Agrégateur de flux

Renvoi devant l'assemblée plénière
Arrêt n°640 du 17 décembre 2018

Comparution immédiate

[2019] EWCA Civ 10 Kaefer Aislamientos v AMS Drilling et al is a good illustration of the difficulty of privity of contract (here: privity of choice of court), and the limits to the harmonisation of the rules on choice of court under Article 25 Brussels I Recast.

Herbert Smith Freehills have analysis of the wider issues of the case (over and above Article 25) here. The appeal considers among others the approach that courts should adopt when, as will usually be the case at the interim stage when a jurisdiction challenge is launched, the evidence before the Court is incomplete. Goldman Sachs v Novo Banco as well as Brownlie were referenced.

Appellant contends that the Court has jurisdiction to determine the claim against defendants AT1 and Ezion under Article 25 Brussels I Recast. It is said that the relevant contract contains an English exclusive jurisdiction clause and the relevant contract was concluded by AMS Mexico and/or AMS on behalf of AT1 and/or Ezion as undisclosed principals and, it follows, the contract, including its jurisdiction agreement, bound AT1 and Ezion.

At 81 Lord Green refers to the Privy Council in Bols [2006] UKPC 45 which itself had referred to Colzani and Coreck Maritime (staple precedent at the CJEU; students of conflict of laws: time to worry if you read this around exam time and haven’t a clue). In Bols Lord Rodgers leading, held that CJEU precedent imposed on the court the duty of examining “whether the clause conferring jurisdiction upon it was in fact the subject of a consensus between the parties” and this had to be “clearly and precisely demonstrated“. The purpose of the provisions was, it was said, to ensure that the “consensus” between the parties was “in fact” established.

Lord Green (this is not part of the decision in Bols) adds that the Court of Justice has however recognised that the manner of this proof is essentially an issue for the national laws of the Member States, subject to an overriding duty to ensure that those laws are consistent with the aims and objectives of the Regulation. He does not cite CJEU precedent in support – but he is right: Article 25 contains essential, yet precious little bite in determining just how to establish such consensus. Prima facie complete, it leaves a vault of issues to be determined, starting with the element of ‘proof’ of consensus.

Of interest is that before deciding the issue, Lord Green notes at 85 Abela v Baardani [2013] UKSC 44 (“Abela“) at paragraphs [44] and [53] per Lord Clarke and Lord Sumption, that to view permission to service out of jurisdiction as more often than not exorbitant, is unrealistic in the modern era: routinely where service out is authorised the defendant will have submitted contractually to the jurisdiction of the domestic courts (or there would be an argument to that effect) and in any event litigation between residents of different states is a normal incident of modern global business. As such the decision to permit service out is, today, more generally viewed as a pragmatic decision predicated upon the efficiency of the conduct of litigation.

It was eventually held that the evidence pointed against AT1 and Exion being undisclosed principals and that therefore the Court of Appeal was right in rejecting jurisdiction.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.9, Heading 2.2.9.4.

Corruption continues to cast a shadow over investment law. When allegations of corruption arise in an investment dispute, the tribunal faces the difficult task of deciding whether (and how) to penalize the responsible party. It must assess the often-limited evidence and then craft an appropriate remedy. The legal and practical questions this raises remain highly contested. On Tuesday, February 19, 2019, the ILA American Branch Investment Law Committee and the Georgetown International Arbitration Society are hosting an evening conference to discuss these questions, bringing together academic and non-academic perspectives.

Panel 1: What is sufficient proof of corruption?
• Aloysius Llamzon, Senior Associate, King & Spalding
• Jason Yackee, Professor, University of Wisconsin
• Meriam Al-Rashid, Partner, Dentons

Panel 2: What is the right response when corruption is found?
• Lucinda Low, Partner, Steptoe
• Arif H. Ali, Partner, Dechert

Opening and closing:
• David L. Attanasio, Co-Chair, ILA American Branch Investment Law Committee; Associate, Dechert
• Malika Aggarwal, Georgetown International Arbitration Society

Location:
Dechert
1900 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006

When:
Tuesday, February 19, 2019, with registration from 4:45 pm and the program commencing at 5:00 pm.

Space is limited, so please RSVP as soon as possible here

The forthcoming volume of the Japanese Yearbook of International Law (Vol. 61, 2018) will feature the following articles and case notes relating to private international law:

Articles

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF CONSUMER COLLECTIVE REDRESS

Dai Yokomizo, Introductory Note (168)

Kazuhiko Yamamoto, Special Proceedings for the Collective Redress for Property Damage Incurred by Consumers — About So-Called “Japanese Class Action” — (169)

Dai Yokomizo, Consumer Collective Redress and Japanese Conflict of Laws (190)

Stefaan Voet, Europe’s Collective Redress Conundrum (205)

Catherine Piché & Geneviève Saumier, Consumer Collective Redress in Canada (231)

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

Masato Dogauchi, The Aftermath of the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Accident: How Japanese Lawyers Have Been Playing Their Roles with Regard to the Nuclear Damage? (284)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN JAPAN (369ss)

Public International Law

Takamatsu High Court, Judgment, April 25, 2016

Hate Speech — The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination — Relevance of the Convention in Interpreting Domestic Laws

Nagoya High Court, Judgment, September 7, 2016

Eligibility for Refugee Status — Burden and Degree of Proof — Situation in Nepal — Article 1 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees — Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status

Nagoya High Court, Judgment, November 30, 2016

Factors to be Taken into Consideration in Determination of Special Permission to Stay — Continuous De Facto Marriage and Family Life — Criminal Offence and Extenuating Circumstances

Naha District Court (Okinawa Branch), Judgment, February 9, 2017

State Immunity — Activities of Foreign Armed Forces Stationing in the Forum State with Its Consent — Tort Exception — Relationship Between the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Customary Rules on State Immunity

Private International Law

Supreme Court (3rd Petty Bench), Judgment, December 12, 2017

Challenge to Arbitral Award — Arbitrator Conflict of Interest — Disclosure of Conflict of Interest

Supreme Court (3rd Petty Bench), Judgment, 12 December 2017

Japanese Anti-Monopoly Act — Extraterritorial Application — Price-Fixing Cartel 

Supreme Court (1st Petty Bench), Decision, December 21, 2017

International Child Abduction — Modification of the Order to Return 

Tokyo High Court, Judgment, November 25, 2015

Enforcement of Judgment — Defamation — Reciprocity

Tokyo District Court, Judgment, January 17, 2017

International Adjudicatory Jurisdiction over Consumer Contracts — Rescindment of Contracts by Fraud — Overriding Mandatory Provision

Tokyo High Court, Judgment, October 25, 2017

Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Commercial Contracts — Public Policy — Civil Remedy— International Private Law — Limitation of Party Autonomy by Mandatory Rules — Abuse of Superior Bargaining Position — Article 24 of the Antimonopoly Act — Article 709 of the Civil Code

More information on the Yearbook (former Annual) and the content of its past volumes is available at http://www.ilajapan.org/jyil/.