Views
RCD Holdings Ltd v LT Game International (Australia) Ltd: Foreign jurisdiction clauses and COVID-19
By Jie (Jeanne) Huang, Associate Professor, University of Sydney Law School Australia
In 2013, the plaintiffs, ePayment Solutions Pty Ltd (EPS) and RCD Holdings Ltd (RCD) concluded a written contract with the defendant, LT Game International (Australia) Ltd (LT) about the development and installation of a computer betting game. LT is a company incorporated in the Virgin Islands and registered in Australia as a foreign company. The contract was signed in Australia. Its Clause 10 provides.
“10. Governing Law
Any dispute or issue arising hereunder, including any alleged breach by any party, shall be heard, determined and resolved by an action commenced in Macau. The English language will be used in all documents.”
When a dispute arose, the plaintiffs commenced the proceedings at the Supreme Court of Queensland in Australia ([2020] QSC 318). The defendant entered a conditional appearance and applied to strike out the claim, or alternatively, to have it stayed as being commenced in this court contrary to the contract. This case shed useful light on how an Australian court may address the impacts of COVID-19 on foreign jurisdiction clauses.
The parties did not dispute that Clause 10 was an exclusive jurisdiction clause choosing courts in Macau China. However, an exclusive foreign jurisdiction clause does not exclude Australian courts’ jurisdiction. The plaintiffs alleged that the Supreme Court of Queensland should not enforce the exclusive jurisdiction clause due to the COVID?19 pandemic for two reasons.
First, the pandemic currently prevents the plaintiffs from commencing proceedings in Macau. The court rejected this argument because no evidence suggested that representatives of the plaintiffs had to be present in Macau for lawyers retained by them to commence proceedings.
Second, plaintiffs also alleged that their witnesses could not travel from Australia to Macau because of the pandemic. The court also rejected this argument because of insufficient evidence. According to the court, the plaintiffs did not provide any evidence of the impact of COVID?19 in Macau, for example, what restrictions were being experienced now, what restrictions were likely to be experienced in the future and how long those restrictions may persist. There was also no evidence showing when a trial of proceedings commenced now in Macau might be heard. Although Australian witnesses might be called in the Macau proceedings, the plaintiffs did not identify any specific persons who would be called were residents in Australia. It was also unclear whether overseas witnesses might be called if the proceedings were conducted in Australia as Australia also imposed strict travel restrictions.
Finally, the court ruled for the defendant and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim. Nevertheless, the court indicated that the plaintiffs could recommence the proceedings in Queensland if the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic changed materially in Macao in the future.
Comments:
It is well established that an exclusive foreign jurisdiction clause does not operate to exclude Australian courts’ jurisdiction; however, the courts will hold the parties to their bargain and grant a stay of proceedings, unless the party who seeks that the proceedings be heard in Australia can show that there are strong reasons against litigating in the foreign jurisdiction.[1] In exercising its discretion, the court should take into account all the circumstances of the particular case. However, doubts have been cast as to whether courts should consider financial or forensic inconvenience attaching to the nominated foreign jurisdiction, at least when these factors should have been known to the parties at the time the exclusive jurisdiction clause was agreed by them.[2]
In RCD, the court correctly held that Clause 10 should be interpreted as manifesting an intention that disputes would be determined in Macau by applying the law of Macau. Although the application of Macau law might bring financial benefits to the defendant because it is more difficult to prove liability for damages under the Macau law than the law in Australia. However, this is insufficient to convince the court to exercise jurisdiction because the potential financial benefits for the defendant are what the parties have bargained for.
Regarding the location of witnesses, the court is also correct that parties should expect that breaches may occur in Australia as the contract would be partially performed there, and consequently, witnesses in Australia may need to be called for proceedings in Macao. Therefore, the location and travel of witnesses are not a strong reason for Australian courts to exercise jurisdiction.
The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic is a factor that parties could not reasonably expect when they concluded their foreign jurisdiction clause. If a plaintiff wants to convince an Australian court to exercise jurisdiction in spite of an exclusive foreign jurisdiction clause, this plaintiff must provide solid evidence of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on foreign proceedings. If the plaintiff can show that the pandemic developed so as to effectively prevent, or unduly frustrate the plaintiff in litigating in the foreign jurisdiction, then that might be a discretionary consideration, with any other relevant considerations, in favor of allowing the plaintiffs to litigate in Australia.
[1] High Court of Australia decisions such as Akai Pty Ltd v People’s Insurance Co Ltd (1996) 188 CLR 418 at 445, Oceanic Sunline Special Shipping Company Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197 at 259, Huddart Parker Ltd v The Ship Mill Hill (1950) 81 CLR 502 at 508-509.
Decisions of intermediate courts of appeal such as Global Partners Fund Ltd v Babcock & Brown Ltd (in liq) & Ors (2010) 79 ACSR 383 at 402-403, [88]-[89], Australian Health & Nutrition Association Ltd & Anor v Hive Marketing Group Pty Ltd & Anor (2019) 99 NSWLR 419 at 438, [78], Venter v Ilona MY Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1029.
[2] Incitec Ltd v Alkimos Shipping Corp (2004) 138 FCR 496 at 506 and Australian Health & Nutrition Association Ltd & Anor v Hive Marketing Group Pty Ltd & Anor (2019) 99 NSWLR 419.
UK Supreme Court in Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell (2021 UKSC 3): Jurisdiction, duty of care, and the new German “Lieferkettengesetz”
by Professor Dr Eva-Maria Kieninger, Chair for German and European Private Law and Private International Law, University of Würzburg, Germany
The Supreme Court’s decision in Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell (2021 UKSC 3) concerns the preliminary question whether English courts have jurisdiction over a joint claim brought by two Nigerian communities against Royal Dutch Shell (RSD), a UK parent company, as anchor defendant, and a Nigerian oil company (SPDC) in which RSD held 30 % of the shares. The jurisdictional decision depended (among other issues that still need to be resolved) on a question of substantive law: Was it “reasonably arguable” that RSD owed a common law duty of care to the Nigerian inhabitants whose health and property was damaged by the operations of the subsidiary in Nigeria?
In the lower instance, the Court of Appeal had not clearly differentiated between jurisdiction over the parent company and the Nigerian sub and had treated the “arguable case”-requirement as a prerequisite both for jurisdiction over the Nigerian sub (under English autonomous law) and for jurisdiction over RSD, although clearly, under Art. 4 (1) Brussels Ia Reg., there can be no such additional requirement pursuant to the CJEU’s jurisprudence in Owusu. In Vedanta, a case with large similarities to the present one, Lord Briggs, handing down the judgment for the Supreme Court, had unhesitatingly acknowledged the unlimited jurisdiction of the courts at the domicile of the defendant company under the Brussels Regulation. In Okpabi, Lord Hamblen, with whom the other Justices concurred, did not come back to this issue. However, given that from a UK point of view, the Brussels model will soon become practically obsolete (unless the UK will still be able to join the Lugano Convention), this may be a pardonable omission. It is to be expected that the English courts will return to the traditional common law restrictions on jurisdiction such as the “arguable case”-criterion and “forum non conveniens”.
Although the Supreme Court’s decision relates to jurisdiction, its importance lies in the potential consequences for a parent company’s liability on the level of substantive law: The Supreme Court affirms its previous considerations in Vedanta (2019) and rejects the majority opinion of the CoA which in 2018 still flatly ruled out the possibility of RDS owing a duty of care towards the Nigerian inhabitants. Following the appellants’ submissions, Lord Hamblen minutely sets out where the approach of the CoA deviated from Vedanta and therefore “erred in law”. The majority in the CoA started from the assumption that a duty of care can only arise where the parent company effectively “controls” the material operations of the sub, and furthermore, that the issuance of group wide policies or standards could never in itself give rise to a duty of care. These propositions have now been clearly rejected by the Supreme Court as not being a reliable limiting principle (para 145). In the present judgment, the SC affirms its view that “control” is not in itself a meaningful test, since in practice, it can take many different forms: Lord Hamblen cites with approval Lord Briggs’s statement in Vedanta, that “there is no limit to the models of management and control which may be put in place within a multinational group of companies” (para 150). He equally approves of Lord Briggs’s considerations according to which “the parent may incur the relevant responsibility to third parties if, in published materials, it holds itself out as exercising that degree of supervision and control of its subsidiaries, even if in fact it does not do so. In such circumstances its very omission may constitute the abdication of a responsibility which it has publicly undertaken” (para 148).
Whether or not the English courts will ultimately find a duty of care to have existed in either or both of the Vedanta and Okpabi sets of facts remains to be seen when the law suits have been moved to the trial of the substantive issues. Much will depend on the degree of influence that was either really exercised on the sub or publicly pretended to be exercised.
On the same day on which the SC’s judgment was given (12 February 2021), the German Federal Government publicly announced the key features of a future piece of legislation on corporate social resonsibility in supply chains (Sorgfaltspflichtengesetz) that is soon to be enacted. The government wants to pass legislation before the summer break and the general elections in September 2021, not the least because three years ago, it promised binding legislation if voluntary self-regulation according to the National Action Plan should fail. Yet, contrary to claims from civil society (see foremost the German “Initiative Lieferkettengesetz”) the government no longer plans to sanction infringements by tortious liability towards victims. Given the applicability of the law at the place where the damage occurred under Art. 4 (1) Rome II Regulation, and the fact that the UK Supreme Court in Vedanta and Okpabi held the law of Sambia and Nigeria to be identical with that of England, this could have the surprising effect that the German act, which the government proudly announced as being the strictest and most far-reaching supply chain legislation in Europe and the world (!!), would risk to fall behind the law in anglophone Africa or on the Indian sub-continent. This example demonstrates that an addition to the Rome II Regulation, as proposed by the European Parliament, which would give victims of human rights’ violations a choice between the law at the place of injury and that at the place of action, is in fact badly needed.
Webb v Webb (PC) – the role of a foreign tax debt in the allocation of matrimonial property
By Maria Hook (University of Otago, New Zealand) and Jack Wass (Stout Street Chambers, New Zealand)
When a couple divorce or separate, and the court is tasked with identifying what property is to be allocated between the parties, calculation of the net pool of assets usually takes into account certain debts. This includes matrimonial debts that that are in the sole name of one spouse, and even certain personal debts, ensuring that the debtor spouse receives credit for that liability in the division of matrimonial property. However, where a spouse owes a liability that may not, in practice, be repaid, deduction of the debt from the pool of the couple’s property may result in the other spouse receiving a lower share of the property than would be fair in the circumstances. For example, a spouse owes a debt to the Inland Revenue that is, in principle, deductible from the value of that spouse’s assets to be allocated between the parties. But the debtor spouse has no intention of repaying the debt and has rendered themselves judgment-proof. In such a case, deduction of the debt from the debtor spouse’s matrimonial property would leave the other spouse sharing the burden of a debt that will not be repaid.
This result is patently unfair, and courts have found a way to avoid it by concluding that, in order to be deductible, the debt must be one that is likely to be paid or recovered (see, eg, Livingstone v Livingstone (1980) 4 MPC 129 (NZHC)). This enquiry can give rise to conflict of laws issues: for example, there may be questions about the enforceability of a foreign judgment debt or the actionability of a foreign claim. Ultimately, the focus of the inquiry should be on the creditor’s practical chances of recovery.
In the relatively recent Cook Islands case of Webb v Webb, the Privy Council ([2020] UKPC 22) considered the relevance of a New Zealand tax debt to matrimonial property proceedings in the Cook Islands. The Board adopted a surprisingly narrow approach to this task. It concluded that the term “debts” only included debts that were enforceable against matrimonial property (which in this case was located in the Cook Islands), and that the debts in question were not so enforceable because they would be barred by the “foreign tax principle”. Lord Wilson dissented on both points.
Background
The parties – Mr and Mrs Webb – lived in the Cook Islands when they separated. Upon separation, Mr Webb returned to New Zealand. Mrs Webb commenced proceedings against Mr Webb in the Cook Islands under the Matrimonial Property Act 1976 (a New Zealand statute incorporated into Cook Islands law), claiming her share of the couple’s matrimonial property that was located in the Cook Islands.
Mr Webb, however, owed a judgment debt of NZ$ 26m to the New Zealand Inland Revenue. He argued that, under s 20(5) of the Act, this debt had to be deducted from any matrimonial property owned by him. Under s 20(5)(b), (unsecured) personal debts had to be deducted from “the value of the matrimonial property owned by” the debtor spouse to the extent that they “exceed the value of any separate property of that spouse”. Given the size of Mr Webb’s debt, the effect of s 20(5)(b) would have been to leave Mrs Webb with nothing. She argued that the debt fell outside of s 20(5)(b) because it was not enforceable in the Cook Islands and Mr Webb was unlikely to pay it voluntarily.
Whether the debt had to be enforceable against the matrimonial property in the Cook Islands
Lord Kitchin, with whom the majority agreed, concluded that s 20(5)(b) only applied to debts that were either enforceable against the matrimonial assets or likely to be paid out of those assets. Debts that were not so enforceable were not to be taken into account when dividing the matrimonial assets (unless the debtor spouse intended to pay them by using those assets in his name). A different interpretation would lead to “manifest injustice”, because if the Inland Revenue “cannot enforce its judgment against those assets, Mr Webb can keep them all for himself” (at [41]). If the Inland Revenue could not execute its judgment against the assets, and Mr Webb did not pay the debt, the reason for applying s 20(5)(b) – which was to protect a debtor spouse’s unsecured creditors – disappeared.
Lord Kitchin considered that this conclusion found support in Government of India v Taylor, where Viscount Simonds (at 508) had explained that the meaning of “liabilities” in s 302 of the Companies Act 1948 excluded obligations that were not enforceable in the English courts. The result in that case was that a foreign government could not prove in the liquidation of an English company in respect of tax owed by that company (at [42]).
In Webb, the judgment debt in question was a personal debt incurred by Mr Webb. However, Lord Kitchin seemed to suggest that the outcome would have been no different if the debt had been a debt incurred in the course of the relationship under s 20(5)(a) (at [46]). The word “debts” had the same meaning in s 20(5)(a) and (b), as referring to debts which are enforceable against the matrimonial property or which the debtor spouse intends to pay.
Lord Wilson did not agree with the Board’s interpretation. He considered that it put a gloss on the word “debts” (at [118]), and that it had “the curious and inconvenient consequence of requiring a court … to determine … whether the debt is enforceable against specified assets” (at [120]). Rather, a debt was a liability that was “likely to be satisfied by the debtor-spouse” or that was “actionable with a real prospect of recovery on the part of the creditor” (citing Fisher on Matrimonial Property (2nd ed, 1984) at para 15.6) – regardless of whether recovery would be against matrimonial or other assets (at [123]).
Applying this interpretation to the tax liability in question, Lord Wilson concluded that the liability was clearly actionable (because it had already been the subject of proceedings) and that the Inland Revenue did have a real prospect of recovery in New Zealand (at [126]-[127]). Mr Webb was living in New Zealand and was presumably generating income there, and the Commissioner had applied for the appointment of receivers of his property. This was sufficient to conclude that the debt was enforceable in New Zealand, “including on a practical level” (at [131]). The facts were different from the case of Livingstone v Livingstone (1980) 4 MPC 129, where the New Zealand Court had concluded that a Canadian tax debt could “for practical purposes” be disregarded because the debtor had already left the country at the time the demand was issued, he had no intention of returning and he had removed his assets from the jurisdiction. In such a case, if the debtor spouse were permitted to deduct the foreign tax debt without ever actually repaying it, they could take the benefit of the entire pool of matrimonial assets and thus undermine the policy and operation of the whole regime.
In our view, Lord Wilson’s interpretation is to be preferred. The relevant question should be whether the debt is one that will be practically recoverable (whether in the forum or overseas). A debt may still be practically recoverable even if it is not enforceable against the matrimonial assets and is unlikely to be paid out of those assets. It is true that, in many cases under s 25(1)(b), the chances of recovery would be slim if the matrimonial assets are out of reach and the debtor spouse has no intention of paying the debt voluntarily (which seemed to be the case for Mr Webb: at [62]). By definition, personal debts are only relevant “to the extent that they exceed the value of any separate property of that spouse”, so in practice their recoverability would depend on future or matrimonial assets. Lord Wilson’s assessment of the evidence – as allowing a finding that there was a real likelihood that Mr Webb would have to repay the debt in New Zealand – is open to question on that basis. But that doesn’t mean that the debts must be enforceable against the matrimonial assets. While this interpretation would lead to fairer outcomes under s 25(1)(b) – because it avoids the situation of the debtor spouse not having to share their matrimonial assets even though the debt is recoverable elsewhere – it could lead to strange results under s 25(1)(a), which provides for the deduction of matrimonial debts that are owed by a spouse individually. It would be unfair, under s 25(1)(a), if such debts were not deductible from the value of matrimonial property owned by the spouse by virtue of being unenforceable against that property, in circumstances where the debts are enforceable against the spouse’s personal property.
The Board’s reliance on Government of India v Taylor [1955] AC 491 (HL) in this context is unhelpful. The question before the House of Lords was whether a creditor could claim in a liquidation for a debt that would not be enforceable in the English courts (regardless of whether the debt would be enforceable over certain – or any – assets). Under the Matrimonial Property Act, on the other hand, the court is not directly engaged in satisfying the claims of creditors, so the debt need not be an obligation enforceable in the forum court. Neither need it be an obligation enforceable against matrimonial property, wherever located. It simply needs to be practically recoverable.
Whether the debt was enforceable against the matrimonial property in the Cook Islands
As we have noted, Lord Wilson argued that there was a real prospect of the debt being paid – the implication being that this was not a case about a foreign tax debt at all. Mr and Mrs Webb were New Zealanders, and Mr Webb had relocated to New Zealand before the proceedings were commenced in 2016 and had stayed there. The practical reality was that unless he found a way to meet his revenue obligations he would be bankrupted again. Lord Kitchin noted Mr Webb’s apparent determination to avoid satisfying his liabilities to the IRD. Nevertheless, there was no suggestion that Mr Webb would leave New Zealand permanently to live in the Cook Islands and there enjoy the benefits of the matrimonial property.
Nevertheless, the majority’s analytical framework required it to consider whether the tax debt was enforceable against the matrimonial property in the Cook Islands. The majority found that for the purpose of the foreign tax principle, the Cook Islands should be treated relative to New Zealand as a foreign sovereign state, despite their close historical and constitutional ties (and found that the statutory mechanism for the enforcement of judgments by lodging a memorial, cognate to the historical mechanism for the enforcement of Commonwealth judgments, did not exclude the foreign tax principle).
It was obvious that bankruptcy was a serious prospect, the IRD having appointed a receiver over Mr Webb’s assets shortly before the hearing before the Board. That begged the question whether the IRD could have recourse to the Cook Islands assets, but on this point the case proceeded in a peculiar way. The Board observed that it had been given no details of the steps that a receiver or the Official Assignee might be able to take to collect Cook Islands assets, going so far as to doubt whether the Official Assignee would even be recognized in the Cook Islands “for the Board was informed that there was no personal bankruptcy in the Cook Islands and the position of Official Assignee does not exist in that jurisdiction.” Section 655(1) of the Cook Islands Act 1915 states that “Bankruptcy in New Zealand shall have the same effect in respect to property situated in the Cook Islands as if that property was situated in New Zealand”, but the Board was not prepared to take any account of it, the provision having been introduced for the first time at the final appeal and there being some doubt about whether it was even in force.
The unfortunate consequence was that the Board gave no detailed consideration to the question of how the foreign tax principle operates in the context of cross-border insolvency, a point of considerable interest and practical significance.
The common law courts have been prepared to recognise (and in appropriate cases, defer to) foreign insolvency procedures for over 250 years, since at least the time of Solomons v Ross (1764) 1 H Bl 131, 126 ER 79 where the Court of Chancery allowed funds to be paid over to the curators of a debtor who had been adjudicated bankrupt in the Netherlands. But the relationship between this principle and the foreign tax principle has never been clear.
The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency 1997 preserves states’ ability to exclude foreign tax claims from an insolvency proceeding. As to the common law, the New Zealand Law Commission (expressing what may be the best guide to the content of Cook Islands law) observed in 1999 that the policy justification for refusing enforcement of foreign tax judgments may not apply in the same way in the context of cross-border insolvency where the collective interests of debtors are concerned. It noted that a number of countries (including Australia, the Isle of Man and South Africa) had moved past an absolute forbidding of foreign tax claims where such claims form part of the debts of an insolvent debtor subject to an insolvency regime. It thus concluded that “foreign taxation claims may sometimes be admitted to proof in a New Zealand bankruptcy or liquidation.” While the Privy Council had a number of difficult issues to confront, it is perhaps unfortunate that they did not take the opportunity to bring clarity to this important issue.
News
Academic Position Paper on the Reform of the Brussels Ibis Regulation available on SSRN
Burkhard Hess and his team at the University of Vienna recently finalised an Academic Position Paper on the Reform on the Brussels Ibis Regulation, which is now available on SSRN. They have kindly shared the following summary with us.
The Brussels Ibis Reform project leading up the Academic Position Paper commenced with the formation of a Working Group within the European Association for Private International Law (EAPIL) in 2021, spearheaded by Burkhard Hess and Geert Van Calster. This Working Group consisted of 42 academics from 22 EU Member States plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the UK. The Members of the Working Group provided information on the application of the Brussels Ibis Regulation in their respective jurisdictions by means of a questionnaire, after which a Members Consultative Committee of the EAPIL produced a report. Based on this input, the former MPI Luxembourg and the KU Leuven organised a conference in Luxembourg on 9 September 2022.
After the Luxembourg conference, Burkhard Hess and a team of researchers of the former MPI Luxembourg prepared a Working Paper with 32 reform proposals. The Members of the EAPIL Working Group and the academic public were invited to express their opinion on these proposals through online surveys. The results of these surveys were processed by Burkhard Hess and his team , which led to amendments to the original proposals. These amended proposals were presented discussed at a conference in Vienna on 12 April 2024. The findings of this conference were integrated into the Academic Position Paper that, after consulting the Members of the EAPIL Working Group, received a final update before being uploaded on SSRN
The five different parts of the Academic Position Paper cover the role and scope of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, collective redress, third-state relations, jurisdiction and pendency, as well as recognition and enforcement. Each part covers distinct issues identified at the 2022 Luxembourg conference and formulates specific proposals to resolve them. The background of each proposal is briefly explained and the charts indicating the responses to the surveys are presented, before discussing the feedback received through the surveys and during the 2024 Vienna Conference.
Burkhard Hess and his team would like to thank everyone that has taken the time to answer the surveys and/or attend the conferences. Your input was invaluable, and we have sought to take your views into account as much as possible. We believe that the proposals in the Academic Position Paper provide a solid set of recommendations to consider in recasting the Brussels Ibis Regulation, which will be presented to the European Commission as a meaningful contribution of academia in the upcoming law-making process.
Nygh Essay Prize in Private International Law
The Australian Branch of the International Law Association is now calling for submissions for the 2024 Nygh Essay Prize in Private International Law.
Issue 1 of Journal of Private International Law for 2024
The latest issue of the Journal of Private International Law was published yesterday It contains the following articles.
Alex Mills, Sustainability and jurisdiction in the international civil litigation market
The sustainability of the global economy, particularly in response to the concerns of climate change, is an issue which impacts many different aspects of life and work around the world. It raises particular questions concerning globalised industries or markets which depend on long distance transportation for their function. This article takes as its focus international civil litigation – the judicial resolution of cross-border disputes – as a particular example of a globalised market in which sustainability considerations are presently neglected, and examines how this omission ought to be addressed. It proposes a modification to English law which aims to ensure that jurisdictional decisions by the English courts take into account their environmental impact – that is to say, the environmental impact of the selection of a particular forum. The article also considers the implications of adopting this change on the position of the English courts in the global litigation marketplace, arguing that the effects are likely to be limited, and it could have an incidental benefit in promoting the development and adoption of communications technologies in judicial dispute resolution.
Saloni Khanderia, The law applicable to documentary letters of credit in India: A riddle wrapped in an enigma?
Despite significantly fostering international trade in India, letters of credit and the determination of applicable law in cross-border disputes arising from the same have received negligible attention from lawmakers. The Indian Supreme Court, too, has failed to use its power to mould the law despite regularly being confronted with disputes on this subject. This paper demystifies India’s conflict of law rules on the law governing disputes on letters of credit by examining relevant judicial trends. It highlights rampant references to the lex fori – and explores reasons why it is considered the “proper law” by being the country possessing the closest and most real contractual connection. It anticipates a “ripple effect” prompting parties to evade Indian courts through choice-of-court agreements preferring a foreign forum or to avoid business with Indian traders insisting on such payment mechanisms. Accordingly, it identifies the need for coherent rules and suggests some solutions that Indian lawmakers should consider.
Frederick Rieländer, The EU private international law framework for civil disputes concerning credit ratings: Exploring the status quo and prospects of reform
This article addresses the EU private international law framework for cross-border disputes concerning credit ratings. It argues that investors harmed by faulty ratings face considerable challenges when enforcing claims against credit rating agencies. These challenges arise not only due to the high standard of proof for damages claims and additional barriers rooted in substantive law but also from the limited territorial reach of the common EU civil liability regime of Article 35a of the amended Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009. Additionally, uncertainties concerning the determination of the concurrently applicable national law and the lack of unified European cross-border collective redress mechanisms in the area of capital markets law compound the problem. Against this background, this article discusses the options for reforming the existing private international law regime to enhance investors’ access to justice in disputes with CRAs.
Tony Ward & Ann Plenderleith Ferguson, Proof of foreign law: a reduced role for expert evidence?
This article considers the position as to proof of foreign law in the English courts in light of the case of FS Nile Plaza v Brownlie [2021] UKSC 45 and the 11th edition of the Commercial Court Guide. We discuss the “old notion” of proof by expert witnesses, the extent to which recent developments displace the traditional role of the expert and enhance that of the advocate, and the dicta in Brownlie concerning the presumptions of similarity and continuity and judicial notice. While welcoming the greater flexibility in the way foreign law can be put before the English court, we argue that the use of oral expert evidence and cross-examination will remain important in at least two types of case: those where the issue of foreign law is complex or novel, and those where the English court does not just need to ascertain the “correct” interpretation of foreign law, but rather predict whether a foreign court would in reality provide appropriate relief in relation to the matter before the court.
Olivera Boskovic, Extraterritoriality and the proposed directive on corporate sustainability due diligence, a recap
Tortious actions brought against companies for the violation of human rights and/or environmental damage have raised important issues of jurisdiction and choice of law. Damage caused abroad by subsidiaries of European companies or the possibility of bringing actions against non-European companies for damage caused outside of the European union have been referred to in terms of extraterritoriality. This paper examines these issues in relation to the proposed directive on corporate sustainability due diligence.
The Brussels IIb Regulation, dealing with proceedings in matrimonial matters, those of parental responsibility and international child abduction cases, is the newest instrument of the European Union in international family law. The article critically evaluates its most significant changes compared to its predecessor, the Brussels IIa Regulation, in the fields of jurisdiction and of recognition and enforcement. In addition, it analyses how the Brussels IIb Regulation optimises the provisions of the 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction between the member states of the European Union. The article argues that the regulation is overall a helpful and welcome addition to international family law because it strengthens the welfare of the child and enhances the practical functionality and normative structure of its predecessor. Nevertheless, scope for further improvements in another recast regulation is identified.
Olga Bobrzy?ska & Mateusz Pilich, Cases of cross-border child abduction in times of populism: a Polish perspective
This article analyses the case law in Poland on matters of the return of children wrongfully removed or retained within the framework of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction during the period of the “populist” government (2020–2022). It takes account of the legislative and judicial developments in the EU and the European Court of Human Rights and of the aims of the Hague Convention. It seeks to ascertain whether the influence of populist reforms and politicisation of the courts has become apparent in the case law of the Polish Supreme Court on international child abduction cases.
Ye Shanshan & Du Tao, The Jurisdiction of China International Commercial Court: substance, drawbacks, and refinement
The wave of setting up international commercial courts has emerged internationally. Following the trend, China established the China International Commercial Court (CICC) in 2018. The CICC exercises consensual jurisdiction and non-consensual jurisdiction over international commercial disputes, and has jurisdiction to support international commercial arbitration. This article analyses the CICC’s criteria for determining international commercial disputes and the specific requirements for each type of jurisdiction based on the relevant provisions and judicial practice of the CICC. In addition, this article identifies the drawbacks of the CICC’s current jurisdiction system, and provides several suggestions for refinement, including the modification and clarification of the criteria for determining the internationality and commerciality of disputes, the removal of restrictions on jurisdiction agreements, the clarification of substantive standards for case transfer, and the expansion of its jurisdiction to support international commercial arbitration.
Gülüm Bayraktaroglu-Özçelik, When migration meets private international law: issues of private international law in divorce actions of Syrian migrants under temporary protection before the Turkish courts
The extended stay of Syrian nationals under temporary protection in Türkiye for more than a decade has caused an increase in their involvement in private law actions before the Turkish courts. Even though their substantive rights have mostly been regulated following their arrival, the private international law legislation has not yet been reviewed. This research, focusing on the most recent judgments of Turkish courts in divorce actions of Syrian migrants identifies important issues of private international law. These include questions on determination of international jurisdiction of Turkish courts, their access to legal aid and the obligation to provide security, questions of applicable law concerning marriage (including the recognition of the marriages validly celebrated in Syria), determination of the law applicable to divorce and the content of Syrian law. The study demonstrates that some of these questions arise because of the ongoing unfamiliarity of Turkish courts with “temporary protection status” as a relatively new concept in Turkish law, whereas others are related to application of general provisions to temporary protection beneficiaries and highlights the urgent need to review the Turkish private international law legislation considering the status of these persons to provide uniformity in court decisions and to ensure predictability.