Agrégateur de flux

Written by Jack Wass, Stout Street Chambers, New Zealand

On 5 December 2019, the New Zealand Court of Appeal released a significant decision on jurisdiction over land in cross-border cases.

In Christie v Foster [2019] NZCA 623, the Court overturned the High Court’s decision that the Moçambique rule (named after British South Africa Co v Companhia de Moçambique [1893] AC 602) required that a dispute over New Zealand land be heard in New Zealand (for a case note on the High Court’s decision, see here). The plaintiff sought to reverse her late mother’s decision to sever their joint tenancy, the effect of which was to deprive the plaintiff of the right to inherit her mother’s share by survivorship. The Court found that the in personam exception to the Moçambique rule applied, since the crux of the plaintiff’s claim was a complaint of undue influence against her sister (for procuring their mother to sever the tenancy), and because any claim in rem arising out of the severance was precluded by New Zealand’s rules on indefensibility of title. As a consequence the Court declined jurisdiction and referred the whole case to Ireland, which was otherwise the appropriate forum.

In the course of its decision, the Court resolved a number of important points of law, some of which had not been addressed in any Commonwealth decisions:

First, it resolved a dispute that had arisen between High Court authorities about the scope of the in personam exception, resolving it in favour of a broad interpretation. In particular, the Court disagreed with High Court authority (Burt v Yiannakis [2015] NZHC 1174) that suggested an institutional constructive trust claim was in rem and thus outside the exception.

Second, it held (reversing the High Court) that the Moçambique rule does not have reflexive effect. The rule prevents the New Zealand court from taking jurisdiction over claims in rem involving foreign land out of comity to the foreign court, but does not require the New Zealand court to take jurisdiction over cases involving New Zealand land. Although New Zealand will often be the appropriate forum for a case involving New Zealand land, the court is free to send it overseas if the circumstances require, even if the claim asserts legal title in rem.

Third, the Court confirmed that there is a second exception to the Moçambique rule – where the claim arises incidentally in the administration of an estate. Dicey, Morris and Collins had suggested the existence of this exception for many editions, but it had to be inferred from earlier cases without being properly articulated. The Court expressly found such an exception to exist and that it would have applied in this case.

In the course of its analysis, the Court expressed sympathy for the arguments in favour of abolishing the Moçambique rule entirely. Although the Court did not go that far, it reinforced a trend of the courts restricting the application of the rule and suggested that in the right case, the courts might be prepared to abandon it entirely.

In A v OOO “Insurance Company Chubb” [2019] EWHC 2729 (Comm), Carr J refused an ex parte application for interim relief seeking (i.a.) anti-suit and discontinuation of Russian proceedings, pro agreed arbitration in London. Defendants are domiciled at Russia, France and Switserland. At 33 ff Carr J lists five reasons for refusal, despite as readers will know the English courts’ general willingness to assist arbitration. Three of her reasons jump out: the lack of full and frank disclosure (ia relating to contractual provisions); the lack of immediate urgency requiring ex parte application; and some of the measures sought being more than just interim measures (assessment of that nature required evidence by a Russian law expert on the further continuation, if any, of Russian proceedings following anti-suit).

A good reminder that these applications are neither straightforward nor should be taken for granted.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.1.

Il faut retenir de cet arrêt qu’en principe l’article 132-4 du code pénal n’est pas applicable à une condamnation prononcée à l’étranger.

en lire plus

Bail commercial

Transfert de bail - Personne handicapée

Election

On 12 and 13 December 2019, the University of Ljubljana (Slovenia) is the destination of many experts and academics of different national and professional backgrounds who will join in the discussion about various legal aspects of the family property in cross-border situations in EU. The event titled “Best Practices in European Family and Succession Law” is the second public event within the Justice co-funded project PSEFS which stands for “Personalised Solution in Family and Succession Law”. Here is the programme of the event.

The news from the project and more are available at the PSEFS web page.

Conte / EUIPO (CANNABIS STORE AMSTERDAM)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle MARQ
Un signe évoquant la marijuana ne peut pas, en l’état actuel du droit, être enregistré comme marque de l’Union européenne

Parquet général du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Procureurs de Lyon et Tours)
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
La Cour estime que les parquets français, suédois et belge répondent aux exigences requises pour émettre un mandat d’arrêt européen et clarifie également la portée de la protection juridictionnelle dont bénéficient les personnes visées par un tel mandat

Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (Complément de pension pour les mères)
Le complément de pension accordé par l’Espagne aux mères bénéficiaires d’une pension d’invalidité, lorsqu’elles ont deux enfants ou plus, doit être également octroyé aux pères se trouvant dans une situation comparable

Otis e.a.
Concurrence
Les personnes n’opérant pas comme fournisseur ou comme acheteur sur le marché concerné par une entente peuvent demander réparation du préjudice causé par cette entente

[2019] EWHC 3196 (Ch) Kinsella et al v Emasan et al is not quite as extensive an analysis on choice of court as Etihad Airways v Prof Dr Lucas Flöther which I review here.  Nevertheless the required ‘good arguable case’ standard is again responsible for the extensive discussion of the issue.

Issues are similar as under A25 BIa – in the case at issue it is the Lugano Convention (Article 23) that is engaged. Teverson M’s analysis is very much a factual, contractual one: the basis of Emasan’s (defendant, domiciled at Switzerland) jurisdiction challenge is that: it is domiciled in Switzerland; an alleged 2002 Agreement was an oral agreement which was not subject to any jurisdiction agreement; that alleged 2002 Agreement was not varied by 2006 and 2007 Deeds in such a way as to bring claims for breaches of its alleged terms within the ambit of the jurisdiction clauses contained in those later Deeds, but was superseded by them; there is no other basis upon which the jurisdiction of the English Courts is established in relation to claims based on the 2002 Agreement.

Whether choice of court was made for the 2002 agreement depended on whether A23 Lugano’s conditions were fulfilled that the agreement be made in writing or evidenced in writing; or in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves (the lex mercatoria gateway was not relevant at issue).

Every one of the written agreements made to give effect to claimant’s entitlement under the original, oral 2002 Agreement included a jurisdiction clause recognising the jurisdiction of the English Courts. A great deal of emphasis was placed on witness statements. At 101 Master Teverson holds that the agreement on jurisdiction under the 2002 agreement can properly in the circumstances of this case be regarded as evidenced by the jurisdiction clauses in the 2006 and 2007 Deeds.

Geert.

(Handbook of) European Private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Ch.2, Heading 2.2.9

 

Le plan de lutte contre les violences faites aux femmes, présenté fin novembre à l’issu du Grenelle, semble être une réponse insuffisante, ou tout du moins partielle, au regard des obligations internationales que la Convention du Conseil de l’Europe sur la prévention et la lutte contre la violence à l’égard des femmes fait peser sur la France. 

en lire plus

We are happy to officially announce that the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL) has recently been founded!

An independent and non-partisan organization registered as a non-profit association under the laws of Luxembourg, EAPIL aims to promote the study and development of private international law by fostering the cooperation of academics and practitioners  as well as the exchange of information on the sources of the discipline, its scholarship and practice.

To learn more about EAPIL – and to become a member – please check out the Association’s website.

To learn about the EAPIL founding conference, to be held at the University of Aarhus (Denmark) in May 2020, please visit the official conference website.