Brussels IA arbitration exception claxon. Recognition of Spanish Prestige...
The London Steam-Ship Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v The Kingdom of Spain (M/T PRESTIGE) [2021] EWHC 1247 (Comm) has been in my blog in-tray for a little while: I had thought of using it for exam...
View ArticleDhir v Flutter. How choice of law takes you via Rome, to DIFC and Dubai.
A quick note on Dhir v Flutter Entertainment Plc (Rev 2) [2021] EWHC 1510 (QB), in which Griffiths J had to consider ia whether choice of law had been made at all and if so (or also if no choice of law...
View ArticleMittelbayerischer Verlag: the CJEU surprisingly reigns in Article 7(2) centre...
I reviewed the AG’s Opinion in C-800/19 Mittelbayerischer Verlag KG v SM here. The CJEU held yesterday (no English version yet at the time of posting). Tobias Lutzi already has analysis up here. As I...
View ArticleKhalifeh v Blom Bank. On the availability of anti-suit to deter consumer...
At issue in Khalifeh v Blom Bank S.A.L. [2021] EWHC 1502 (QB) is inter alia whether an anti-suit injunction is available to a claimant who purports to have the protection of Section 4 of the Brussels...
View ArticleApplicable law in cases of purely economic loss following judgment in...
I have reported before on the jurisdictional consequences of CJEU Vereniging van Effectenbezitters v BP. In this post for the European Association of Private International Law, I give my views on the...
View ArticleAbusive forum shopping in defamation suits. The Parliament study on SLAPPs.
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation – SLAPPs (I look at them comparatively in my Monash Strategic and Public Interest Litigation Unit, LAW5478) are a well-known tool to silence critics....
View ArticleMixing the blank rounds with the live bullets. The Court of Appeal (obiter)...
In Perform Content Services Ltd v Ness Global Services Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 981 the Court of Appeal yesterday dismissed the appeal against the High Court judgment which I discussed here. Two grounds of...
View ArticleRoark v Bridgestone, Shandong et al. Contract fine-print and regulatory...
A short post for comparative conflicts purposes. Readers might be aware of the minimum contacts rule in US jurisdictional analysis. Rice J excellently summarises the issues in his order denying a...
View ArticleHydrodec: A comparative pointer for COMI determination.
As I seem to be in a comparative mood today, consider Hydrodec Group Plc [2021] NSWSC 755, in which a suggestion of COMI in the UK, of a company incorporated there, was dismissed in favour of COMI in...
View ArticleJosiya ea v BAT ea (tobacco labourers’ exploitation). On documentary proof of...
Josiya & Ors v British American Tobacco Plc & Ors [2021] EWHC 1743 (QB) is the first shot in an important business and human rights case, accusing the defendants of being responsible for...
View ArticleEastern Pacific Chartering v Pola Maritime. How an application for lis...
Eastern Pacific Chartering Inc v Pola Maritime Ltd [2021] EWHC 1707 (Comm) is a highly unusual case which shows that dormant Conventions can be awoken from their slumber. I merely dabble in EU...
View ArticleVolvo Trucks. The CJEU unconvincingly on locus damni in follow-on damages...
The CJEU held yesterday in C-30/20 Volvo Trucks. I reviewed Richard de la Tour AG’s Opinion here. After having noted the limitation of the questions referred to locus damni [30] (excluding therefore...
View ArticleEmerald Pasture. The High Court on on actions ‘related to’ insolvency...
In Emerald Pasture Designated Activity Company & Ors v Cassini SAS & Anor [2021] EWHC 2010 (Ch) there is an interesting split between pre and post Brexit applicable EU rules, with BIa not...
View ArticleLakatamia Shipping. On (in)direct damage, applicable law (A4(3) Rome II) and...
Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su & Ors [2021] EWHC 1907 (Comm) discusses i.a. [840 ff; this is a lengthy judgment] the applicable law in the case of conspiracy. Lakatamia advance two claims against...
View ArticleID v LU. A voluntarily appearing defendant cannot serve as anchor for another...
In ID v LU & Anor [2021] EWHC 1851 (Comm) Pelling J discusses a challenge to jurisdiction in which each of the parties are Ukrainian nationals. Brussels Ia applies but is only engaged viz one of...
View ArticleWinslet & Ors v Gisel. Textbook application of De Bloos and looking over the...
Winslet & Ors v Gisel, The Estate of [2021] EWHC 1308 (Comm) is a brilliant example to teach the ‘looking over the fence’ method for determining forum contractus under Article 7(1), for contracts...
View ArticleWindhorst v Levy. The High Court on the narrow window to refuse a Member...
Windhorst v Levy [2021] EWHC 1168 (QB) has been in my in-tray a little while. The court was asked to consider whether registration of a German judgment under Brussels Ia should be set aside when the...
View ArticleC – A Child. The Family Court rejects reflexive application of the...
C (A Child) [2021] EWFC 32 involves an application brought by a mother (M) against the father (F) in relation to their daughter (C). M was born in Russia and is a citizen of Finland. Her mother and...
View ArticleRoyal Carribean v Browitt. On agency, consumer consent and choice of court...
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd v Browitt [2021] FCA 653 is a great addition to the comparative conflicts binder, particularly from the angle of ‘consent’ in business to consumer contracts. It also engages...
View ArticleWhich ‘Dubai’? Guest post on Goel v Credit Suisse. The DIFC Court of Appeal...
This guest post was written by Ahmed Alzaabi, a legal researcher based at Abu Dhabi. It is great material for comparative conflicts purposes, as it highlights issues like ‘clearly demonstrated’ choice...
View Article