This post was written by Luana Matoso, a PhD candidate and research associate at Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg, Germany.
Brazil has changed its law on international forum selection clauses. In June this year, a new statutory provision came into force, adding, unexpectedly, new requirements for their enforceability. In this attempt to redistribute domestic litigation, the Brazilian legislator may well have thrown out the baby, international forum selection clauses, with the bathwater.
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00John Coylehttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngJohn Coyle2024-12-04 15:00:482024-12-04 15:01:46Brazil’s New Law on Forum Selection Clauses: Throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater?
This post was written by Prof. Dr. Giesela Rühl, LL.M. (Berkeley), Humboldt University of Berlin, and is also available via the EAPIL blog.
As reported earlier on this blog, Germany has been discussing for years how the framework conditions for the settlement of (international) commercial disputes can be improved. Triggered by increasing competition from international commercial arbitration as well as the creation of international commercial courts in other countries (as well as Brexit) these discussions have recently yielded a first success: Shortly before the German government coalition collapsed on November 6, the federal legislature adopted the Law on the Strengthening of Germany as a Place to Settle (Commercial) Disputes (Justizstandort-Stärkungsgesetz of 7 October 2024)[1]. The Law will enter into force on 1 April 2025 and amend both the Courts Constitution Act (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz – GVG) and the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessodnung – ZPO)[2] with the aim of improving the position of Germany’s courts vis-à-vis recognized litigation and arbitration venues – notably London, Amsterdam, Paris and Singapore. Specifically, the new Law brings three innovations. Read more
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Giesela Ruehlhttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngGiesela Ruehl2024-11-28 04:00:122024-11-28 07:41:31Improving the settlement of (international) commercial disputes in Germany
The New Zealand Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against a permanent anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunction in relation to a default judgment from Kentucky, which the plaintiff alleged had been obtained by fraud: Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609. The Court upheld the findings of fraud. It also did not rule out the possibility of an injunction being an appropriate remedy in the future. However, the Court concluded that an injunction could only be granted as a step of last resort, which required the plaintiff to pursue its right of appeal against the Kentucky judgment.
The background to the case is set out in a previous post on this blog (see also here). In summary, the case involved allegations of “a massive worldwide fraud” perpetrated by the defendants — a New Zealand company (Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd), an Australian resident with a long business history in New Zealand (Mr Kenneth Wikeley), and a New Zealand citizen (Mr Eric Watson) — against the plaintiff, Kea Investments Ltd (Kea), a British Virgin Islands company owned by a New Zealand businessman. Kea alleged that the US default judgment obtained by WFTL was based on fabricated claims intended to defraud Kea. Kea claimed tortious conspiracy and sought a world-wide anti-enforcement injunction, which was granted by the High Court, first on an interim and then on a permanent basis. Wikeley, the sole director and shareholder of WFTL, appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against the grant of the injunction. At the same time, it upheld the High Court’s declarations that the Kentucky default judgment was obtained by fraud and that it was not entitled to recognition or enforcement in New Zealand. It also upheld the High Court’s damages award (for legal costs incurred in overseas proceedings in defence of the tortious conspiracy). Read more
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Maria Hookhttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngMaria Hook2024-11-27 02:49:042024-11-27 08:13:29New Zealand Court of Appeal allows appeal against anti-enforcement injunction
The recent introduction of a civil family law regime in the United Arab Emirates – the first of its kind in the region – has attracted considerable attention, both on this blog and beyond.[1] A key unresolved issue has been the law’s applicability in Abu Dhabi, particularly regarding access for Muslim foreigners to the emirate’s newly established Civil Family Court. Scholars and legal practitioners navigating this new framework have long observed a surprising discrepancy, if not an ideological tension, between the law’s drafters and those interpreting it, especially at the higher court level. Central to this divergence has been whether Abu Dhabi’s Law on Civil Marriage and Its Effects(Law No. 14/2021 of 7 November 2021, as subsequently amended) and its Procedural Regulation (Chairman Resolution No. 8/2022 of 1 February 2022) apply exclusively to non-Muslims or extend also to Muslim foreigners who are citizens of non-Muslim jurisdictions. A recent judgment by the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation in late October affirmed jurisdiction over Muslim foreigners with dual French-Moroccan nationality, marking a potential shift in personal jurisdiction. This ruling may expand access to a legal framework devoid of religious underpinnings for many Muslim expatriates in the UAE.
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Béligh Elbaltihttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngBéligh Elbalti2024-11-15 02:51:182024-11-15 08:36:39Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation on Civil Family Law and Muslim Foreigners: Has the Tide Turned?
(Written by E. Farnoux and S. Fulli-Lemaire, Professors at the University of Strasbourg)
Horatia Muir Watt (Sciences Po) hardly needs an introduction to the readers of this blog. The book published last year and reviewed here constitutes the latest installment in her critical epistemological exploration of the field of private international law. More specifically, the book builds upon previously published fundamental reflections on the methods of private international law already initiated (or developed) in her previous general course (in French) at the Hague Academy of International Law (Discours sur les méthodes du droit international privé (des formes juridiques de l’inter-altérité)), as well as on the contemporary relevance of private international law (“Private International Law Beyond the Schism”). Numerous other works, naturally, also come to mind when reading this book (see among many others, ed. with L. Bíziková, A. Brandão de Oliveira, D. Fernandez Arroyo, Global Private International Law : adjudication without frontiers; Private International Law and Public law).
The publication of a book on the field that this blog deals with would be enough to justify it being flagged for the readers’ attention. We feel, however, that its relevance to our academic pursuits warrants more than a mere heads-up and, while it would be unreasonable (and risky) to try to summarize the content of this engrossing and complex book in a blog friendly format, we would like to make a few remarks intended to encourage the readers of this blog to engage with this innovative and surprising work.
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Etienne Farnouxhttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngEtienne Farnoux2024-11-13 18:23:502024-11-14 07:23:42Book review: H. Muir Watt’s The Law’s Ultimate Frontier: Towards an Ecological Jurisprudence – A Global Horizon in Private International Law (Hart)
Written by Yasmín Aguada** [1]– Laura Martina Jeifetz ***[2]. Part I is available here
Abstract: Part II aims to delve deeper into the aspects addressed in the previously published Part I. International Judicial Cooperation (IJC) and advanced technologies redefine Private International Law (PIL) in a globalized world. The convergences between legal collaboration among countries and technological innovations have revolutionized how cross-border legal issues are approached and resolved. These tools streamline international legal processes, overcoming old obstacles and generating new challenges. This paper explores how this intersection reshapes the global legal landscape, analyzing its advantages, challenges, and prospects.
Keywords: private international law, international judicial cooperation, new technologies, videoconferencing, direct judicial communications, Smart contracts, and Blockchain.
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Mayela Celishttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngMayela Celis2024-11-10 22:07:082024-11-10 22:07:08Transforming legal borders: international judicial cooperation and technology in private international law – Part II
Written by Jos Hoevenaars(Erasmus University Rotterdam) & Eduardo Silva de Freitas (Erasmus University Rotterdam), members of the Vici project Affordable Access to Justice, financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO), www.euciviljustice.eu.
On 9 October, the District Court of Amsterdam issued its final judgment in a collective action against energy supplier Vattenfall. This judgment was eagerly awaited as it is the very first judgment in a mass damage claim under the Dutch WAMCA procedure. The new framework for collective redress, which became applicable on 1 January 2020 (see also our earlier blogpost), has received a lot of attention in international scholarship and by European legislators and policy makers due to its many innovations and making it easier for consumers and small businesses to litigate against large companies. The most notable change in the Dutch act compared to the old collective action regime is the possibility to request an award for damages, making such proceedings attractive for commercial litigation funders. A recent report commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security (published in an English book here) found that most collective actions seeking damages brought under the WAMCA have an international dimension, and that all of these claims for damages are brought with the help of third party litigation funding (TPLF). Read more
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Xandra Kramerhttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngXandra Kramer2024-10-31 10:00:322024-11-01 06:22:47NUON-Claim v. Vattenfall: Pivotal or dud for collective actions in the Netherlands?
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Ralf Michaelshttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngRalf Michaels2024-10-29 14:58:262024-11-06 12:44:57Virtual Workshop (in German) on November 12: Dennis Solomon on the foreign element in Private International Law and International Civil Procedure Law
Written by Fanni Murányi, who will defend her PhD on Children’s rights, private law and criminological perspectives of parental child abduction at the Eötvös Loránd University (expected in 2024).
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Thalia Krugerhttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngThalia Kruger2024-10-29 06:33:302024-10-30 06:32:11Children’s rights, private law and criminal law perspectives of parental child abduction
In a previous post on this blog, I reported a decision rendered by the Bahrain High Court in which the court refused to enforce a choice of court agreement in favour of English courts. The refusal was based on the grounds that the case was brought against a Bahraini defendant and that rules of international jurisdiction are mandatory. The Bahraini Supreme Court’s decision reported here is a subsequent development on the same case. The ruling is significant for many reasons. In a methodical manner, the Supreme Court identified the foundational justifications for the jurisdictional rules applied in Bahrain. Moreover, it clarified the role and effect of choice of court agreements, particularly their derogative effect. Finally, and somehow surprisingly, the Court supported its position by invoking to “the doctrine of forum non conveniens”, explicitly mentioned in its decision. Read more
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Béligh Elbaltihttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngBéligh Elbalti2024-10-22 03:05:302024-10-24 08:21:39The Bahraini Supreme Court on Choice of Court Agreements, Bases of Jurisdiction and… Forum non Conveniens!
Horatia Muir Watt (Sciences Po) hardly needs an introduction to the readers of this blog. The 