence have been built into the proposed funding arrangements. First, the applicants have provided detailed disclosure of the funding arrangements, which is without a doubt among the most detailed and transparent disclosures of any class certification proceeding to date. Second, the terms of the relevant funding agreements are explicit that neither the funder nor LD will exercise control over the case, which is to be conducted by MM on the instructions of the class representatives. Third, the applicants are represented by experienced attorneys and independent advocates who are bound by ethical rules to represent the interests of their clients.

[83] Fourth, the funder is part of the Augusta Group, a leading third-party litigation funder with a well-established track record and reputation. That reputation creates its own safeguard. Abuses and underhanded dealings, of the kind that Anglo alleges, would be disastrous to its professional standing and credibility with the courts. Fifth, the funder is bound by the Association of Litigation Funders’ Code (ALF), which explicitly prohibits funder control of litigation and other abuses. AVL is a member of the ALF and the Code’s requirements have been explicitly incorporated in the Claim Funding Agreement, thereby making them contractually binding on the funder.

[84]       Anglo’s attempt to characterise the Code as inadequate protection ignores the history and significance of the Code, as well as the weight it has been given by courts in England and Wales. The significance of the Code was recently explained in Akhmedova:….

[85]       Sixth, the applicants are protected by the provisions of the CFA, particularly s 5 which gives them the right to seek the review of any terms of the contingency fee agreement and the fees. Seventh, in response to Anglo’s repeated claims that the settlement will be hijacked by funders and lawyers to the detriment of the class, applicants and prospective class members are afforded two critical layers of protection: If the class representatives object to any settlement proposal, they may refer a dispute to an independent senior counsel, in terms of the dispute resolution mechanisms in the Claim Funding Agreement. And the applicants and class members are further protected by the court, as the parties would have to seek judicial approval of any settlement, in terms of the procedures approved in the Nkala settlement judgment

On the applicants’ case for there being a ‘triable issue’, [86] ff

applicants seek redress in a South African court on the basis that Anglo was the parent company and head office of the Anglo group that oversaw, managed and/or advised the Mine from its headquarters in Johannesburg, within the jurisdiction of this court, during the relevant period. It is asserted that Anglo exercised control over the Mine through an ever-changing set of subsidiaries, and although its organisational structure is quite complex, the Mine was firmly a part of Anglo’s ‘group system’….

applicants contend that the question of whether and when a multinational parent company owes a duty of care in respect of the actions of a foreign subsidiary is well-settled in English law, and they are confident that there is sufficient evidence to prove that Anglo owed a duty of care to the members of the classes.

Applicants refer ia to Vedanta and Okpabi.

[89] even Anglo’s expert on English law is of the opinion that ‘an English court would likely determine that the duty of care alleged in the draft POC together with its supporting affidavit raises a real issue to be tried’. He further stated that ‘[I]t will be a question of fact and degree whether or not the evidence adduced demonstrates a sufficient level of knowledge, control, supervision and intervention for the purposes of attaching legal responsibility.’

[90] ff the case for the applicants is further explained: that over the course of its almost 50-year involvement in the Mine’s affairs, Anglo negligently breached its duty of care by, inter alia, failing to conduct the necessary investigations on the impact of lead pollution on the surrounding communities by taking common sense measures, such as long-term sampling of air, water, soil and vegetation and monitoring the health impacts on the local communities in Kabwe [91]; Anglo’s negligence therefore caused or materially contributed to the existing levels of lead pollution in Kabwe and the resulting actionable harm. It is alleged that Anglo acted negligently in at least five material respects: it failed to investigate; it failed to protect; it failed to cease and relocate; it failed to remediate; and it failed to warn [92].

The judge however sides with Anglo’s arguments, outlined [98] ff. In effect Anglo lays all blame with ZCCM, ‘the obvious culprit’ [100], a Zambian state-owned entity and its predecessors in title who it is said at all times from 1905 to 1994 owned and operated the Mine.

Anglo also refer to the Zambia state-controlled Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd (NCCM), established January 1970. It argues [105] that following the closure of the Mine in 1994, and in accordance with Zambian legislation enacted in 2000, ZCCM retained all historical liabilities associated with the Mine. It held the legal responsibility to address the environmental and health impacts on Kabwe residents and became responsible for the remediation and rehabilitation of the Mine. In the 2000s, the World Bank and the Zambian government attempted on multiple occasions to assist ZCCM in remediating the Mine’s surroundings. These efforts it is said are ongoing, but they have been largely unsuccessful to date.

[106] Anglo argue that ZCCM’s negligence and omissions is an unforeseeable intervening event (novus actus interveniens), that absolves Anglo of all liability.

The test at certification stage is “not a difficult hurdle to cross” ([113], with reference to authority) yet Windell J concludes the case is both factually and legally hopeless.

“Factually hopeless” 

[117] ff the judge takes issue with applicants’ so-called ‘Broken Hill attitude’ in support of their argument against Anglo. In doing she, she focuses it seems on the much troubled history of Broken Hill, NSW. Australian readers and students of mine sadly will be very familiar with that name and with the 1893 report.

In essence, the judge dismisses relevance of the 1893 Report [120] referring to the unlikelihood, in her view, of Anglo’s knowledge of the report:

Anglo was only established in 1917. There is not any evidence that the Report came to the attention of Anglo at any point (including between 1925 and 1974). The applicants do not explain how an entity, established 24 years after the Report was published, located in a different country and on a different continent, and in an age of basic forms of communication technology, came to know of this Report. In these circumstances, it cannot be suggested that Anglo had knowledge of the harms set out in the Report.

And [121] the judge refers to alleged levels of nuance in the report.

Applicants’ suggestion [119] that Anglo knowing of the issues will be further established following discovery and further research is not further entertained. That would seem an extraordinary lack of engagement with the evidence. All the more so as it would seem that applicants’ reference to a ‘Broken Hill attitude’, which the judge dismisses, is not their shorthand for a particular safety attitude linked to the NSW mine and the 1890s reporting. Rather a reference to an internal Anglo document commissioned in the 1970s with the very title ‘Broken Hill attitude’, that is: Broken Hill, Kabwe. The ‘attitude’ of lack of regard, and of neglect, is one that is signalled in an internal Anglo document, not catch phrased by applicants.

Anglo’s novus actus interveniens argument referred to above, prima facie sits uneasy with the material contribution element of the law of causation and simply cannot be dealt with at this interlocutory stage.

The judge moreover arguably overlooks applicants ‘modicum of common sense’ [119]. It is, with respect, absurd to suggest there is no prima facie proof of Anglo’s historic knowledge of the harm of lead and more specifically knowledge of harm to the historical Kabwe community. Knowledge of the “adit to alloy” so to speak harm associated with all aspects of lead is historically exceedingly well established. Anglo’s approach to it at a mine in which it was clearly involved for a long period, cannot be readily dealt with at certification stage.

The judge concludes [128] that before the early 1970s, there is no evidence to imply that Anglo was specifically aware of the risks that lead pollution posed to the historical Kabwe community.

The contentions and counterarguments about what ought to have taken place from an engineering point of view to mitigate the risk, in my view are to be discussed at trial, not at certification stage, and the judge’s suggestions [134] ff that at trial applicants would not fair better would seem to exceed the prima facie level required at certification stage (as well as sitting uneasily with the Supreme Court finding in Okpabi).

“Legally hopeless”

[145] ff the applicants’ legal arguments, too, are held not to be sufficient in most succinct manner. In essence, the judge dismisses the relevance of ‘current’ authorities such as Vedanta etc. She distinguishes it as follows [148]

to establish that Anglo owed a duty of care 50 years and more ago to the proposed class members currently living in the Kabwe district, this court must be satisfied that there is prima facie evidence to find that between almost 100 and nearly 50 years ago, Anglo must have foreseen that the current community, not the historical community, would suffer harm from lead released into the environment by the Mine during the relevant period.

Relevant authority in the judge’s view is rather Cambridge Water [1994] 2 A.C. 264.

One imagines English tort lawyers will have a lot to say on the most concise (8 paras) discussion of the common law duty of care authority, that leads the judge to her finding that the case is legally untenable.

I understand permission to appeal is being sought, as it should.

Geert.

The judgment denying class certification in claim against Anglo American on behalf of Zambian claimants re lead pollution in Kabwe, Zambia is now here https://t.co/N9m9HEZZih

Appeal likely

Held [117] ff case is factually and legally flawed
More on the blog soon (eg re funding) pic.twitter.com/tF9kojek7A

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 31, 2024

I realise Lent has not even kicked off (it does next Wednesday, Valentine’s day) yet the judicial year already has seen a miraculous resurrection. In Skatteforvaltningen v MCML Ltd [2024] EWHC 148 (Comm) (MCML are formerly known as ED&F Man Capital Markets) SKAT did exactly what I suggested they do namely to amend their claim against these defendants to one for deceit.

(I dare say the did not do it upon the blog’s instruction; otherwise a charitable donation might be in order; note here btw for my review of the UKSC judgment in same.)

As Bright J summarises [5], SKAT’s claims at the start of current proceedings were advanced on the basis that the defendants had acted fraudulently. Such claims were, in general (and along with other causes of action), for the tort of deceit. However, in relation to ED&F Man, SKAT did not allege fraud/deceit but only negligent misrepresentation.

[7] On 5 December 2022, SKAT issued fresh proceedings in which ED&F Man was the sole Defendant. SKAT now alleged that ED&F Man knew that the representations in the Tax Vouchers were false or was reckless. SKAT’s claim in these fresh proceedings is for deceit, just as the initial claim against the other defendants which unlike that against ED&F Man, did survive Dicey Rule 3 /the foreign revenue rule.

In my review of the Court of Appeal judgment, under the title “Skat v Solo Capital Partners. When faced with Dicey rule 3, I’ll see your tax claim and raise it to a fraud one.”, I concluded

The title of this piece of course hints at the relevance of claim formulation. It is also exaggerated: SKAT cannot conjure up fraud elements out of nowhere to reinvent a tax claim as one in mere tortious and fraudulent misrepresentation. However it is clear that in cases that are somewhat murky, claim formulation will be crucial to navigate Dicey Rule 3.

I did not suggest that such claim reformulation ought to be tried in the current case for, well, SKAT it would have seemed have spent their powder. Yet this is exactly what SKAT now have done (and given the size of the claim, who can blame them for trying). Yet prima facie the hurdles for such new attempt seem quite formidable:

[33] ff issue estoppel: the arguable identical issue being tried formulated [43]  by defendant’s counsel as “… whether SKAT’s claims for compensation for making tax refunds it was not obliged to make was a foreign revenue claim for the purpose of Dicey Rule 3, now Dicey Rule 20.” That the claim is now in deceit and not negligence arguably does not change that (in light of claimant being the same, and having their cake and eating it).

The judge sees that differently: [48]: “mere similarity and/or a possible inference or deduction is not sufficient to bring into play the doctrine of issue estoppel.”

[50] Henderson v Henderson abuse of process: the fraud claim if it was to be brought at all, could and should have been brought earlier. The discussion on this is lengthy. For their to be abuse, it is necessary both (a) that the claimant could have raised the matter in the earlier proceedings and (b) that the claimant should have done so. A claimant is not lightly to be deprived of the possibility of a genuine claim. Some kind of harassment or serious prejudice is required, and the judge did not find that infringement of the Aldi joinder rule suffices.

The judge adds

1. 1. 1. In reaching this conclusion, I principally have in mind that the court must be cautious about shutting litigants out of their right to justice. The need for caution features prominently in several of the authorities in this area (see paragraph 55 above), and is also required by article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
      2. However, it also seems to me relevant that the case SKAT wishes to bring is one of fraud. The general interests of justice, and the wider interests of society as a whole, are not well served if serious financial fraud is not brought to light. If fraud has been committed, the fraudsters should be exposed.

These latter comments of course do not displace the more detailed analysis of the authorities in the previous paras.

The judge refused permission to appeal which the defendants may of course still seek direct from the Court of Appeal. I would have thought there are some unresolved issues of law at stake here.

Geert.

Surprising resurrection of claim earlier dismissed on jurisdictional grounds
New, requalified claim survives estoppel, Aldi, Henderson v Henderson arguments
Background https://t.co/B5DeTbSxqw

Skatteforvaltningen v MCML Ltd [2024] EWHC 148 (Comm)https://t.co/LPY8pd3wzt

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) February 2, 2024

First Advocate General Szpunar today opined in C‑633/22 Real Madrid Club  de Fútbol, AE v EE, Société Éditrice du Monde SA. The case was triggeredy a Le Monde article which claimed that Real Madrid Club de Fútbol had retained the services of Dr. Fuentès, the head of a blood-doping ring previously uncovered in the cycling world.

Le Monde later published Madrid’s reaction of denial but refused to retract the piece. Spanish courts imposed a damages and costs award of close to  €400,000, and a lower award on the journalists involved.

The Court of Appeal at Paris refused to recognise let alone enforce the judgment, referring to French ordre public. It concluded that the orders to pay an exceptional amount made against a journalist and a media organisation could not fail to have a deterrent effect on their involvement in the public discussion of matters of community interest such as to curtail the media’s ability to perform its information and monitoring role, meaning that the recognition or enforcement of the judgments pronouncing those penalties would be at variance to an unacceptable degree with French international public policy by interfering with freedom of expression.

Real Madrid submit, in essence, that a review of the proportionality of damages may only be undertaken where those damages are punitive in nature and not compensatory; that, by substituting its own assessment of the harm for that of the court of origin, the Court of Appeal had reviewed the foreign judgment, in breach of Articles 34(1) and 36 of the Brussels I Regulation; that it did not take account of the seriousness of the wrongs accepted by the Spanish court; that the economic situation of persons on whom a financial penalty is imposed is not a relevant criterion in assessing whether the penalty was disproportionate; that the assessment of proportionality should not be carried out by reference to national standards.

Colleagues with much greater authority on SLAPPs will no doubt have more impactful analysis soon: this post is a heads-up.

CJEU authority includes of course Krombach, Trade Agency, Meroni and Diageo, as well as Charles Taylor Adjusting aka Starlight Shipping, EcoSwiss and Renault. The AG (50) points out that the relevant authorities hitherto have engaged with procedural law ordre public exceptions, rather than substantive rules such as here fundamental rights.

(48) ff he discusses parties’ right under Article 6 ECHR and 47 of the Charter, to have a judgment enforced abroad. (60) ff follows discussion of the principle of mutual trust (which earlier today also featured in Inkreal).

(77) ff he discusses the authorities (see both blog posts referred to above and Handbook 4th ed. 2.619 ff) and highlights the existence of freedom of expression as a fundamental EU, as opposed ‘simply’ national right within the realm of EU ordre public. (142) ff discusses the issue of punitive awards and (159) ff the freezing effect of awards such as the one at issue. He comes to the conclusion that refusal of recognition not just can but must happen where the freezing effect of a libel award endangers participation in the public debate, linked to the financial absorption capacity of both the outlet and journalist concerned:

“un État membre dans lequel est demandée l’exécution d’une décision rendue dans un autre État membre, portant sur une condamnation d’une société éditrice d’un journal et d’un journaliste pour l’atteinte à la réputation d’un club sportif et d’un membre de son équipe médicale par une information publiée dans ce journal, doit refuser ou révoquer une déclaration constatant la force exécutoire de cette décision lorsque l’exécution de celle-ci conduirait à une violation manifeste de la liberté d’expression garantie à l’article 11 de la charte des droits fondamentaux.” (emphasis added)

“Une telle violation existe lorsque l’exécution de ladite décision engendre un effet dissuasif potentiel s’agissant de la participation au débat sur un sujet d’intérêt général tant des personnes visées par la condamnation que d’autres sociétés de presse et journalistes dans l’État membre requis. Un tel effet dissuasif potentiel se manifeste lorsque la somme globale dont le paiement est demandé est manifestement déraisonnable au regard de la nature et de la situation économique de la personne concernée. Dans le cas d’un journaliste, l’effet dissuasif potentiel se présente, en particulier, lorsque cette somme correspond à plusieurs dizaines de salaires minimums standard dans l’État membre requis. Dans le cas d’une société éditrice d’un journal, l’effet dissuasif potentiel doit s’entendre comme une mise en danger manifeste de l’équilibre financier de ce journal. Le juge de l’État membre requis peut tenir compte de la gravité de la faute et de l’étendue du préjudice uniquement pour déterminer si, en dépit du caractère a priori manifestement déraisonnable de la somme globale d’une condamnation, celle-ci est appropriée pour contrecarrer les effets des propos diffamatoires.”

Of much note in the context of the EU’s discussions on a SLAPP Directive.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed, 2024, 2.619 ff.

Opinion now here https://t.co/jRgZ6ej23U
citing ia @ProfPech, @CunibertiGilles, @burkhard_hess, @Maxime_Barba https://t.co/KJgqOtk80R

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) February 8, 2024

As I had half hoped, half predicted, the CJEU today held differently than its AG had opined in C‑566/22 Inkreal aka Inkreal s. r.  v Dúha reality s. r. o..: 

an agreement conferring jurisdiction by which the parties to a contract who are established in the same Member State agree on the jurisdiction of the courts of another Member State to settle disputes arising out of that contract is covered under Article 25 Brussels Ia, even if that contract has no other connection with that other Member State.

The Court cites in support:

[15] ff: statutory wording: [17]: “the wording of [A25(1)] does not preclude an agreement conferring jurisdiction, by which the parties to a contract who are established in the same Member State agree on the jurisdiction of the courts of another Member State to settle disputes arising out of that contract, from being covered under that provision, even if that contract has no other connection with that other Member State.”

[18] ff: context: ‘civil matters having cross-border implications’ (recital 3) and ‘cross-border litigation’ (recital 26) are mentioned yet the ‘international element’ required is not defined. As the CJEU had already held in C-280/20, ZN v Generalno konsulstvo na Republika Bulgaria v grad Valensia, Kralstvo Ispania [the Bulgarian consulate], an equivalent concept must be used as in the order for payments Regulation. That defines the equivalent concept of ‘cross-border litigation’ as ‘one in which at least one of the parties is domiciled or habitually resident in a Member State other than the Member State of the court seised’. In current case [23] the parties to that dispute are established in a Member State other than the Member State of the court which was seised on the basis of the agreement conferring jurisdiction at issue. Moreover, [24] a question relating to the determination of international jurisdiction clearly arises in the case, more specifically whether the courts having jurisdiction to settle this dispute are those of the Czech Republic, or those of the Slovak Republic as the Member State in which the two parties are established.

Further, [26], the interpretation of A25 must also be carried out in the light of the objectives of respecting the autonomy of the parties and enhancing the effectiveness of exclusive choice-of-court agreements, as referred to in recitals 15, 19 and 22 BIa.

Moreover, [27] ff, both predictability and legal certainty, core BIa objectives, are served by the inclusion of choice of court such as in the case at issue. [29] jurisdiction can readily be considered and [30] the possibility of concurrent proceedings is minimised. [31] should choice of court in these circumstances not be valid, BIa is likely not to apply and the application of residual national PIL is likely to lead to conflicting decisions. [32] ff for courts to have to consider additional elements capable of demonstrating the cross-border impact of the dispute concerned, would create uncertainty rather than remedy it.

[35] application of BIa here also demonstrates mutual trust and increased access to justice.

Finally [36] a parallel with the Hague Choice of Court Convention clearly was not sought, quite the contrary, BIa expressly not including a similar provision illistrates its diverging intention.

An excellent judgment echoing many of my earlier expressed sentiments on the issue and arguments.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 2.30.

In line with my expectation (see https://t.co/rIoSYfk1qS), the CJEU has not followed its AG on the 'international' element required to enable choice of (foreign) court under A25 Brussels Ia
C-566/22 Inkreal https://t.co/k94JgtdT2G

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) February 8, 2024

I have frequently reported in the use of English restructuring and law, including Plans and Schemes of Arrangement, and the forum and applicable law shopping strategies for same. Readers will find the tag ‘restructuring’ or ‘scheme of arrangement’ useful.

My post on Apcoa  summarises many of the issues and cross-refers to many other postings. The same post in a later update reports on Codere, which has become standard reference, and to AGPS Bondco Plc, Re, where the Court’s jurisdiction was unsuccessfully challenged on the basis that the Issuer Substitution was ineffective or invalid as a matter of German law.

That latter judgment has now been successfully appealed in Strategic Value Capital Solutions Master Fund LP & Ors v AGPS BondCo PLC (Re AGPS BondCo PLC) [2024] EWCA Civ 24. The Court of Appeal held that the first instance judge had unjustifiably departed from the paru passi distribution of assets principle in sanctioning the cross-class cram down.

Of note for the blog however is Lord Justice Snowden’s obiter reference to the jurisdiction [29] ff as follows:

1. 1. 1. After the failure of the consent solicitation, the Group announced its intention to implement the proposed restructuring by an alternative route. This was to propose a restructuring plan under Part 26A and to ask the English court to exercise its cram down power to overcome the objections of the Appellants. To that end, the Plan Company was incorporated in England and Wales as a subsidiary of the Parent Company on 23 December 2022.

1. 1. 1. On 10 January 2023, the Appellants put forward an alternative restructuring proposal to the Group. That elicited no immediate response, but on 19 January 2023 the SteerCo informed the Company that the Appellants’ proposal was not acceptable.

1. 1. 1. On 11 January 2023 the Plan Company was substituted for the Parent Company as the issuer of the Notes, ostensibly pursuant to the substitution procedure under the Notes (the “Issuer Substitution”). In connection with that substitution, the Parent Company guaranteed the Plan Company’s obligations under the Notes, and the Parent Company issued back-to-back loan notes to the Plan Company on the same terms as the Notes.

1. 1. 1. It is self-evident, and the Plan Company accepted before the Judge, that the Issuer Substitution was carried out for the sole purpose of introducing an English company into the Group structure in order to persuade the English court to exercise its jurisdiction under Part 26A. Absent the Issuer Substitution, a proposal for the compromise of foreign law debts owed by a foreign company with no relevant connection with England would not have been entertained by the English court.

1. 1. 1. The technique of inserting a newly incorporated English company as a substitute obligor or co-obligor of debt owed by a foreign company in order to engage the jurisdiction of the English court under Part 26 or Part 26A has been used in a number of schemes and plans that have been sanctioned at first instance over the last few years: see e.g. Codere Finance (UK) Limited [2015] EWHC 3778 (Ch) and Gategroup Guarantee Limited [2021] EWHC 775 (Ch) at [12]-[23]. Mr. Bayfield KC told the Judge that it was “an established technique”. It has, however, not been the subject of consideration at an appellate level.

1. 1. 1. The Appellants did not oppose the Plan before the Judge on the basis that the Issuer Substitution was an artificial device that could not justify the exercise of discretion to sanction the Plan. The point did not, therefore, arise for consideration on this appeal. For the avoidance of doubt, and without expressing a view one way or the other, I would wish to make it clear that the fact that this judgment does not deal with this issue should not be taken as an endorsement of the technique for future cases.

1. 1. 1. The Appellants did, however, challenge the legality of the Issuer Substitution as a matter of German law, both before the Judge, and by proceedings in Germany itself. The Judge heard expert evidence and was satisfied that it complied with German law. The Appellants also indicated that irrespective of our decision on this point, they reserved the right to continue their challenge to the Issuer Substitution in Germany.

(emphasis added)

The point is clearly made obiter, seeing as the issue was not appealed (although it is being litigated in Germany, which evidently will raise interesting further issues); and of course it is possible that Snowden LJ simply mentions the issue for it was litigated at first instance. Yet often if that is the case, the Court of Appeal simply keeps schtum about it. Therefore just possibly it may be hinting that the often applied arguendo approach to jurisdiction for Schemes and Plans (“arguments put forward are not barmy and they are not really opposed by any party therefore we accept jurisdiction”) may not work at least across the board in restructuring cases.

An obiter hint of note.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 5.35 ff.

Interesting, successful appeal against sanction of cross-class cram down
Held unjustified departure from pari passu distribution
Re jurisdiction [34] obiter Snowden LJ neither confirming nor rejecting technique of issuer substitution by EN corporation to justify E&W jurisdiction

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 24, 2024

I am much annoyed one has to refer to cases like these yet again as X v Y (see also here, also on Article 22 Rome II). I understand the need for anonymisation in this particular case, ECLI:NL:PHR:2023:1114, which concerns the liability of a Dutch mother, guardian of a (young) adult son with mild autism and ADHD and a number of mental health challenges, who stabbed and otherwise attacked a Russian (immaterial to the attack) boy living in Germany but holidaying with his family in Crete. Yet some kind of acronym might be helpful.

At any rate, the interest of this tragic case for the blog lies in Advocate General Vlas discussing Rome II particularly the evidence and procedure carve-out as qualified by Article 22 Rome II’s inclusion of the burden of proof in the lex causae:

Article 22 Rome II

Burden of proof

1.   The law governing a non-contractual obligation under this Regulation shall apply to the extent that, in matters of non-contractual obligations, it contains rules which raise presumptions of law or determine the burden of proof.

2.   Acts intended to have legal effect may be proved by any mode of proof recognised by the law of the forum or by any of the laws referred to in Article 21 under which that act is formally valid, provided that such mode of proof can be administered by the forum.

Parties agree Greek law is the lex causae. Dutch law applies procedurally as the lex fori, with the A22 Rome II caveat. (3.25) the AG cites the relevant burden of proof issue in the Greek Civil Code: Article 923:

 “Whoever has the supervision of a person under age or of a person placed under judicial assistance is liable for the damage that such persons unlawfully cause to a third party, unless he proves that he has exercised properly the duty of supervision or that the damage could not have been avoided. (…)”. (…)’

(3.26) the AG summarises the implications of A22 as follows (translated by me, and omitting his references (ia to prof Peters, Magnus/Mankowski/Queirolo, Kramer, and Bart-Jan van het Kaar) 

In brief, it follows from A22(1) Rome II that the lex causae applies to the burden of proof. A22 concerns substantive issues of the law of evidence, such as the distribution of the burden of proof. It does not concern issues relating to the formal elements of the burden of proof, such as admissibility and the appreciation of evidence. These issues are subject (see A10:3 Dutch Civil Code) to Dutch law as the lex fori.

A relevant consideration, one will have to wait and see whether the Supreme Court itself will engage with the A22 issue, which is only a small part of the appeal.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed 2024, 4.79 ff.

X v Y (parental responsibility). Vlas AG (of the Supreme Court of The Netherlands) ia on the evidence and procedure carve-out and Article 22 Rome II.https://t.co/OGt1m04LPx

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 17, 2024

This is possibly the longest title of any of my posts and rightly so for the issues in current judment are extensive. Bourlakova & Ors v Bourlakov & Ors (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 2233 (Ch) is a follow-up to Bourlakova v Bourlakov [2022] EWHC 1269 (Ch) which I discuss here; in the meantime Mr Bourlakov has passed away, leaving the other defendants.

Claimants ask for permission to amend their PoC (Particulars of Claim) including the proposed joinder of an additional claimant. Some of the Defendants have themselves made three related applications, namely (a) to adjourn the hearing of the Claimants’ amendment applications (b) for permission to rely on further evidence and (c) for a stay under A33 or 34 Brussels Ia of such amended claims for which the Claimants may be given permission.

The case first of all raises an interesting discussion on applicable limitation periods (attached to Panama law as the lex causae under Rome II) as compared to carved-out procedural issues under Rome II (and English residual conflicts law), subject to English law as lex fori. It then discusses a number of jurisdictional issues.

First, on the limitation periods, discussed by Smith J [56] ff against the background of the Panamian Penal Code (‘PC’). Of note is that defendants only have to raise a reasonably arguable limitation defence in relation to these new damages claims (hence the discussion need not contain the Alfa and Omega of the issues) and it is worthwhile to see the competing arguments in full [64] ff (footnotes omitted):

Panamanian law admits of a civil claim in damages for those guilty of a criminal offence. The specific offences relied upon by the Claimants are those identified in Articles 220, 243 and/ or 253 PC. Although the route by which this is achieved is contentious, it is common ground that Panamanian law governs the question of any available limitation defence to claims brought under these articles. It is also common ground that the damages claims could be brought in Panama in different ways, namely

(i) within criminal proceedings;

(ii) before the civil courts without awaiting the outcome of any criminal trial; or

(iii) before the civil courts after the criminal court has issued its final liability ruling.

[Defendants] say that if, as here, a claim for civil damages arising from alleged criminal acts under Articles 128 and 129 PC is filed without a criminal conviction having first been obtained or in the absence of criminal proceedings, this would have to be submitted as an extra-contractual or tortious claim under Article 1644 of the Civil Code (CC) which provides that:-

“Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, through fault or negligence, is bound to repair the damage caused. If the act or omission is attributable to two or more persons, each of them shall be jointly and severally liable for the damage caused.“

[Defendants] also say that the relevant limitation period for such a claim is one year by operation of Article 1706 CC which provides:-

“The civil action to claim indemnification for slander or insult or to demand civil responsibility for the obligations resulting from guilt or negligence to which Article 1644 refers, shall prescribe in the term of one (1) year, counted from the moment in which the victim knew.

If criminal or administrative action is timely initiated for the facts foreseen in the previous paragraph, the prescription of the civil action shall be counted from the moment when the criminal judgment or the administrative resolution became firm, as the case may be.

For the recognition of the civil claim, in no case is the intervention of the criminal jurisdiction essential.”

The Claimants disagree with this analysis. They say that a claim for civil damages for an alleged criminal act may be brought directly under Articles 128 and 129 PC (without regard to Article 1644 CC) by operation of Article 977 CC which provides that :-

“Civil obligations arising from crimes or offences shall be governed by the provisions of the Penal Code.”

The Claimants say that the applicable limitation period for a claim under Articles 128 and 129 PC is seven years by operation of Article 1701 CC which provides that:-

“Actions in personam for which there is no special limitation period shall prescribe in seven years.”

This is where the Rome II procedural carve-out becomes relevant, and I will limit the discussion here to the Rome element: [71]

Before which court in Panama any claim could be asserted is a matter of procedure (whether considered under Rome II or the common law). According to Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws (16th ed., at [4-074]), this includes the question whether a civil action can be brought in respect of alleged criminal acts before criminal proceedings have been taken. Since the English court is only concerned with the relevant foreign law as it applies to matters of substance, the Claimants are entitled to rely on the limitation period which remains available under Article 116 PC even if criminal proceedings have not begun and may not yet eventuate.

[72 [Defendants] say that there is a world of difference between the English court ignoring as a bar to recovery a procedural requirement for criminal proceedings prior to the commencement of a civil action (a proposition from which they do not demur) and the broader proposition (from which they do) that, where multiple potential routes for bringing civil damages claims are available locally, it matters not which particular procedural route the claimant has, in fact, adopted. The Claimants have brought a claim where there has been no criminal conviction as they were entitled to do so under Panamanian law. Having done so, the limitation period is one year. No question of having or failing to comply with local procedural requirements arises.

[73]

I understand the logic of the Claimants’ position that, being a matter of procedure, it is irrelevant which particular course the Claimants may, in fact, have pursued in this case. However, it seems to me that the distinction between the position indicated in Dicey, where the need for a criminal conviction is a bar to the commencement of a civil action, and the position here, where multiple routes are potentially available, may, in fact, be more meaningful than the Claimants suggest. I am therefore unable to say, without more direct authority on the point at least, that the [defendants’] limitation defence falls short of the reasonably arguable threshold on this account.

yet on the point of the actual damages sought, and other elements of the claim, the defence does fall short and the eventual conclusion is that the limitation defence fails. The judgment is a bit dense to read on the factual elements of the various claims however its overall emphasis on procedure v lex causae is really quite relevant.

The judgement subsequently discusses the jurisdictional issues with given the amendment of the claims, a shift from the alternative Monegask forum before Trower J, to [107]Panama or Florida now the suggested alternative fora to England.

[108] The jurisdictional issues arising on these amendment applications are whether:-

(i) despite the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the Brussels Recast (including Article 8(1)) applies to the proposed new claims against the Kazakovs and Mr Anufriev;

(ii) in relation to the Claimants’ proposed new claims subject to the common law regime, England, Panama or Florida is clearly and distinctly the appropriate forum;

(iii) the Claimants’ proposed new claims against the ‘anchor defendant’, Leo Holding, are artificial and abusive such that the amendment applications fail for lack of jurisdiction, whether through their inability to invoke Article 8(1) of the Brussels Recast or the relevant jurisdictional gateway at common law;

(iv) Gatiabe is a ‘necessary or proper’ party with respect to the proposed new claims concerning the ownership of that company; and

(v) if the EU jurisdictional regime does apply to the Kazakovs, whether a stay should be granted under Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Recast of any new claims the Claimants might be permitted to advance.

(i) Application of Brussels Ia at all following the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement: “legal proceedings instituted before the end of the transition period”

Article 67.1(a) WA provides that “in respect of legal proceedings instituted before the end of the transition period and in respect of proceedings or actions related to such legal proceedings pursuant to Articles 29, 30 and 31 of [the Brussels Recast]”, the provisions of the Brussels Recast shall continue to apply. Are permitted amendments caught by ‘proceedings instituted’? [116-117] the judge, referring to Simon v Taché, that Article 67 WA preserves the applicability of Brussels Recast to “proceedings” and not to particular claims or, here, unamended claims in proceedings.

(ii) and (iii) Abuse of the anchor defendant mechanism

The judge [128] sees no reason under BIa to conclude that claimants’ claims against Leo Holding are artificial, abusive or do not reflect a genuine intention to sue the ‘anchor defendant’, and repeats that [134] conclusion under the obiter English gateway.

(iv) a lengthy and largely obiter forum non conveniens discussion ends [212] with both Florida and Panama being rejected  as a more appropriate forum, and (v) [213] the A33-34 stay was not discussed at hearing but, it seems, may be revived at a later stage (which would be highly relevant) and therefore [223] has been deferred.

Quite the judgment.

Geert.

Various EU law jurisdictional issues
Incl application of Brussels A ratione temporis given WA; abuse of anchor defendant mechanism; application of A33-34 'forum non light'
More on the blog soon

Bourlakova & Ors v Bourlakov & Ors [2023] EWHC 2233 (Ch)https://t.co/ixIzSCt20c

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) September 11, 2023

Vegesentials Ltd & Anor v Shanghai Commercial & Savings Bank Ltd [2024] EWHC 7 (Ch) is a judgment, as Matthew Hoyle also notes, without reference to authority, and it surprisingly succinctly deals with the applicable law issue for misrepresentation under the Rome II Regulation (readers will be aware that Rome II is what used to be called retained EU law and is now ‘assimilated’ law).

Claimants seek damages from the defendant bank for fraudulent misrepresentations set out in a letter signed and stamped by the bank’s former corporate banking relationship manager of the Chung-Li Branch in Taiwan, to the effect that potential investors had free funds to invest £20 million in a new product, ‘FibreWater’ (chicory inulin, with testified health effects; FibreWater does not need to be chilled, and has a longer shelf life, and higher margins, than fruit and vegetable drinks) which the first claimant was developing. The second claimant was incorporated for the purpose of this claim, and was assigned the first claimant’s rights in the product. Claimant also entered into a sponsorship agreement with the tennis player Sir Andy Murray for him to sponsor FibreWater.

It is now conceded by the defendants that those investors, companies incorporated in Hong Kong and Anguilla respectively, had no such funds and that the manager made the fraudulent misrepresentations knowing them to be false and intending that it should be relied upon by the claimant. No funds were forthcoming, and FibreWater did not proceed. The claimant says that had the misrepresentations not been made, it would have continued to engage with alternative investors, and there was a real chance that investment would have been secured so as to allow the product to be successfully produced, marketed and sold and to become profit making.

Fraudulent misrepresentations are conceded, liability is not. The bank raises issues as to the applicable law, whether the claimant in fact relied on the misrepresentation, whether the bank is vicariously liable, as to causation and as to quantum.

Article 4 Rome II reads

“1. Unless otherwise provided for in this Regulation, the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of a tort/delict shall be the law of the country in which the damage occurs irrespective of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred and irrespective of the country or countries in which the indirect consequences of that event occur.

2. However, where the person claimed to be liable and the person sustaining damage both have their habitual residence in the same country at the time when the damage occurs, the law of that country shall apply.

3. Where it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that the tort/delict is manifestly more closely connected with a country other than that indicated in paragraphs 1 or 2, the law of that other country shall apply. A manifestly closer connection with another country might be based in particular on a pre-existing relationship between the parties, such as a contract, that is closely connected with the tort/delict in question.”

Claimant submits that the damage it claims to have suffered occurred in E&W because the share purchase agreement was governed by the law of England and Wales and provided for the payment of monies into the claimant’s bank account with Barclays in E&W. Any monies paid by the investors would also have been paid into that account. The claimant is incorporated in E&W and conducted most of its business there. Most of the lost profits claimed arise from the supply to UK retailers. Finally the sponsorship agreement with Sir Andy Murray is governed by English law.

Claimant also submits that the default rule is not displaced by A4(3), because the fraud relied on is not “manifestly more closely connected” with Taiwan. The claimant had no pre-existing relationship with the bank.

The bank submits that the fraud was part of a larger scheme and was planned, orchestrated, and implemented in Taiwan, and there are indications of such a larger scheme in the subsequent criminal proceedings against the manager. Jarman J [32] dismisses the relevance of this, pointing out that “it is not clear precisely who was involved in planning the scheme or where they were located at the time. All that is clear is that [the manager’s] involvement was at a time when he was based in Taiwan.” The bank further submits that the core misrepresentative Letter was concerned with a bank account in Taiwan. The judge again dismisses this, saying [32] “However, the ultimate purpose of [the letter] was to confirm the ability of the investors, incorporated elsewhere, to transfer monies in Pounds and Euros for a shareholding in a company incorporated here to develop business in the UK and Europe.”

[33] the conclusion on applicable law is

In my judgment, the claimant’s submissions on this point are to be preferred. Under Article 4(1) the damage relied upon occurred in this jurisdiction. Although some of the facts relied upon arose in Taiwan, as indicated above, it is not the case that the fraud was manifestly more closely connected with Taiwan within the meaning of Article 4(3). Accordingly the applicable law is that of England and Wales.

Most cases concerning fraudulent misrepresentation concern subsequent acting upon the fraud: see eg Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Pjsc v Shetty & Ors: In the case of a misrepresentation or fraud, the locus damni is held to be the place where that misrepresentation is acted upon; or Avonwick Holdings: not so much for the (poor) A4(1) analysis in that judgment but rather the A4(3) displacement, and to some degree the potential for the lex contractus (of the contract said to have been missed) to play a role.

I feel there is more to be said about both the A4(1) and 4(3) application than succinctly touched upon in the judgment, in cases where the misrepresentation leads to missed opportunities, rather than to regretted action.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed, 2024, 2.443.

Ia applicable law in a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation
Article 4 Rome II

Vegesentials Ltd & Anor v Shanghai Commercial & Savings Bank Ltd [2024] EWHC 7 (Ch)https://t.co/VNEe3qGd95

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 8, 2024

My thoughts on the Court of Appeal’s finding in Zubaydah v FCO are here. I am pleased to have played a role for claimant’s lawyers, pro bono, in the proceedings before the UK Supreme Court, which held today in Zubaydah (Respondent) v Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and others (Appellants).

The issue in the appeal is whether the law applicable under sections 11 and 12 of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (“PILA”) to torts alleged to have been committed by two of the UK’s security agencies  is the law of England and Wales or the law of each of the six countries in which the claimant alleges he was unlawfully detained and tortured by the CIA. The High Court had held for the latter, which follows from the generally applicable lex loci damni rule. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding for the former on the basis of the small window to displace the general rule and this finding has now been confirmed by the Supreme Court.

The relevant PILA sections read as follows

“11. Choice of applicable law: the general rule.

(1) The general rule is that the applicable law is the law of the country in which the events constituting the tort or delict in question occur.

(2) Where elements of those events occur in different countries, the applicable law under the general rule is to be taken as being—

(a) for a cause of action in respect of personal injury caused to an individual or death resulting from personal injury, the law of the country where the individual was when he sustained the injury;

(b) for a cause of action in respect of damage to property, the law of the country where the property was when it was damaged; and

(c) in any other case, the law of the country in which the most significant element or elements of those events occurred.

(3) In this section “personal injury” includes disease or any impairment of physical or mental condition.”

“12. Choice of applicable law: displacement of general rule.

(1) If it appears, in all the circumstances, from a comparison of—

(a) the significance of the factors which connect a tort or delict with the country whose law would be the applicable law under the general rule; and

(b) the significance of any factors connecting the tort or delict with another country,

that it is substantially more appropriate for the applicable law for determining the issues arising in the case, or any of those issues, to be the law of the other country, the general rule is displaced and the applicable law for determining those issues or that issue (as the case may be) is the law of that other country.

(2) The factors that may be taken into account as connecting a tort or delict with a country for the purposes of this section include, in particular, factors relating to the parties, to any of the events which constitute the tort or delict in question or to any of the circumstances or consequences of those events.”

Two background documents are of particular relevance: ‘LCR’ = the Law Commission Report December 1990; and ‘JCP’ =  the Joint Consultation Paper 1984. The LCR [2.6] ff had justified its proposal for amendment to the English prior rule of double actionability for torts, by suggesting it does away with 3 main challenges of the double actionability rule:

• • • its anomalous character (it was said to give too much weight to English and Scots law as lex fori, contrary to the UK’s general happiness to apply foreign law);
    • its injustice in terms of giving an advantage to the wrongdoer (the victim’s burden of proof under the double actionability rule is particularly heavy); and
    • the uncertainty and speculative implication NOT in the rule but in a relevant exception, Boys v Chaplin [1971] AC 356.

[54] The approach to be adopted when considering whether the general rule is displaced pursuant to section 12 was considered by the Court of Appeal in VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corpn [2012] EWCA Civ 808 and in current case Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lord Stephens for the majority [54] ff summarise the four principles that follow from that case.

Note that [62] the Supreme Court criticises parties’ agreement that the determination of the defendants’ appeal did not require any consideration of the potential application of section 14 PILA (the ordre public correction):

We consider that there is an artificiality about deciding which law governs the liability in tort of the UK Services without considering public policy considerations under section 14 of the PILA. Although, we express no view on the matter, there is scope for suggesting, for example, that on the presumed facts of this case, it is a constitutional imperative that the applicable law in relation to the tort of misfeasance in public office in relation to the acts and omissions of the UK Services should be the law of England and Wales. However, we have been presented with a preliminary issue on sections 11 and 12 of the PILA and must seek to address it solely on that basis. We conclude this part of the judgment by observing that, depending on the outcome of the appeal, it may be necessary for a court to consider the impact, if any, of section 14 of the PILA at a later stage of these proceedings.

[73] the Court of Appel was held to have been correct in rebuking the first instance judge for focusing too much on the role of the CIA

The required focus is on the torts committed by the defendants or those for whom they are responsible. Instead, the Court of Appeal considered, the judge had focused on the overall conduct of the CIA. In our view, there is force in this criticism.

[74] ff discusses the treatment by the first instance judge of factors relevant in displacing the locus damni general rule: (1) First, the claimant had no control over his location and in all probability no knowledge of it. (2) So far as the UK Services were concerned, the claimant’s location from time to time was irrelevant and may well have been unknown. (3) The claimant had been rendered to the Six Countries precisely because this would enable him to be detained and tortured outside the laws and legal systems of those countries.  The Supreme Court agrees with the Court of Appeal’s finding that the judge had wrongly applied the relevance of these factors. Those finding fault with the Supreme Court’s approach may find this too much of a factual analysis rather than a point of law I imagine (as indeed Lord Sales does to some degree in his dissent).

[80] the Court of Appeal itself is then held to have fallen short of the proper exercise in applying s12:

It seems to us, however, that the Court of Appeal has also fallen into error in relation to the required focus under section 12 of the PILA on the torts committed by the defendants. Section 11(1) provides that the general rule is concerned with “the country in which the events constituting the tort … in question occur”. Similarly, section 12 refers to “the significance of the factors which connect a tort … with the country whose law would be the applicable law under the general rule” and with “another country”. In our view, the Court of Appeal, in approaching the section 12 exercise, interpreted the scope of the relevant torts too narrowly in that it equated the torts in question with the conduct of the UK Services which is alleged to be wrongful.

Rather than conflating the conduct of the UK Services with the torts,

The Court of Appeal should have focused on the torts alleged against the UK Services for which the defendants are said to be vicariously responsible

leading [82] ff the SC itself completing the s12 exercise.

The significance of the connection between the torts and each of the Six Countries arising from the claimant’s detention there and the infliction of his injuries there is held to be massively reduced by the factors discussed in [92] ff:

reasonable expectations and involuntary presence [93];

the security services’ indifference as to where the claimant was held and them never expecting or intending to have their conduct judged by reference to the laws of the places where he was held [94];

the insulated environments within which claimant was held and where he could be denied any access to the local law (alleged to apply in Moziak fashion by the defendants) or recourse to local courts [95], countries which in effect were insulated form the courts [97];

the sheer number of black sites in which the claimant was held diminishes the significance of the law of any one of them, and moreover it would be impossible for him to establish where he sustained which injury [96];

[98] ff conversely, the strong factors connecting the torts to the UK:

the alleged vicarious liability of the UK Government [99];

the relevant acts and omissions of the UK Services in requesting information from the CIA were more likely than not to have taken place in England, and were likely committed by the UK Services for the perceived benefit of the United Kingdom [100]; and

the actions were taken by UK executive agencies acting in their official capacity in the purported exercise of powers conferred under the law of England and Wales [101].

Lord Sales dissented, pointing also to the Court of Appeal and the High Court simply disagreeing on the weight to be given to the various factors, and in his own analysis of those factors he reaches the conclusion that the Mozaik of the 6 laws should apply.

It is rare for an applicable law issue in tort to be discussed to such extent by the Supreme Court and the judgment carries great relevance.

Geert.

Illegal rendition, applicable law, displacement of the ordinary lex loci damni rule
More soon (and background here https://t.co/dYdGJILOJ2)
Pleased to have played a small (pro bono) role in the appeal with the SC. https://t.co/szromMgIQp

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 20, 2023

Ugljesa Grusic has excellent and prompt analysis of Hugh Hall Campbell KC against James Finlay (Kenya) Ltd [2023] ScotCS  CSIH_39 here. I have background to the issues ia here and I reported on the now successfully appealed first instance judgment [2023] CSOH 45 here.

Dr Grusic first of all highlights the lack of engagement by the Court (as indeed at first instance level, too) with the impact of the employment section of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 on both the question of availability at all of choice of court in employment contracts to displace domicile jurisdiction, and of the overall availability of forum non conveniens in the same circumstances.

Next, unlike the first instance judge, the Inner House held that relevant Kenyan labour law protection (including compensation) does apply to the contracts at issue, [67] that the applicants have a working and affordable regime at their disposal in Kenya to try and obtain such compensation and [69] for the reason stayed the case at least until the Kenyan scheme will play its role (or not). [70] the court oddly adds that its stay is not one of forum non conveniens, which it says it is currently leaving undecided.

One assumes PTA with the UKSC will be sought for the points identified by Ugljesa are very much unresolved points of law.

Geert.

In Lott & Ors v PSA Automobiles SA & Ors [2023] EWHC 2568 (KB), Fontaine SM deals with an evidential /discovery issue in one of the dieselgate cases, where the car manufacturers intend to contest the extent of the binding nature of CJEU judgments finding relevant software to constitute cheating devices within the meaning of European standardisation laws.

[22] The French Defendants are found to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the E&W courts at least in relation to the Claimants’ application for further information and specific disclosure. [26] ff discusses the relevant French ‘blocking statute’ which prohibits French nationals and certain others from providing documents and information of an economic, commercial, industrial, financial or technical nature to foreign public authorities or for the purposes of establishing evidence for foreign judicial or administrative proceedings. Relevant authority on the effect of the French statute is listed [28], with [29] emphasis on

Orders for production and inspection are matters of procedural law, governed by the lex fori, here English law. Local rules apply; foreign law cannot be permitted to override this Court’s ability to conduct proceedings here in accordance with English procedures and law.

and [30] a proposal by the French defendants, asking that the application be provided only pursuant to a letter of request under the Hague Taking of Evidence Convention (as cover for the French statute, refused however [81]:

i) I have no real means of assessing how real is the risk of prosecution if the documents so ordered were provided directly by the French Defendants to the Claimants, even if protected by a confidentiality order or confidentiality ring. That might have been provided by expert evidence of French law, but I have given reasons why that was not permitted at this stage. However, I do take into account both the letter from SISSE which explains the French authority’s position, and the interests of international comity, which support the use of the Hague Convention route.

ii) The French Defendants were well aware of the difficulties caused by the FBS at the hearing on 9 February 2022, and assured the court that once their legal representatives and an engineer had been able to take instructions in France from their clients they would seek the relevant documents via the Hague Convention themselves, but that has not been done, and no explanation provided. If it had been done by the French Defendants solicitors within a reasonable time after that hearing the relevant information and documents would have been available some time ago. It was also not explained why the FBS would prohibit the French Defendants from providing information and documents to their own clients other than through the Hague Convention. It is not a reasonable approach for the French Defendants to come back to court some 17 months after that hearing and now insist that the Claimants make a Hague Convention request, without any explanation for the change of stance, and the substantial delay.

iii) The prejudice to the Claimants that will inevitably be caused to provision of information and documents by reason of that delay if these have to be provided via the Hague Convention, that is likely to impact their ability to provide a fully pleaded draft GPOC and/or GLO issues which in turn may cause delay to the hearing of the GLO application.

iv) I take account of the fact that this is group litigation where there is, as in Cavallari, “an asymmetry of information” between the parties, and the relevant technical information is held by the Defendants, primarily by the French Defendants.

An interesting judgment on evidential forum shopping.

Geert.

#Dieselgate class action, discovery
Impact of French 'blocking' statute (preventing FR defendants from handing over documents) and Hague Evidence Convention viz English lex fori as procedural law

Lott & Ors v PSA Automobiles SA & Ors [2023] EWHC 2568 (KB)https://t.co/FQken9cGG1

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 17, 2023