Clik here to view.
Kubicka: Narrow CJEU interpretation of the ‘property law’ exception.
When the ‘Bolkestein’ Directive on the free movement of services was eventually adopted some years back, some of us referred to it as the ‘hairdressers’ Directive (no disrespect): the scope of...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Court of Appeal confirms jurisdiction in Lungowe v Vedanta and Konkola.
I reviewed the High Court’s decision in Lungowe here. The Court of Appeal has now confirmed jurisdiction against the non-UK based defendants on largely the same, if slightly more structured and...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Team Y&R v Ghossoub. Choice of court and third parties.
In [2017] EWHC 2401 (Comm) Team Y&R v Ghossoub, Laurence Rabinowitz QC discussed a number of issues, most particularly anti-suit in the context of an exclusive jurisdictional clause (anti-suit not...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Pearl v Kurdistan. The DIFC on waivers of sovereign immunity.
Thank you Peter Smith over at Tamimi for flagging [2017] DIFC ARB 003 Pearl v Kurdistan. Peter summarises as follows: ‘In 2007, Crescent Petroleum, the oldest privately-owned oil and gas company in the...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Free movement of companies and Polbud. The CJEU is not for turning.
When I reviewed Kokott AG’s Opinion in C-106/16 Polbud, I flagged that Ms Kokott concluded that the freedom of establishment provided for in Articles 49 and 54 TFEU only applies to an operation whereby...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Bank Leumi. No calling for the EU’s Insolvency Regulation in intra-UK scenarios.
Thank you Ben Zielinski for flagging Bank Leumi (UK) Plc v Screw Conveyor Ltd [2017] CSOH 129. I believe Ben is right in writing that this is the first formal acknowledgement that Scottish judicial...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Aspen Underwriting: When the domicile ship has sailed, litigation splinters....
Aspen Underwriting v Kairos Shipping et al [2017] EWHC 1904 illustrates the splintering of claims which may well occur when plaintiff chooses to ignore Brussels I’s core jurisdictional rule of domicile...
View ArticleSchrems v Facebook. Consumer class actions and social media.
I reported on Bobek AG’s Opinion in Schrems v Facebook when it came out last year. The CJEU held this morning (judgment so far in FR and DE only) and largely confirms the AG’s Opinion. As I noted at...
View ArticleInternational Bank of Azerbaijan: Principle or practice of ‘modified...
[2018] EWHC 59 (Ch) International Bank of Azerbaijan is an excellent illustration of the practicality v the doctrine of modified universalism in international insolvency law, as well as of the binding...
View ArticleBestolov v Povarenkin. On the determination of domicile (and yes, Owusu...
Many thanks to Andrew Savage and Nick Payne for flagging [2017] EWHC 1968 (Comm) Bestolov v Povarenkin a little while ago, and for sending me copy of the judgment at the time. Apologies for late...
View ArticleAltun: Fraud and social dumping. The CJEU emphasises the double sides of the...
When I reported on Saugmandsgaard ØE’s Opinion in C-359/16 Altun, I emphasised the issue of mutual trust. I noted that the AG effectively flipped the coin: sincere co-operation requires sincerity on...
View ArticleThe Brussels jurisdictional regime at 50. A conference at Leuven on 23 March.
As I am about to take the family on a half-term break (and with no less than 22 draft blog posts in the ledger – February /March are likely to be intense blog months), I am pleased to flag a conference...
View ArticleKennedy v National Trust for Scotland. Applying forum non conveniens within...
In [2017] EWHC 3368 (QB) Kennedy v National Trust for Scotland, Eady J considers two important (for this blog at least) issues leading to dicta: when a prima facie domestic case may turn out to be...
View ArticleBelo Horizonte: Court at Rotterdam (using English as language of the oral...
Arnold van Steenderen and Milan Simić have complete and concise review here of judgment of the Rotterdam court of December 2017 in re the Belo Horizonte (officially Cefetra et al v Ms ‘IDA’ Oetker...
View ArticleHuman rights, CSR: Court of Appeal confirms lack of jurisdiction in Okpabi.
The Court of Appeal, referring powerfully ia to VTB, has confirmed (albeit with dissenting opinion) lack of the English courts jurisdiction in [2018] EWCA Civ 191 Okpabi et al v Shell. I reviewed the...
View ArticleState immunity. Congo v Commisimpex. French Supreme Court rules Sapin II...
I applied for funding 2 years back to have someone conduct a thorough review of recent development in State Immunity. Funding was not granted: quelle horeur!. Reviewers suggested there was no need to...
View ArticleHofsoe: Scope ratione personae of Brussels I’s protected categories in cases...
In C‑106/17 Hofsoe, the CJEU held late January that the Brussels I Recast Regulation jurisdictional rules for jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance, do not apply in case of assignment to a...
View ArticleSupreme Tycoon: common law power to recognise and assist foreign insolvency...
Thank you colleagues at Hogan Lovells for flagging [2018] HKCFI 277 Supreme Tycoon in which the Hong Kong Court of First Instance ruled that the common law power to recognise and assist foreign...
View ArticleDouez v Facebook: Consumers as protected categories in Canadian conflict of...
Thank you Stephen Pittel for flagging 2017 SCC 33 Douez v Facebook Inc. Stephen also discusses the forum non conveniens issue and I shall leave that side of the debate over to him. What is interesting...
View ArticleLive Group v Rabbi Ulman: the Beth Din cannot compell parties to participate.
Thank you Michael Wise for alerting me to [2017] NSWSC 1759 Live Group v Rabbi Ulman in which Sackar J at the NSW Supreme Court displays both sensitivity and adroitness in addressing the relationship...
View Article