Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

BIICL event: Group Actions, including Class Actions: Cross-border Aspects

May 29, 2008/in /by Martin George
image_pdfimage_print

As part of the BIICL’s 2007-2008 Seminar Series on Private International Law the BIICL organizes on Monday 23 June 2008 17:30 to 19:30 (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Charles Clore House, 17 Russell Square, London, WC1B 5JP) a seminar titled “Group Actions, including Class Actions: Cross-border Aspects”. The BIICL website informs:

This seminar focuses on particular issues involved in the commencement, conduct and effect of cross-border group actions, including: (1) Standing and Certification; (2) Jurisdiction; (3) Notification; (4) Applicable Law; (5) Evidence; (6) Case management; (7) Transnational Cooperation; (8) Costs/Lawyers Fees; and (9) Res Judicata Effect and Recognition of Foreign Judgments.

The identified issues will be discussed in light of the work of the ILA Committee on International Civil Litigation and The Interests of the Public, chaired by Prof Catherine Kessedjian, which has prepared a report and resolution on transnational group actions. This work of the committee will be presented at the upcoming ILA Biennial Conference in Rio De Janeiro, 17-21 August this year.

The expression “transnational group actions” encompasses US-style “class actions”, but is more inclusive, extending also to procedures involving groups in countries that have not enacted formal class action legislation on the United States model but nevertheless recognize in certain circumstances the rights of groups of individuals or bodies to bring collective claims.
The main objective of the ILA Committee was to identify general principles and common themes or approaches across the various models of group action currently employed in the world. At times, however, it must be admitted that uniformity does not exist, even between countries which have adopted the same generic model (e.g., the US class action procedure).

Moreover, the committee set out to consider some of the uniquely cross-border and transnational aspects of group actions. While the transnational context is relevant to all aspects of group actions covered in this report, an examination of the topics of jurisdiction, applicable law and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments will be made with a focus on whether the principles applied to ordinary suits need modification in the context of group actions.

The BIICL has invited Prof Kessedjian, as well as the rapporteurs and members of her committee, for a preliminary public discussion of the committee’s draft resolution. During the seminar, the findings of the committee and the preliminary conclusions of its report will be presented and discussed by a panel of experts in the area of class actions and cross-border litigation.

For more information about the seminar, its Chair, speakers and sponsor, have a look at the website.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Martin George https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Martin George2008-05-29 21:15:282008-05-29 21:15:28BIICL event: Group Actions, including Class Actions: Cross-border Aspects

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
  • Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case June 3, 2026
  • China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition May 29, 2026
Link to: BIICL event: Rome I Regulation: The UK Set to Opt-in Link to: BIICL event: Rome I Regulation: The UK Set to Opt-in BIICL event: Rome I Regulation: The UK Set to Opt-in Link to: New York Agencies to Recognize Same Sex Unions Link to: New York Agencies to Recognize Same Sex Unions New York Agencies to Recognize Same Sex Unions
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top