Agrégateur de flux

L’affaire Benalla, du nom de ce collaborateur du président de la République vu sur une vidéo en train de frapper un manifestant a occupé les débats au Sénat et à l’Assemblée. Si au Sénat, le gouvernement a fourni de maigres éléments d’explication, à l’Assemblée l’affaire a totalement éclipsé le projet de loi constitutionnelle et abouti à une commission d’enquête parlementaire.

en lire plus

Il ne résulte d’aucune disposition de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme que la cour d’assises, après avoir statué sur la culpabilité, soit tenue de motiver la peine qu’elle prononce.

en lire plus

Thank you Chloe Oakshett for flagging [2018] CSOH 45 BN Rendering Limited v Everwarm Ltd, in which the Commercial Court in Edinburgh considered its jurisdiction to enforce an adjudicator’s award. Bone of contention was choice of court (ditto law) in the underlying contracts in favour of the courts at England (and English law). Both parties are domiciled in Scotland. Relevant works had to be carried out in Scotland. The Brussels I Recast Regulation does not formally apply between them: Scots-English conflicts are not ‘international’ within the meaning of that Regulation.

However Lord Bannatyne (at 16) points out that even for intra-UK conflicts, the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act 1982 (per instruction in section 20(5) a) must be interpreted taking into account the Brussels regime and its application by the CJEU. It is in this context that Case 24/76 Colzani resurfaces: ‘real consent’ needs to be established without excess formality.

At 28 Lord Banatyne lists claimant’s arguments:  the party’s contract was not signed by both parties; nevertheless the defender’s subcontract terms and conditions form part of the contract; the subcontract order refers expressly to the defender’s subcontract terms and conditions which includes the jurisdiction exclusion clause and lastly, that express reference meets the test for real consent to the jurisdiction clause.

Put in summary: At 49: Is an express reference in the defender’s subcontract order (sent to the pursuer) to the defender’s subcontract terms and conditions, which contain the jurisdiction clause (which document is unsigned by the pursuer) sufficient to satisfy the test that it is clearly and precisely demonstrated that the parties agreed to the clause conferring jurisdiction on the English courts? Or put another way, in order to satisfy the said test is it not only necessary for there to be an express reference to the defender’s subcontract terms and conditions but for the subcontract order to have been signed by the pursuer to demonstrate that the parties agreed to the clause conferring jurisdiction on the English courts?

The judge considers the answer to the above questions to be question 1, yes and question 2, no – and I believe he is right.

Geert.

Dans un arrêt du 26 juin 2018, le Tribunal de l’Union européenne fait droit à l’opposition de la France à l’enregistrement du signe visuel « France.com ».

en lire plus