Brexit and PIL – Belgian Supreme Court confirms the application of the 2005 Hague Convention to jurisdiction clauses designating UK courts concluded after 1 October 2015

/1 Comment/in /by

By Guillaume Croisant (Linklaters LLP)

The United Kingdom deposited an instrument of accession to the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (the “Convention”) on 28 September 2020. This instrument of accession became effective after the Brexit’s transition period, on 1 January 2021, and gained binding force within the UK legal order following the adoption of the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020.

As many readers will be aware, a controversy exists regarding the temporal scope of the Convention. It applies to exclusive choice of court agreements concluded after its entry into force for the State of the chosen court and to disputes initiated after its entry into force for the State of the seized court. EU Member States have been bound by the Hague Convention since its approval by the European Union on 1 October 2015, but what about the UK after its withdrawal from the EU?

According to a first viewpoint, reflected in the UK’s instrument of accession, ” In accordance with Article 30 of the 2005 Hague Convention, the United Kingdom became bound by the Convention on 1 October 2015 by virtue of its membership of the European Union, which approved the Convention on that date.”

Conversely, under a second viewpoint (apparently shared by the European Commission in its ‘Notice to stakeholders – Withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU rules in the field of civil justice and private international law’ dated 27 August 2020, p. 9), the Convention could only apply after the United Kingdom’s ‘independent’ ratification, which occurred on 1 January 2021. If this second perspective were accepted, jurisdiction agreements concluded before this date would not benefit from the mutual recognition system established by the Convention.

In a judgment (in French) dated 27 March 2025 (C.24.0012.F), the Belgian Supreme Court (Court de Cassation/Hof van Cassatie) ruled in favour of the first viewpoint, holding that “The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 has been applicable to the United Kingdom as a bound State, owing to the European Union’s approval of the Convention, from 1 October 2015 until 31 December 2020, and as a contracting party from 1 January 2021. The argument, in this regard, that the United Kingdom ceased to be bound by the Convention following its withdrawal from the European Union on 1 February 2020, is without legal basis.”

Foreign Sovereign Immunity and Historical Justice: Inside the US Supreme Court’s Restrictive Turn in Holocaust-Related Cases

/0 Comments/in /by

By Livia Solaro, PhD candidate at Maastricht University, working on the transnational restitution of Nazi-looted art

On 21 February 2025, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling in Republic of Hungary v. Simon,[1] a Holocaust restitution case with a lengthy procedural history. Delivering this unanimous decision, Justice Sotomayor confirmed the restrictive approach to cases involving foreign states inaugurated in 2021 by Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp.[2] In light of the importance of US practice for the development of customary law around sovereign immunity,[3] and its impact on questions of historical justice and transnational accountability, the Simon development deserves  particular attention. Read more

Legislative direction for recognition of foreign judgments in Sri Lanka: A new sign-post in the private international law landscape

/0 Comments/in /by

This post was written by Rose Wijeyesekera, Professor of Private and Comparative Law, Chair / Department of Private and Comparative Law – Faculty of Law, University of Colombo

Introduction

Sri Lanka (formerly known as ‘Ceylon’) is an island in the Indian Ocean, and is home to a total population of 21,763,170, consisting of Sinhalese 74.9%, Tamils 15.4%, Muslims 9.3%, and 0.5% consisting of others such as Veddhas, Burghers, and gypsies.The legal system of this island nation is a unique blend of native laws and the laws that were placed by the colonial powers from 1505 to 1947, when the country gained independence. Since then, Sri Lanka has been a democratic republic and a Unitary State governed by a constitution. The Sri Lankan legal system is primarily based on Roman-Dutch law, inherited from its colonial past under the Dutch, and English common law introduced by the British colonial rulers. Apart from these two, the legal system incorporates elements of Kandyan law (representing indigenous customs of the Sinhalese), Tesawalamai(customary laws of the Tamils of the Northern province of the country) and Muslim law. These personal laws apply in matters of personal law, such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance, depending on the community to which an individual belongs. All Muslims including the sub-categories such as Moors and Malays, are governed by Muslim Law in their personal matters, while Kandyan Sinhalese (a minority of the Sinhalese who hail from “Kandyan Provinces” / the hill country, are governed by Kandyan Law. These customary laws bear a territorial and/or a religious nature. Most of these laws are enacted, but some remain open leaving room for judicial interpretation. The court system in Sri Lanka is structured hierarchically and is designed to ensure justice through a combination of traditional and modern legal principles. The system comprises the Supreme Court at the apex, the Court of Appeal, Provincial High Courts, District Courts, Magistrate Courts, and tribunals such as Labour Tribunals, Quazi Courts, and Mediation Boards. Read more

South Africa Grapples with the Act of State Doctrine and Choice of Law in Delict

/0 Comments/in /by

By Jason Mitchell, barrister at Maitland Chambers in London and at Group 621 in Johannesburg.

The Supreme Court of Appeal delivered judgment today in East Asian Consortium v MTN Group. The judgment is available here.

East Asian Consortium, a Dutch company, was part of the Turkcell consortium. The consortium bid on an Iranian telecommunications licence. The consortium won the bid. East Asian Consortium alleged that it was later ousted as a shareholder of the ultimate license holder, the Irancell Telecommunications Services Company. East Asian Consortium sued, amongst others, several subsidiaries of the MTN Group, a South African telecommunications company, in South Africa. East Asian Consortium alleged that the defendants unlawfully induced the Iranian government to replace East Asian Consortium with one of the MTN subsidiaries. Read more

U.S. Court Issues Worldwide Anti-Enforcement Injunction

/0 Comments/in /by

This post was written by Hannah Buxbaum, the John E. Schiller Chair in Legal Ethics and Professor of Law at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law in the United States.

Last month, Judge Edward Davila, a federal judge sitting in the Northern District of California in the United States, granted a motion by Google for a rare type of equitable relief: a worldwide anti-enforcement injunction. In Google v. Nao Tsargrad Media, a Russian media company obtained a judgment against Google in Russia and then began proceedings to enforce it in nine different countries. Arguing that the judgment was obtained in violation of an exclusive forum selection clause, Google petitioned the court in California for an order to block Tsargrad from enforcing it.

As Ralf Michaels and I found in a recent analysis, the anti-enforcement injunction is an unusual but important device in transnational litigation. There aren’t many U.S. cases involving these orders, and one of the leading decisions arose in the context of the wildly complicated and somewhat anomalous Chevron Ecuador litigation. As a result, there is little U.S. authority on a number of important questions, including the legal standard that applies to this form of relief and the mix of factors that courts should assess in considering its availability. Judge Davila’s decision in the Google case addresses some of these questions.
Read more

Tatlici v. Tatlici: Malta Rejects $740 Million U.S. Defamation Judgment as Turkish Case Looms

/0 Comments/in /by

Written by Fikri Soral, Independant Lawyer, Turkey; and LL.M. student, Galatasaray University, Turkey

A Maltese court has refused to enforce a $740 million default judgment issued by the 15th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida (Palm Beach County) in a defamation suit brought by Applicant Mehmet Tatlici against his half-brother, Defendant Ugur Tatlici. [1] The Florida court’s award—issued on 8 January 2020 in a defamation suit filed by Mehmet Tatlici against his half-brother—was deemed procedurally deficient and substantively incompatible with Malta’s public policy, particularly due to its lack of reasoning and its chilling effect on free expression.[2] Read more

The Personal Status Regimes in the UAE — What’s New and What Are the Implications for Private International Law? A Brief Critical Appraisal

/2 Comments/in /by

Prologue

On 15 April 2025, the new federal UAE law on personal status (Federal Decree Law No 41 of 14 October 2024) officially entered into force ( “2024 PSL”). This law fully replaces the 2005 Federal Act on Personal Status (Federal Law No. 28 of 19 November 2005 as subsequently amended) (“2005 PSL”). The new law marks the latest step in the UAE remarkable wave of legal reforms, particularly regarding personal status matters. It follows a series of significant developments at both the federal and local levels. At the federal level, this includes the adoption of the law on Civil Personal Status (Federal Decree-Law No. 41 of 3 October 2022 on Civil Personal Status) (“2022 CPSL”) and its executive regulation. At the local level, specific legislations were adopted in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, most notably the 2021 Law on Civil Marriages and its Effects (as subsequently amended) (“2021 ADCML”), and its Procedural Regulation. These legislative efforts collectively address what is commonly referred to as “civil family law” (for further details see previous posts on this blog here, here, here, and here). Together with the new 2024 PSL, these instruments will collectively be referred to as the “Family Law Regulations” (see Table below). Read more

Opinion of AG de la Tour in C-713/23, Trojan: A step forward in the cross-border recognition of same-sex marriages in the EU?

/1 Comment/in /by

Dr. Carlos Santaló Goris, Postdoctoral researcher at the University of Luxembourg, offers an analysis of the Opinion of Advocate General de la Tour in CJEU, Case C-713/23, Trojan

From Coman to Trojan

On 5 June 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) rendered its judgment in the case C-673/16, Coman. In this landmark ruling, the CJEU decided that Member States are required to recognize same-sex marriage contracted in another Member Stated to grant a residence permit to the non-EU citizen spouse of an EU citizen under the EU Citizens’ Rights Directive. The pending case C-713/23, Trojan goes a step further than C-673/16, Coman. On this occasion, the CJEU was asked whether EU law requires a civil registry of Poland, a Member State that does not provide any form of recognition to same-sex couples, to transcribe the certificate of same-sex marriage validly contracted in another Member State. A positive answer would imply that the same-sex marriage established under German law would be able to deploy the same effects as a validly contracted marriage under Polish law. While the CJEU has not yet rendered a judgment, on 3 April 2025, Advocate General de la Tour issued his Opinion on the case. While the CJEU might decide differently from AG de la Tour, the Opinion already gives an idea of the solution that might potentially be reached by the CJEU. This post aims to analyse the case and explore its implications should the CJEU side with AG de la Tour. Read more

A New Precedent in Contract Conflicts: Decoding the Tyson v. GIC Ruling on Hierarchy Clauses

/in /by

By Ryan Joseph, final-year BBA LLB (Hons) student, Jindal Global Law School, India.

Introduction

The recent decision of the UK High Court (“Court”) in Tyson International Company Limited (“Tyson”) v. General Insurance Corporation of India (“GIC”) sets a critical precedent for cases that lie at the intersection of arbitration, contractual hierarchy, and judicial intervention through anti-suit injunctions. The principal issue in the case revolved around the harmonious application of two conflicting dispute resolution clauses contained in two separate agreements pertaining to the same transaction. While one provided for dispute settlement through arbitration seated in New York, the other was an exclusive jurisdiction clause that provided for dispute settlement by England and Wales courts. To resolve this apparent conflict between the two clauses, the Court relied on a confusion clause (also known as a hierarchy clause) in the parties’ agreement to rule that the exclusive jurisdiction clause, in favour of  England and Wales courts, prevails over the arbitration clause. Based on this conclusion, the Court issued an anti-suit injunction against GIC from arbitrating the dispute in New York. Read more

Australian Federal Court Backs India on Sovereign Immunity: Another Twist in the Devas v. India Saga

/3 Comments/in /by

by Shantanu Kanade, Assistant Professor, Dispute Resolution, Jindal Global Law School, India 

The Federal Court of Australia (“Federal Court”), in its recent judgement in the Republic of India v. CCDM Holdings, LLC[1] (“Judgement”), held that the Republic of India (“India”) was entitled to jurisdictional immunity from Australian Courts in proceedings seeking recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards dealing with disputes arising from ‘non-commercial’ legal relationships. The Court’s judgment was rendered with respect to an appeal filed by India against an interlocutory judgement of a primary judge of the same court, rejecting India’s sovereign immunity claim.

Background of the Dispute

Three Mauritian entities of the Devas group (“Original Applicants”) had commenced arbitration proceedings in 2012 under the 1998 India-Mauritius BIT, impugning India’s actions with respect to an agreement for leasing of space spectrum capacity entered between Devas Multimedia Private Limited (an Indian company in which the Original Applicants held shares) and Antrix Corporation Limited (an Indian state-owned entity). In 2011, India’s Cabinet Committee on Security decided to annul the said agreement, citing an increased demand for allocation of spectrum towards meeting various military and public utility needs (“Annulment”). The arbitration proceedings that followed culminated in a jurisdiction and merits award in 2016[2] and a quantum award in 2020 (“Quantum Award”)[3]. The Original Applicants have since sought to enforce the Quantum Award against India in different jurisdictions, discussed here.[4]

  Read more