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

UK Regulations Implementing Rome II Regulation Adopted

November 26, 2008/1 Comment/in /by Giorgio Buono
image_pdfimage_print

As pointed out by Andrew Dickinson on the BIICL-PRIVATEINTLAW list (the mailing list promoted by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, devoted to conflict matters), on 18 November 2008 were laid before the UK Parliament the Regulations implementing the EC Rome II Regulation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (the Scottish Parliament is expected to legislate separately for Scotland).

The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008 (S.I., 2008, No. 2986), dated 12 November 2008, were made by the Secretary of State, as designated by the European Communities (Designation) (No.2) Order 2008 no. 1792 to exercise the powers conferred by section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 (c. 68) in relation to private international law (readers who are unfamiliar – as I am – with the implementation of EC Law in the UK by means of statutory instruments may find useful this Wikipedia page and the Explanatory Memorandum to the European Community (Designation) (No. 2) Order 2008).

Here’s an excerpt of the Explanatory Note to the implementing Regulations; most notably, the application of the conflict rules provided by the EC instrument is extended to intra-UK conflicts:

The purpose of these regulations is two-fold.  The first is to modify the relevant current inconsistent national law in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Regulations 2 and 3 restrict the application of the general statutory choice of law rules in this area. These are contained in Part III of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995.  Regulation 4 restricts the application of certain provisions in the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 and regulation 5 restricts the application of analogous provisions in the Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.

The second purpose involves extending the application of the Regulation to certain cases that would otherwise not be regulated by it.  These are cases where in principle the choice of applicable law is confined to the law of one of the United Kingdom’s three jurisdictions, that is England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and to the law of Gibraltar.  These cases therefore lack the international dimension which is otherwise characteristic of cases falling under the Regulation.  Under Article 25(2) of the Regulation Member States are not obliged to apply the Regulation to such cases.  To maximise consistency between the rules that apply to determine the law applicable to non-contractual obligations, regulation 6 of these regulations extends, in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the scope of the Regulation to conflicts solely between the laws of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar.

The  Regulations, subject in the Parliament to the negative resolution procedure, will enter into force on 11 January 2009 (the same date as the Rome II Reg.: see its Art. 32, and the comments to our previous post here). The text is available on the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) 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 Giorgio Buono https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Giorgio Buono2008-11-26 19:03:162008-11-26 19:03:16UK Regulations Implementing Rome II Regulation Adopted
1 reply
  1. tabatabaei says:
    July 12, 2010 at 5:43 am

    i’m a student in Ph.D level in tehran university. my thesis is for the matter of conflict of laws in torts with comparative study of the ROME II. please any material available in this regard, help me providing with them.
    best regards

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Support in cross-border transactions by Adults: Contract law vs capacity law August 12, 2026
  • Recognition of Italian Extrajudicial Divorces in Tunisia — Between Methodological Uncertainty and the Need to Preserve Continuity of Personal Status Across Borders August 9, 2026
  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • 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
Link to: Propositions of EGPIL on the Extension of Brussels I to Relations with Third States Link to: Propositions of EGPIL on the Extension of Brussels I to Relations with Third States Propositions of EGPIL on the Extension of Brussels I to Relations with Third... Link to: Article on choice of law for intra-Australian torts after the civil liability legislation Link to: Article on choice of law for intra-Australian torts after the civil liability legislation Article on choice of law for intra-Australian torts after the civil liability...
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top