Agrégateur de flux

The media have been reporting on a considerable class action lawsuit, underway in the English courts, in the Corporate Social Responsibility /mass torts category.

The class action case was filed against Anglo-Australian company BHP Billiton on behalf of 240,000 individuals, 24 municipal governments, 11,000 businesses, a Catholic archdiocese and about 200 members of the Krenak indigenous community. It concerns victims of the Samarco dam collapse in Mariana three years ago.

I am reporting the case simply to ensure complete overview of the CSR /jurisdiction /applicable law issues reported on the blog. For as I am co-counsel acting for the applicants, I am not in a position to comment on the case until and if legal analysis will be in the public domain.

Geert.

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

Propriété littéraire et artistique

UBS AG, sa filiale française et six anciens cadres de la banque sont poursuivis devant le tribunal correctionnel de Paris pour démarchage bancaire illégal, blanchiment de fraude fiscale et complicité de ses délits entre 2004 et 2012. La justice estime à 10 milliards les sommes non déclarées au FISC. La banque risque une amende de 5 milliards d’euros, le parquet national financier (PNF) en a requis, hier, 3,7 milliards d’euros.

en lire plus

Construction immobilière - Troubles du voisinage

Assurance dommages - Dommages d'ouvrage

Construction immobilière

Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 30 octobre 2018

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Riom, 4e chambre civile, 15 mai 2018

Mad Dogg Athletics / EUIPO - Aerospinning Master Franchising (SPINNING)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
Le Tribunal annule la décision de l’EUIPO constatant la déchéance des droits du titulaire de la marque de l’Union SPINNING

Dyson / Commission
Énergie
Le Tribunal annule le règlement sur l’étiquetage énergétique des aspirateurs

Another case in my backlog for some time, and thank you Sarah McKibbing for flagging, some time back, [2017] VSC 810 Liu v Ma,

A recent VSC decision, Liu v Ma, held that nationality is sufficient to found international jurisdiction for the recognition of a Chinese judgment at common law. A highly doubtful conclusion… See Liu v Ma here: https://t.co/7cMMtjnYQY #conflictoflaws #privateinternationallaw

— Sarah McKibbin (@SarahMcKib) August 17, 2018

 

At 6 Mukhtar AJS notes ‘There is sufficient authority for the view that Australian Courts will enforce a foreign judgment where the defendant is a subject of the foreign country in which the judgment was obtained.  That view has its critics (footnote omitted, GAVC) and it may have its difficulties especially if the citizenship is inactive.  Nevertheless, it is founded on a line of English authority exemplified by the statement of Buckley LJ in Emanuel v Symon‘.

Many would argue that at the very jurisdictional level nationality as a ground is parochial /exorbitant. At the same time that at the level of recognition, one should show restraint in refusing to recognise judgments based on such flimsy jurisdictional grounds.

For those wanting to dig deeper, prof Andrew Dickinson has critical review of the relevant case-law in (2018) 134(July) LQR 426-449 (‘Schibsby v Westenholz and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in England’).

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.4. for a discussion of ‘parochial’ jurisdiction in the EU context).