GAVC

Fasken alerted me to, and have good review of Newfoundland and Labrador (Attorney General) v Uashaunnuat (Innu of Uashat and of Mani‑Utenam) 2020 SCC 4. The Canadian Supreme Court held that Quebec has jurisdiction over aboriginal rights claims in a neighburing province. This assertion of jurisdiction hinges on the qualification of rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (the section which deals with aboriginal and treaty rights) as rights sui generis. A qualification as rights in rem erga omnes, as the dissenting opinion suggested, would have kept the case outside of Quebec jurisdictional reach.

The case came a week after the decision of the High Court of Australia in Love v Commonwealth[2020] HCA 3 which as Michael Douglas analyses here, is a case about personal status and whether an aboriginal may be considered an ‘alien’ for immigration purposes. Judges split as to the required approach to the issue.

Indigenous rights and conflict of laws for sure will continue to exercise one or two minds (ia in view of the UNSDGs) and these two cases seem to anchor a number of issues. Not something a short blog post can do justice to.

Geert.

Most interesting. Indigenous rights and conflict of laws.
CAN SC finds Québec has jurisdiction to hear Innu claims re land in Newfoundland, Labrador
Aboriginal rights are sui generis, neither personal rights or real rightshttps://t.co/DPQBZk2byC

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 10, 2020

In T‑574/18 Agrochem-Maks the General Court at the end of May upheld the Commission Regulation not extending market authorisation for the active substance oxasulfuron, a pesticide. The EC Regulation noted that EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, had identified a large number of data gaps resulting in the inability to finalise the risk assessment in several areas and that ‘in particular, the available information on oxasulfuron and its metabolites did not allow finalising the assessment of the overall consumer exposure, the groundwater exposure, the risk to aquatic organisms, earthworms, soil macro and microorganisms and non-target terrestrial plants’. Since  ‘it has not been established with respect to one or more representative uses of at least one plant protection product that the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation … No 1107/2009 [on plant protection products; see here, GAVC] [were] satisfied’, authorisation was not renewed.

The case at issue is brought by a small Croatian, family-owned company. That is a change from the classic pattern in this kind of cases, with large bio-agricultural industry routinely taking cases to the CJEU in laser-shoot fashion, hoping they might hit the target once or twice.

The General Court extensively outlines the procedure foreseen in the relevant EU laws, thereby identifying the core issue in near all of these cases held under the precautionary principle: the EU courts do not carry out a merits review; rather, they assess whether holes have emerged in the preparation of a decision, which could mean that the Institutions could not reasonably have come to the decision they came to.

That is no different here: at 62: ‘the EU Courts must verify that the relevant procedural rules have been complied with, that the facts admitted by the Commission have been accurately stated and that there has been no manifest error of appraisal or misuse of powers’. At 65, per CJEU T-13/99 Pfizer: ‘a scientific risk assessment carried out as thoroughly as possible on the basis of scientific advice founded on the principles of excellence, transparency and independence is an important procedural guarantee whose purpose is to ensure the scientific objectivity of the measures adopted and preclude any arbitrary measures.’

Specifically for current Regulation: at 66: ‘the burden of proving that the conditions for approval or renewal under Article 4 of Regulation No 1107/2009 are met lies, in principle, with the notifier.’ At 67 per CJEU T-584/13 BASF Agro: ‘it is the person seeking approval who must prove that the conditions of such approval are met in order to obtain it, and not the Commission which must prove that the conditions of approval are not met in order to be able to refuse it’.

The General Court then at length considers the procedure followed, including the reasons for the identified gaps, and then assesses the application of the precautionary principle to same: at 109 ff with reference to the 2000 Communication on the Precautionary Principle, COM(2000)1. Crucially, at 121, as noted ‘(u)nder Regulation 1107/2009 when the applicant words its renewal application, it bears the burden of proving the efficacy and safety of the substance in question.’ ‘Since it did not discharge that burden, the approval of the active substance could not be renewed.’

The case highlights once again the crucial nature of administrative compliance with the rulebooks under EU regulatory law. Many of us will have sat through presentations by EFSA or EC officials outlining the rules in excruciating and yes, not very sexy detail. Yet to follow procedure to a tee is crucial to ensure defence against corporations taking issue with the findings at the CJEU.

The case also emphasises the importance of burden of proof and, preferably, the ‘no data, no market’ rule in EU regulatory law.

There might of course still be an appeal with the Court.

Geert.

EU environmental law (with Leonie Reins), Edward Elgar, 2018, p.28 ff.

Precautionary principle, standard of proof, standards of judicial review. https://t.co/gHDzyIQS1u pic.twitter.com/R1Z1qCy4qq

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) May 29, 2020

Must Article 107 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a system whereby a private, non-profit eco-body, approved by the public authorities, receives contributions from those who place on the market a particular category of product and who enter into a contract with it to that effect, in return for a service consisting in the organisation on their behalf of the treatment of the waste from those products, and redistributes to operators responsible for the sorting and recovery of that waste, subsidies the amount of which is set out in the approval, in the light of environmental and social targets, is to be regarded as State aid within the meaning of that provision?

That is the question as phrased in C‑556/19 Société Eco TLC and on which Pitruzzella AG Opined on 28 May. TLC stands for Textiles, Lignes de maisons, and chaussures (textiles, household linen and shoes). Producers or as the case may be first importers pay a fee to the collective body in lieu of their personal commitments under extended producers responsibility per Waste Framework Directive 2008/98.

The AG of course revisits the definition of ‘State Aid’ under CJEU C-379/98 Preussen Elektra, on which more here and here. Preussen Elektra remains controversial for it would seem to give Member States quite a bit of room for manoeuvre to reach the same result as direct State Aid more or less simply by inserting a private operator who receivs funds directly from private operators however in line with direct State instructions on level and modalities of payment.  The AG opines that in the case at issue there is no State Aid however he directs further factual lines of enquiry (ia re the State control over payments by the collective body to recyclers.

Geert.

Handbook of EU Waste law, 2nd ed. 2015 OUP, para 4.116 ff.

State Aid, collective #waste recycling bodies. https://t.co/UaPdf4T69b

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) May 29, 2020

In La Micro Group (UK) Ltd & Anor v La Micro Group, Inc & Ors[2020] EWHC 1405 (Ch) 1st Claimant, LA Micro Group (UK) Ltd (“LA (UK)”), is an English company. It was incorporated in 2004 and acquired by the 2nd Claimant, Mr David Bell, a British citizen resident in England. It now has two issued shares, one in the name of Mr Bell, and one in the name of the 3rd Defendant, Mr Arkadiy Lyampert. Mr Bell and Mr Lyampert are also the two directors of the company. The substantive question raised in the action is as to the beneficial ownership of LA (UK). The position of the Claimants is that Mr Bell and Mr Lyampert are not only the legal owners of the two issued shares but also the beneficial owners, and that they are each entitled to 50% of the distributable profits of the company by way of dividends. Mr Lyampert’s position is the same, although he has indicated that he does not intend to take any active part in the proceedings. All defendants are resident in California.

This preliminary issue is one of jurisdiction given claimants seek permission to serve out of jurisdiction. There are a variety of proceedings in California: disputes between Mr Frenkel and Mr Lyampert in 2010 led to Mr Frenkel and some of LA Inc’s other employees, including Mr Gorban, leaving LA Inc and starting a competing business called IT Creations, Inc (“ITC”). In the words of the Court of Appeal of California, “a profusion of lawsuits followed”.

It is i.a. argued by defendants that it would an abuse of process for LA Inc to relitigate the same issues as were decided by that judgment, even if the CAL judgments do not strictly give rise to res judicata given the differences between parties.

At 49 Nugee J holds on that particular issue that the relevant CAL Judgment did not decide anything about whether LA Inc had lost its rights to a beneficial interest in LA (UK), and the findings of fact on which the Claimants rely were not necessary to the English court’s decision on any of the matters that were in issue.

Of specific interest to the blog is the forum non conveniens application at 58 ff., with at 68 ff consideration of whether one of the pending CAL proceedings is the mirror image of the English ones, which would count heavily in a forum non consideration given the English law’s preference for the whole issue to be submitted to one tribunal. At 78 Nugee J  sums up the core issue:

The choice is between (i) allowing the English proceedings to continue so that a definitive answer can be given to one discrete question (has LA Inc lost its beneficial interest?) which will then enable the Californian court to proceed on a correct understanding of what has been decided in England rather than on what is said to be a misapprehension; or (ii) requiring the Claimants, unless they are willing to abandon their claims, to go to California to argue matters that on the view I take are matters of English law and largely concern acts taking place in England.

At 77 Nugee J expresses strong support for Gleichlauf:

(T)here are many advantages in questions of law being decided by a home court rather than a foreign court. Evidence and cross-examination is not required, which is likely to make resolution of the point both quicker and cheaper. And the court is familiar with its own law, in a way that it is not with foreign law, which means that the court’s resolution of the issues is likely to be both easier and more soundly based. Other things being equal, I have no doubt that it is preferable, both in terms of practical convenience and in terms of the ends of justice, for questions of English law to be argued in England as questions of law rather than for them to be argued in California as questions of fact on expert evidence (and possibly, although I have no evidence as to whether this would be the case, before a jury).

He concludes at 92:

England is the most appropriate forum for those matters to be decided; but even in relation to the declarations in respect of Mr Lyampert’s share, leaving the parties to litigate in California has a mix of advantages and disadvantages and there is not in my judgment sufficient to displace England as the forum in which the dispute can most suitably be tried for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice.

Nugee J does not therefore give Gleichlauf preponderant weight ab initio. Yet all other things being equal, Gleichlauf in this case pushed back a finding of forum non.

Geert.

Application for stay on forum non conveniens grounds. Dismissed.
Nugee J: 'Leaving parties to litigate in CAL has mix of (dis)advantages, not sufficient to displace EN as forum in which dispute can most suitably be tried for the interests of all parties and for ends of justice. https://t.co/Rm3i16dEPg

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

Graham Woloff eaor Calzaturificio Zengarini eaor re Akkurate Ltd, [2020] EWHC 1433 (Ch) concerns the question whether the court has the power under section 236(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 to require persons resident in the EU to produce books and papers and an account of their dealings with a company being compulsorily wound up in England and Wales (it is not disputed that Akkurate’s centre of main interests (“COMI”) was in England and Wales under the European Insolvency Regulation EIR).

EIR 2000 applies to this case, because the winding up of Akkurate was before 26 June 2017, however the issue is not materially different in the new Regulation. There are inconsistent first instance decisions which Vos C reviews ia at 27 ff and at 54 after consideration, he considers s236(3) does not have extraterritorial effect on the basis of what he considers to be the binding authority of Re Tucker (a bankrupt) [1990] Ch. 148. however that following the EIR 2000 (unchanged in EIR 2015) the European regime can and does extend the territoriality of purely domestic insolvency provisions. CJEU authority cited is in particular C-339/07 Seagon v Deko Marty Belgium (at 58 ff) – which I find may be a bit optimistic. Vos C also decides that he can and should apply his discretion to grant orders as formulated at 68.

Clearly, post Brexit, the situation will revert to Tucker. Which would make the English courts less attractive than their continental counterparts – although of course one would have to wait for CJEU authority to confirm the issue less equivocally.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 5,

EU #Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000. Whether EN court has power to require persons resident in EU to produce documents re company with COMI in EN.

Held, considering CJEU authority: Yes. https://t.co/0dcgtOc7fF

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 4, 2020

Mad Atelier International BV v Manes [2020] EWHC 1014 (Comm) engages among others Articles 29-30 BIa on lis alibi pendens and its relation with issue estoppel. Stewart Chirnside has analysis here and  I am happy to refer. The judgment itself is not straightforward for Bryan J had much to decide – I agree with his conclusion at 124 on A29-30 BIa related issues that he is

‘satisfied that the French Civil Proceedings does not give rise to any issue estoppel because, for the reasons that I have given: (1) The decision of the Paris Commercial Court on such issues is not final or conclusive; (2) The parties to both proceedings are not privies; (3) The issues identified by Mr Manès were not issues concluded by the court, but rather comments on the state of the evidence, and (4) The issues in the English Proceedings are significantly broader than the issues in the French Civil Proceedings. Each of these is, in and of itself, fatal to the contention that an issue estoppel arises from the Paris Judgment, and I find that no issue estoppel arises.’

Geert.

Recognition and enforcement. Res judicata. Issue estoppel. https://t.co/yJDw3uHMD6 https://t.co/ACwZWMB6Wg

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) May 1, 2020

Many thanks indeed Kevin La Croix for flagging the suit brought in New York by a group of Bayer AG shareholders, against Bayer (with seat at Leverkusen, Germany), concerning the not altogether successful purchase of Monsanto by Bayer. Kevin has excellent analysis and I am happy to refer.

Claimants of course pre-empt arguments of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, subsidiarily, forum non conveniens – please refer to Kevin’s overview for the arguments to and fro. Most interesting. It brought back to me echoes of the Australian case of Tiger v Morris, not because the subject-matter is similar (it is not) but because in this increasingly globalised world (despite Covid19), courts everywhere are increasingly asked to consider the reach of their courts in cases with competing local and foreign interests. Comity considerations underlying the historic roots of conflict of laws are being brought back to the fore, no doubt also partially as a result of the impact of third party financing, contingency fees etc.

One to keep an eye on. One wonders whether Bayer might be launching a related case in Germany, then triggering A33/34 considerations.

Geert.

Forum shopping, corporate law. Lex causae undoubtedly German law. Shareholder seeking to take advantage in particular of procedure.

via @alahav https://t.co/TBcKULJIQc

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 18, 2020

Jefferies International Ltd & Anor v Cantor Fitzgerald & Co & Ors [2020] EWHC 1381 (QB) engages everything including the kitchen sink (but excluding Articles 33-34 Brussels Ia, one assumes because no competing foreign suits were pending when the English courts were seized) in its application for a stay.

The First to Third Claimants [together Jefferies] and the First to Third Defendants [together Cantor] carry on business in the financial services industry internationally, including investment banking and capital markets business and in particular in the international power and renewables sector. The First Defendant is a general partnership organised under the laws of New York. The Second Defendant is an unlimited company registered in England and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. The Third Defendant is a limited liability company incorporated in Hong Kong. The action arises out of what has become known as a team move. Jefferies’ case is that on 20 November 2017 twenty-six of its employees each resigned in materially identical terms, almost all of the resignations took place at 11.00 am London time notwithstanding that this was outside the normal working hours of those who worked in New York and Hong Kong, each of the employees in each jurisdiction instructed the same solicitors and each now works for Cantor. Jefferies asserts that Cantor has directed each of the twenty-six employees to refuse to honour repayment obligations in respect of certain “Replacement Awards” and “Bonuses” which were triggered by their resignations and subsequent employment by Cantor.

The following issues were agreed for determination:

i) Are the claims of Jefferies US against Cantor US subject to an arbitration agreement between Jefferies US and Cantor US, and if so should those claims be stayed pursuant to the Arbitration Act 1996 section 9?

ii) Should Jefferies’ claims against Cantor US and Cantor HK be stayed because England is not the proper place for determination of those claims?

iii) Should Jefferies’ claims against Cantor US and Cantor HK be stayed because Jefferies breached its duty of fair presentation on its without notice application for permission to serve out?

iv) Do Jefferies’ claims against Cantor US and Cantor HK, insofar as they relate to repayment agreements governed by New York law, have no reasonable prospects of success, because those repayment agreements are unenforceable as a matter of New York law?

v) Should service of the claim form and particulars of claim on Cantor US and Cantor HK and the Order of Master Thornett granting permission to serve Cantor US and Cantor HK out of the jurisdiction be set aside on any of the above grounds?

vi) Should the proceedings (or any part of them not otherwise stayed on the above grounds) be stayed on case management grounds pending final award in the FINRA arbitration?

vii) Should Jefferies’ claims against the Employee Defendants be stayed as a result of exclusive jurisdiction clauses in relevant repayment agreements favouring the courts of the State of New York?

viii) Should Jefferies’ claims against the Employee Defendants be stayed on case management grounds pending final award in the FINRA arbitration?

Master Cook dismissed all applications for a stay in a surprisingly (given the size of the list) succinct judgment and readers are best referred to the text itself for perusal. Other than Articles 33-34 (see above), only abuse of process I think could have been added to this extensive list of attempted grounds for a stay.

Geert.

Application for stay on the basis of i.a. forum non, case management, preference to #arbitration.
All dismissed. Claims to proceed, with English anchor defendant. https://t.co/nsvXupnH4z

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 2, 2020

Thank you Helene Peroz for flagging the French Supreme Court on 13 May last referring to the CJEU for clarification of the Bolagsupplysningen case-law. The case concerns Gtflix Tv which I understand is a Czech adult entertainment corporation, who is suing Mr X, himself a producer of porn and domiciled at Hungary, arguing Mr X has defamed them in public comments.

Gtflix claim both retraction and correction of the comments, and symbolic damages. X argues the French courts do not have jurisdiction and the Court of Appeal at Lyons agreed. It held that Gtflix cannot suffice with a simple show of accessibility of the comments in France: for it to establish jurisdiction, Gtflix was required to show real damage to its reputation in France.

The Supreme Court first of all held that Bolagsupplysningen is good authority for acts of unfair competition between competitors – a finding which was not as such made in Manitou v JCB and on which the court does not refer to the CJEU. The applicable law issues which I discussed earlier in the week, were not subject of the Cour de Cassation’s assessment.

The court then does refer to the CJEU to ask whether Bolagsupplysningen means that a claimant who requests both rectification /retraction and damages, has to necessarily turn to courts with full jurisdiction or whether they can continue to turn for the damages part, to all courts with locus damni jurisdiction.

The specific question referred, is

“Les dispositions de l’article 7, point 2, du règlement (UE) n° 1215/2012 doivent-elles être interprétées en ce sens que la personne qui, estimant qu’une atteinte a été portée à ses droits par la diffusion de propos dénigrants sur internet, agit tout à la fois aux fins de rectification des données et de suppression des contenus, ainsi qu’en réparation des préjudices moral et économique en résultant, peut réclamer, devant les juridictions de chaque État membre sur le territoire duquel un contenu mis en ligne est ou a été accessible, l’indemnisation du dommage causé sur le territoire de cet État membre, conformément à l’arrêt eDate Advertising (points 51 et 52) ou si, en application de l’arrêt Svensk Handel (point 48), elle doit porter cette demande indemnitaire devant la juridiction compétente pour ordonner la rectification des données et la suppression des commentaires dénigrants ?” ;

Geert.

(Handbook of) European private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.2

Unlike the High Court in BVC v EWF [https://t.co/2TjXwU3Hpj], the French SC does refer to the CJEU for further specification of C-194/16 Bolagsupplysningen [https://t.co/W5cCaB3QGf]
Re jurisdiction in the event of libel via the internet. https://t.co/5BTfNPzhzN

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) May 20, 2020

X v Y [2020] EWHC 1116 (Fam) is an uncomplicated case for conflict of laws aficionados. It includes a bit of Vorfrage, a bit of qualification, and a bit of temporal application of Brussels IIa.

Applicant Mr X seeks against the respondent Miss Y to rectify, as he sees it, a decree of divorce granted in relation to his marriage to Miss Y as long ago as 1997. They were married, first of all at a ceremony in Madrid on 25 May 1993, without the knowledge of any member of the wider family. Relationships between the wider families then mellowed to a degree, and there was apparently a second ceremony of marriage conducted in a Registry Office in London on 31 May 1994.

Relevant divorce and financial orders followed  in 1996 and 1997. The divorce petition had been based upon the assertion that the marriage to be dissolved was the second marriage, namely the one conducted in England in May 1994. No reference was made to the earlier marriage conducted in Madrid in 1993. Respondent’s case is that she considers that she is still married to Mr X, and that the Spanish marriage governs their status, and that they cannot be divorced unless and until there are divorce proceedings in Spain. She has, however, indicated a willingness to agree to a contrary outcome, provided a very substantial financial settlement is now made in her favour.

The 1996 petition only referred to the 1994 marriage, and it was that marriage that was referred to in the decree nisi and the decree absolute. It is important to Mr X that the declaration of his divorced status is sound, one assumes because he has remarried. He therefore seeks to rectify the decree absolute, and before it the decree nisi, so that they reflect that the marriage being dissolved was the Spanish marriage in 1993.

The Brussels II Regulation only entered into force in 2005 and jurisdiction for the decrees was governed by section 5 of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973: “The court shall have jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for divorce or judicial separation if (and only if) either of the parties to the marriage (a) is domiciled in England and Wales on the date when the proceedings are begun or (b) was habitually resident in England and Wales throughout the period of one year ending with that date.” Mr X was domiciled in England and Wales at the time, there was therefore valid jurisdiction.

Relevant authority for the correction or variation, is Thynne v Thynne [1955] 3 All ER 129 which McFarlane J applies to rectify the decree nisi and the decree absolute, so that they record the marriage that was being dissolved as being the Spanish marriage of 1993.

Geert.

The background in Wright v Ver [2020] EWCA Civ 672 is the mysterious history of Bitcoin and its creator, ‘Satoashi Nakamoto’. “Satoshi Nakamoto” is the pseudonym used by the person, or persons, who developed Bitcoin. On 31 October 2008 an academic paper was published under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto titled “Bitcoin: A peer to peer electronic cash system”. The academic paper described the manner in which the electronic cash system operated. Dr Craig Wright, claimant and appellant, is a national of Australia who now lives in Surrey. He has lived in the UK since December 2015 after emigrating from Australia. He also became a citizen of Antigua and Barbuda in 2017. He is a computer scientist with a particular interest in cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin. Dr Wright says that he is Satoshi Nakamoto.

Roger Ver, defendant and respondent, is a bitcoin investor and commentator on bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Mr Ver was born in California, and raised in Silicon Valley. He moved to Japan in 2005. In 2014 he renounced his US citizenship and became a citizen of St Kitts & Nevis, although he continues to live in Japan. Mr Ver does not accept that Dr Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.

The judgment does not address whether Dr Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.

Dr Wright claims that he was libelled by Mr Ver in a YouTube Video posted on the Bitcoin.com YouTube channel on about 15 April 2019, a tweet containing the YouTube Video posted on Mr Ver’s Twitter Account on 3 May 2019, and a reply on Mr Ver’s Twitter Account posted on 3 May 2019 some 8 minutes after the tweet from Mr Ver. The defamatory meaning of these publications is said to be that Dr Wright “had fraudulently claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, that is to say the person, or one of the group of people who developed Bitcoin”.

Never more (data produced were broken down over periods) than 7 of the total YouTube views were in the UK. 7% of Mr Ver’s Twitter followers are in the UK. By judgment dated 31 July 2019 Mr Justice Nicklin found that England and Wales was not clearly the most appropriate place in which to bring the libel claim in this action and made a declaration that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.

The Court of Appeal, Dingemans LJ leading, agreed. Brussels Ia is not engaged. The jurisdictional test is section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013 – I previously discussed it in Sadik v Sadik: ‘A court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action to which this section applies unless the court is satisfied that, of all the places in which the statement complained of has been published, England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place in which to bring an action in respect of the statement.’

At 56 Dingemans notes that after Brexit, the Act’s reach will increase.

The first instance judge had argued inter alia that the evidence showed that Dr Wright was putting down roots in the UK and that would increase the reputational interests that Dr Wright had in this jurisdiction but that could not displace the global reputation that he enjoyed.

Dr Wright’s counsel submitted that the judge had set Dr Wright an impossible task by requiring him to adduce evidence of actual harm to his reputation in each candidate jurisdiction, and concluding that in the absence of such evidence Dr Wright could not satisfy the jurisdictional test. Further it was submitted that the judge had wrongly failed to carry out a comparative assessment as to whether each candidate jurisdiction was appropriate for the claim, and therefore failed to carry out the task mandated by s9.

Relevant factors for jurisdiction are discussed at 61 ff. Evidence will have to be shown of all the places in which the relevant statement has been published, as well as the number of times it has there been published. Targeting the publication at an English audience clearly will be an issue. Further elements include the availability of fair judicial processes in the other jurisdictions in which publication occurred. The available remedies from the Courts of the other jurisdictions may be relevant, as may be the costs of pursuing proceedings in each possible jurisdiction. Other factors that might impact on access to justice, for example language barriers, can be relevant. The location of likely witnesses is another feature that may be relevant. This list of factors is not exhaustive.

In a mercifully succinct manner, Dingemans J reviews all the elements and decides the test has not been met here.

A good primer for the 2013 Act.

Geert.

Thank you Matthias Lehmann for flagging X v Yelp , held 14 January 2020 at the Bundesgerichthof (German federal court) and to Jef Ausloos for drawing our attention to X and Avrotros v Facebook BV and Facebook Ireland ltd held 15 May 2020. An English summary of that case is here. Note that the Dutch case is one in interlocutory proceedings. Both concern the application of Article 7(2) Brussels IA at the jurisdictional level, and Rome II at the applicable law level, with respect to reputational damage.

In the German Yelp case, a German gym had complained that Yelp’s review algorithm had created a distorted picture of its business. Jurisdiction was established under Article 7(2) Brussels Ia per CJEU Bolagsupplysningen: centre of interests in Germany.  As to applicable law, the pickle is A1(20(g) Rome II which excludes from its scope of application,  “non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation”.

Under residual German PIL, claimant has a choice between lex locus damni or lex locus delicti commissi. Matthias points to the difficulty:  if companies have ‘personality rights’ within the meaning of Rome II (Bolagsupplysningen clearly suggests they do; but that is a jurisdictional case) then the issue ough to be held exempt from Rome II. Except, a big chunk of unfair trading practices consists of thrashing a competitor’s reputation – and A6 Rome II has a specific lex causae for unfair trading practices.

The German court does not address the issue directly for it held that claimant had made an implicit choice for lex locus damni – German law: the same result as Rome II would have had.

In the Dutch case, the Court likewise holds jurisdiction on the basis of centre of interests,  and then squarely applies A4 Rome II’s genral lex locus damni rule (the action was based against Facebook, arguing that FB was not taking enough measures to block fake/fraudulent bitcoin ads on its platform).

On the choice of court suggestion of Facebook, the court holds that current dispute is not of a contractual nature and that FB’s contractual choice of court and law does not extend to same; it leaves undecided whether the celebrity at issue can be considered a ‘consumer’ for jurisdictional purposes (their FB use I imagine potentially having developed into, or even started as professional use: see the dynamic nature per CJEU C-498/16 Schrems). There must be more argument in there.

Interesting cases, with both courts cutting corners.

Geert.

Court establishes jurisdiction on the basis of A7(2) BIa per Bolagsupplysningen
Then however squarely applies Rome II to what it calls 'reputational damage' – not discussing A1(2)(g) personality rights exception
Compare DE decision reported @eapilorg here https://t.co/0i1OyrK0fM https://t.co/ggBOH1pgMQ

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) May 28, 2020

One does not often see Nigeria sue Shell. Federal Republic of Nigeria v Royal Dutch Shell Plc & Anor [2020] EWHC 1315 (Comm) engages Article 29 Brussels Ia’s lis alibi pendens rule in a period in which (see other posts on the blog) the High Court intensely entertained that section of Brussels Ia. Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDS) is the anchor defendant for the other EU-domiciled defendants. Quite a few of the defendants are not domiciled in the EU.

The case concerns Nigerian allegations that monies paid by it under an earlier settlement following alleged expropriation, which had led to bilateral investment treaty arbitration under ICSID rules, had been channeled to pay bribes. Nigeria is pursuing the case in the criminal courts in Italy, too.

Nigeria therefore are already pursuing claims in Italy to obtain financial relief against 4 of the defendants including the anchor defendant. Defendants contend that those claims are the same claims as the English ones and that the court should decline jurisdiction in respect of those claims pursuant to A29 BIa. Defendants then further contend that, if the court so declines jurisdiction over the claims against RDS and Eni SpA, the entire proceedings should be dismissed. This is because RDS is the ‘anchor defendant’ under A8(1) BIa in the case of three of the EU-domiciled defendants and under English CPR rules against the other defendants. In the alternative to the application under Article 29, Defendants seek a stay of the proceedings under A30 BIa (related cases) or, in the further alternative as a matter of case management, pending a final determination, including all appeals, of the claim that the FRN has brought in Italy.

Butcher J refers at 41 to the UKSC in The Alexandros, and to Rix J in Glencore International AG v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co Ltd, at 110: ‘broadly speaking, the triple requirement of same parties, same cause and same objet entails that it is only in relatively straightforward situations that art [29] bites, and, it may be said, is intended to bite. After all, art [30] is available, with its more flexible discretionary power to stay, in the case of ‘related proceedings’ which need not involve the triple requirement of art [29]. There is no need, therefore, as it seems to me, to strain to fit a case into art [29].’

Same parties. Per CJEU The Tatry A29 applies to the extent to which the parties before the courts second seised are parties to the action previously commenced. Butcher J correctly holds that the fact that there may be other parties to the second action does not prevent this. Nigeria nevertheless argue that the involvement of the Italian Public Prosecutor in the Italian case, and not in the English case, and its crucial role in the Italian proceedings, means that the proceedings nevertheless are not between the ‘same parties’. Defendants call upon CJEU C-523/14 Aertssen to counter this: there BE and NL proceedings were considered to be caught by A29 even though the BE proceedings concerned criminal proceedings and the Dutch did not.

At 47 Butcher J holds that the prosecutor is not a ‘party’ in the A29 sense and that even it were, it is nevertheless clear from The Tatry that there does not have to be complete identity of the parties to the two proceedings for Article 29 to be applicable. (Ditto Leech J in Awendale v Pixis).

Same cause of action. Nigeria accept that there is no material difference in the facts at issue in the two proceedings, however contends that the legal basis of its claim in England is different.

Butcher J refers to Lord Clarke in The Alexandros, that in order to consider same cause of action, one must look ‘at the basic facts (whether in dispute or not) and the basic claimed rights and obligations of the parties to see if there is coincidence between them in the actions in different countries, making due allowance for the specific form that proceedings may take in one national court with different classifications of rights and obligations from those in a different national court’. Doing that, at 55 he holds that these basic claimed rights in the IT and EN proceedings, which he characterises as being the right not to be adversely affected by conduct of RDS which involves or facilitates the bribery and corruption of the FRN’s ministers and agents, and the right to redress if there is such bribery and corruption’, are the same.

That seems to me an approach which is overly reliant on the similarity of underlying facts. (At 70, obiter, Butcher J splits the claims and suggests he would have held on a narrower similarity of cause of action for some claims and not the others, had he held otherwise on ‘same cause of action’; and at 80 that he would have ordered a stay under Article 30 or on case management grounds on the remainder of the action).

Same object. Nigeria contend that its present proceedings do not have the same objet as the civil claim in the Italian proceedings. It contends that the only claim made in the Italian proceedings is for monetary damages, while in the English action claims are also made of a declaration of entitlement to rescind the April 2011 Agreements, other declaratory relief, an account of profits and tracing remedies.

Butcher J disagrees. Per Lord Clarke in The Alexandros, he holds that to have the same object, the proceedings must have the ‘same end in view’, per CJEU Aertssen at 45 interpreted ‘broadly’. At 61; ‘that ‘end in view’ is to obtain redress for RDS’s alleged responsibility for bribery and corruption…. Further, it is apparent that a key part of the redress claimed in the English proceedings is monetary compensation, which is the (only) relief claimed in the Italian proceedings. On that basis I consider that the two sets of proceedings do have the same objet.’

That the English action also seeks to rescind the original 2011 agreements is immaterial, he finds, for RDS were not even part to those proceedings. Moreover, that aim included in the English action serves to support the argument that if the two sets of proceedings go ahead, (at 64) ‘there would be the possibility of the type of inconsistent decisions which Article 29 is aimed at avoiding’. ‘If the English proceedings were regarded as involving a significantly different claim, namely one relating to rescission, and could go ahead, that would give rise to the possibility of a judgment in one awarding damages on the basis of the validity of the April 2011 Agreements and the other finding that those Agreements were capable of rescission. That would appear to me to be a situation of where there is effectively a ‘mirror image’ of the case in one jurisdiction in the other,..’

At 66 ff Butcher J adopts the to my mind correct view on the application of A29 to proceedings with more than one ‘objet’: one does not look at all claims holistically, one has to adopt a claim by claim approach, in line with CJEU The Tatry. At 68: ‘Difficulties which might otherwise arise from the fragmentation of proceedings can usually be addressed by reference to Article 30..’

At 71 he then concludes that the stay must be granted, and that he has no discretion not to do so once he finds that the conditions of A29 are fulfilled. He also holds that with the case against the anchor defendant stayed, A8(1) falls away. He appreciates at 72 that this may expose Nigeria to limitation issues in the Italian proceedings, however those are of their own making for they were under no obligation to sue in Italy.

At 74 ff Article 30 is considered obiter, and Butcher J says he would have stayed under A29. At 77 he notes the continuing debate on the difference at the Court of Appeal between Privatbank and Euroeco. At 75(2) he summarises the distinction rather helpfully as

‘In the Kolomoisky case, it was decided that the word ‘expedient’ in the phrase ‘it is expedient to hear and determine them together’ which appears in Article 28.3 of the Lugano Convention (as it does in Article 30.3 of the Regulation), is more akin to ‘desirable’ that the actions ‘should’ be heard together, than to ‘practicable or possible’ that the actions ‘can’ be heard together: paras. [182]-[192]. In the Euroeco Fuels case, having referred to the Kolomoisky case, the Court of Appeal nevertheless appears to have proceeded on the basis that the court had no discretion to order a stay under Article 30 when there was no real possibility of the two claims being heard together in the same foreign court’

At 75(5) he then without much ado posits that

‘In any event, even if not under Article 30, there should be a stay under the Court’s case management powers, and in particular pursuant to s. 49(3) Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR 3.1(2)(f). Such a stay would not, in my judgment, be inconsistent with the Regulation, and is required to further the Overriding Objective in the sense of saving expense, ensuring that cases are dealt with expeditiously and fairly, and allotting to any particular case an appropriate share of the Court’s resources. Given that the Italian proceedings are well advanced, and that after the determination of the Italian proceedings English proceedings may well either be unnecessary or curtailed in scope, there appear good grounds to consider that a stay of the English proceedings will result in savings in costs and time, including judicial time.’

Whether such case-management stay under CPR 3.1(2)(f) is at all compatible with the Regulation in claims involving EU domicileds, outside the context of Articles 29-34 is of course contested and, following Owusu, in my view improbable.

Most important lis alibi pendens considerations at the High Court these days.

Geert.

(Handbook of) European Private International Law – 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.14.5.

More lis alibi pendens.
Article 29/30 Brussels IA. All English claims stayed under Article 29, in favour of pending Italian proceedings. https://t.co/8EaGXfsLWP

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) May 22, 2020

Awendale Resources v Pyxis Capital Management [2020] EWHC 1286 (Ch) applies Article 29 Brussels Ia’s lis alibi pendens rule.

Awendale is a company incorporated under the law of the Seychelles and Pyxis is a company incorporated under the law of Cyprus. On 7 November 2017 Infinitum Ventures Ltd, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, issued proceedings in Cyprus against Mr Andreas Andreou, Awendale and Pyxis. Awendale entered an appearance and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Cypriot court. On 24 June 2019 Awendale then issued the Claim Form in the current proceedings and on 20 August 2019 Pyxis filed an acknowledgment of service stating that it intended to defend the claim. Pyxis now applies to stay the English Claim on the basis that it and the Cypriot Claim involve the same cause of action between the same parties and that Article 29 is engaged. 

At 31 Leech J lists the six issues for determination: i) The same cause of action: Are the English Claim and the Cypriot Derivative Claim “proceedings involving the same cause of action”? ii) The same parties: If so, are the English Claim and the Cypriot Derivative Claim “between the same parties”? iii) Seisin: If so, was the Cypriot court first seised? iv) The scope of Article 29: If so, is Article 29 nevertheless inapplicable because of the jurisdiction clause in relevant Loan Agreements? v) The time of application: Is the operation of Article 29 excluded because the stay application was not filed earlier and in accordance with CPR Part 11. vi) Reference to the CJEU: If Pyxis succeeds on the first four issues but fails on the fifth issue, should the Court consider referring a question to the CJEU?

Leech J first, at 32 ff gets Article 31(2)’s priority rule for choice of court (which I discussed the other day in my review of Generali Italia v Pelagic) out off the way: that is because A31(2) is without prejudice to A26 and as noted, Awendale had submitted to the Cypriot courts.

On the determination of the ‘same cause of action‘, he then refers to The Alexandros, and of course to CJEU Gubisch and The Tatry. A discussion ensues as to whether the Cypriot and English proceedings concern two sides of the same coin, which at 42 Leech J decides they do, with at 43 supporting argument from professor Briggs’ litmus test: actions have the same cause if a decision in one set of proceedings would have been a conclusive answer in the other.

The same parties condition may be a bit more exacting (‘same cause of action’ implies some flexibility), however there need not be exact identity of parties. Here, the issue to hold was whether despite seperate legal personalities, the different interests of Infinitum and Pyxis are identical and indissociable which Leech J held they are to a good arguable case standard (and obiter, at 56, to a substantive standard, too). This condition therefore requires some wire-cutting through corporate interests and true beneficiaries of claims.

At 67 ff then follows an extensive discussion of the impact of the English CPR timing rules on the application proprio motu or not of A29. Reference here was made to the Jenard Report, and a contrario to provisions in BIa (including A33). Leech J holds at 78 that a party who fails to apply to stay proceedings under Article 29 within the time limit in CPR Part 11(4) is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction.

Eventually Leech J decides to use his discretion to allow Pyxis to apply for a time extension so as they can apply out of time for a stay of proceedings under A29. Unlike what I first tweeted, the stay has not exactly been granted yet, therefore. But it is likely to be. Pyxis made an undertaking  to consent to any stay being lifted if the Cypriot Claim is struck out and Awendale was permitted to apply to set aside the stay if Infinitum fails to take reasonable steps to prosecute or proceed with the Cypriot Claim.

More lis alibi pendens reviews are on their way.

Geert.

(Handbook of) European Private International Law – 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.14.5

Lis alibi pendens, Article 29 Brussels Ia everywhere!
Stay granted on the basis of Cypriot proceedings. https://t.co/uCD2z4F4AK

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) May 23, 2020

This is  short post for archival purposes: I have been looking in vain in the past few weeks for a copy of prof Nuyts’ 2007 study for the European Commission on ‘residual jurisdiction’ (Review of the Member States’ Rules concerning the “Residual Jurisdiction” of their courts in Civil and Commercial Matters pursuant to the Brussels I and II Regulations). It was no longer on the EC’s studies page and the url which many of us have been using in the past no longer works. So here it is. Courtesy of the European Commission and of prof Nuyts.

Enjoy. It has lost nothing of its topical nature.

Geert.

C-500/18 AU v Reliantco was held by the CJEU on 2 April, in the early fog of the current pandemic. Reliantco is a company incorporated in Cyprus offering financial products and services through an online trading platform under the ‘UFX’ trade name – readers will recognise this from [2019] EWHC 879 (Comm) Ang v Reliantco. Claimant AU is an individual. The litigation concerns limit orders speculating on a fall in the price of petrol, placed by AU on an online platform owned by the defendants in the main proceedings, following which AU lost the entire sum being held in the frozen trading account, that is, 1 919 720 US dollars (USD) (around EUR 1 804 345).

Choice of court and law was made pro Cyprus.

The case brings to the fore the more or less dense relationship between secondary EU consumer law such as in particular the unfair terms Directive 93/13 and, here, Directive 2004/39 on markets in financial instruments (particularly viz the notion of ‘retail client’ and ‘consumer’).

First up is the consumer title under Brussels Ia: Must A17(1) BIa be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who under a contract concluded with a financial company, carries out financial transactions through that company may be classified as a ‘consumer’ in particular whether it is appropriate, for the purposes of that classification, to take into consideration factors such as the fact that that person carried out a high volume of transactions within a relatively short period or that he or she invested significant sums in those transactions, or that that person is a ‘retail client’ within the meaning of A4(1) point 12 Directive 2004/39?

The Court had the benefit of course of C-208/18 Petruchová – which Baker J did not have in Ang v Reliantco. It is probably for that reason that the case went ahead without an Opinion of the AG. In Petruchová the Court had already held that factors such as

• the value of transactions carried out under contracts such as CFDs,
• the extent of the risks of financial loss associated with the conclusion of such contracts,
• any knowledge or expertise that person has in the field of financial instruments or his or her active conduct in the context of such transactions
• the fact that a person is classified as a ‘retail client’ within the meaning of Directive 2004/39 is, as such, in principle irrelevant for the purposes of classifying him or her as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of BIa,

are, as such, in principle irrelevant to determine the qualification as a ‘consumer’. In Reliantco it now adds at 54 that ‘(t)he same is true of a situation in which the consumer carried out a high volume of transactions within a relatively short period or invested significant sums in those transactions.’

Next however comes the peculiarity that although AU claim jurisdiction for the Romanian courts against Reliantco Investments per the consumer title (which requires a ‘contract’ to be concluded), it bases its action on non-contractual liability, with applicable law to be determined by Rome II. (The action against the Cypriot subsidiary, with whom no contract has been concluded, must be one in tort. The Court does not go into analysis of the jurisdictional basis against that subsidiary, whose branch or independent basis or domicile is not entirely clear; anyone ready to clarify, please do).

At 68 the CJEU holds that the culpa in contrahendo action is indissociably linked to the contract concluded between the consumer and the seller or supplier, and at 71 that this conclusion is reinforced by A12(1) Rome II which makes the putative lex contractus, the lex causae for culpa in contrahendo. At 72 it emphasises the need for consistency between Rome II and Brussels IA in that both the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of dealings prior to the conclusion of a contract and the court having jurisdiction to hear an action concerning such an obligation, are determined by taking into consideration the proposed contract the conclusion of which is envisaged.

Interesting.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.8.2.

I currently have a practice interest in all things Cypriot territory hence Local Authority B v X (Mother) & Ors [2020] EWFC 37 caught my eye even more than had it just involved Brussels IIa.

The application concerns a child, T. He is now about 5 years old. He is a British national; both his parents are British nationals. He was born in Kyrenia in the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (‘TRNC’), and lived there from his birth in early 2014 until late summer 2018 when he travelled with his mother to the Republic of Cyprus, the southern territory of the island, where he remained until 17 October 2018. On that day, he flew to London, again in the company of his mother. On each occasion on which T and his mother travelled, the mother was the subject of a formal deportation order from the relevant territory of the island of Cyprus. On her arrival in the UK the mother was arrested and taken into custody, where she has remained to date. A police protection order was made in relation to T on his arrival in England, and he was placed into foster care, where he, in turn, has remained.

At issue is whether the Family Court in this country can properly exercise jurisdiction in relation to T.  Cobb J notes that the legal issues in the case are complicated by the internal territorial and political division within Cyprus. The United Kingdom, in accordance with its obligations under international law, has not recognised, and does not recognise, the TRNC as a state, yet the Republic of Cyprus is a Member State of the EU. Further discussion of the territorial issues at 7 ff include references to Protocol 10 of Cyprus’ accession Treaty, and CJEU C-420/07 Apostolides v Orams. (Itself linked to [2010] EWCA Civ 9).

The ensuing complicated jurisdictional questions are summarised at 33-34, with at 53 a resulting finding of lack of habitual residence of T in England, and an A13 BIIa jurisdiction. The mother, who argues for habitual residence in Cyprus, agues that BIA per CJEU Orams treats the TRNC as part of the Member State of the Republic of Cyprus, and so should BIIa. They further contend that given the many direct similarities between the language and the purpose of the two regulations, Brussels 1 and BIIa, Orams provides good authority for the argument that T, habitually resident in the TRNC (outside the Government’s effective control) was nonetheless, at the critical point, subject to the provisions of BIIa. At 68ff, Cobb J disagrees.

An interesting judgment for both BIIa and EU external relations law.

Geert.

In Generali Italia & Ors v Pelagic Fisheries & Anor [2020] EWHC 1228 (Comm) the claimants-insurers commenced these proceedings seeking declarations that they are not liable to the Insureds. Pelagic had already commenced proceedings in Treviso, Italy on the basis of what it claims to be choice of court in favour of Italy. The first instance Italian court stayed the Treviso Proceedings (the insureds have appealed; the appeal is yet to be heard) pending a determination by the English court as to whether the Treviso Policies are subject to an exclusive English jurisdiction clause. The Stay order readers in relevant part:

‘the lis alibi pendens defence which has been raised requires that these proceedings are suspended in order to allow the High Court of London to rule on the exclusive English jurisdiction clause pursuant to art 31.2 of EU Reg 1215/2012. That since, in the light of what is established by the said provisions, it is irrelevant that the Italian Judicial Authority has been seised first, …. Indeed article 31 of the above mentioned regulation represents an exception to the operation of the ordinary rule of priority in matter of lis alibi pendens, in order to allow the judges chosen by the parties in contractual terms (cover notes) to be the first to rule on the validity of the clause itself (according to the law chosen by the parties). In the concerned case all the cover notes, in the special insurance conditions, contain the clause ‘English jurisdiction. Subject to English law and practice”, with consequent waiver to the general insurance conditions provided in Camogli Policy 1988 form”.’

Other parties are part of the proceedings, too – readers best refer to the facts of the case. They clarify that chunks of the proceedings bear resemblance to the kind of split stay scenario applied by the CJEU in C-406/92 The Tatry.

Foxton J refers to the good arguable case test viz Article 25 Brussels Ia of BNP Paribas v Anchorage, recently also further summarised by the Court of Appeal in Kaefer Aislamientos and further in Etihad Airways PJSC v Flöther.

The case essentially puts Article 31 BIa’s anti-torpedo mechanism to the test in related ways as the first instance judge and the Court of Appeal did in Ablynx. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether A31(2) obliges the English Court to stay proceedings unless and until there is a determination in the Treviso Proceedings that the Italian courts do not have jurisdiction. There are 3 core questions: i) Should the English Court proceed to determine whether there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of this Court, in circumstances in which Pelagic is contending in Italy that the Italian courts have jurisdiction, or should it await a ruling on jurisdiction in the Treviso Proceedings? ; ii) If it is appropriate to determine the issue, is there an English exclusive jurisdiction agreement in the Treviso Policies for the purposes of Article 25?; iii) Should the Court stay the remainder of the proceedings under Article 30?

At 65 counsel for the insureds take a similar position as Ms Lane did in Ablynx: he argues that the only issue which the High Court should consider is whether it is satisfied that there is a prima facie case that the Italian court has jurisdiction (which he says there is on the basis that the parties agreed that both the English and Italian courts would have jurisdiction) and that if it is so satisfied, it should stay the English proceedings, pending the outcome of Pelagic’s appeal in the Italian proceedings.

Foxton J however at 68 ff highlights the inadequate nature and limitations of A25(4), as also pointed out by the last para of recital 22 which accompanies it: in the face of conflicting choice of court provisions (typically, as a result of overlapping clauses in overlapping contractual relations between the parties), A25(4) loses its power and the more classic lis alibi pendens rules take over. At 70 he points to the ping-pong that threatens to ensue:

in circumstances in which the Italian court has stayed its proceedings to allow the English court to determine if it has exclusive jurisdiction, it would be particularly surprising if the English court was then bound to stay its proceedings pending a decision on jurisdiction by the Italian court. This approach, in which the dispute might become caught in the self-perpetuating politeness of an Alphonse and Gaston cartoon, is not consistent with enhancing “the effectiveness of exclusive choice-of-court agreements” and avoiding “abusive litigation tactics” which Article 31(2) is intended to achieve. It does not matter for these purposes that the decision of the Italian court granting such a stay is presently under appeal.

He holds therefore at 79 that his task is essentially to review whether there is a good arguable case that the Treviso Policies (the ones subject of the English litigation, GAVC) are subject to exclusive jurisdiction agreements in favour of the English court which satisfy the requirements of A25 BIa. At 95 he finds there is such case. At 113 ff he holds obiter he would have stayed the remainder of the claims under A30, had he held in favour of a stay under A31(2).

Fun with conflict of laws.

Geert.

(Handbook of ) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.6.7, Heading 2.2.9.5.

Jurisdiction, Brussels IA. Choice of court A25, lis alibi pendens A29/30. https://t.co/F68mMIQ1jC

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) May 18, 2020

DIFC Courts, the Dubai International Financial Centre’s Courts, is one of the new generation of international commercial courts. Its rulings piggyback unto recognition and enforcement treaties which the UAE concludes with third countries (India being a recent example).

In GFH Capital Ltd v Haigh & Ors [2020] EWHC 1269 (Comm) Henshaw J first of all notes that there is no such treaty between the UK and the UAE hence he considers recognition of the July 2018 DIFC judgment by Sir Jeremy Cooke under common law principles. Helpfully, these principles have been summarised in a January 2013 Memorandum of Guidance as to Enforcement between the DIFC Courts and the Commercial Court, Queen’s Bench Division, England and Wales. Under discussion in the case is mostly the condition that the foreign court be a court of competent jurisdiction; that the foreign judgment be not obtained fraudulently; and that its recognition be not incompatible with English ordre public.

The judgment is an extensive treatment of the relevant principles and therefore suited to comparative materials.

Geert.

Enforcement of @DIFCCourts judgment
Application of common law principles (no releant Treaty with the UAE). https://t.co/VHgkTw7DHG

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) May 20, 2020

AB v EM [2020] EWHC 549 (Fam) concerns for a large part the application of Brussels IIa’s traditional jurisdictional rules (habitual residence etc.) and I shall not comment on those.

Of interest to the blog are, first, at 37 ff the application of the Regulation’s forum non conveniens rules: in that respect, compare with my posts on V v M and W v L. Further, the question whether the order made by the Sunnite Sharia Court of Beirut on 6 February 2019 in proceedings commenced by the mother in Lebanon in November 2018, incorporating and approving an agreement between the parties to these proceedings regarding custody and access with respect to M, capable of recognition in the UK and, if so, what impact should this have on the UK courts’ welfare determination?  The 2019 agreement established that the father would have custody of M and would reside with M in either the United Kingdom, Egypt or some other location of his choosing.

MacDonald J at 71-73, having referred to the spirit of comity, does not hold on what at 73 are briefly refered to as ‘wider criticisms’ of the February 2019 Order, or the allegations of durress in the coming to be of that order. He notes more as a matter of fact that circumstances in the child’s welfare have changed since the Order, and that the father did not at any rate honour elements of the agreement which the Order had confirmed.

No grand statement of principle, therefore. Rather, a measured practical approach.

Geert.

Brussels IIa.
Jurisdiction. Wrongful removal.
Recognition of order made by Sunnite #Sharia Court of Beirut on 6 February 2019 in proceedings commenced by the mother in Lebanon in November 2018, incorporating agreement between parties. https://t.co/72bfIuq3VH

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 16, 2020