Views
Conflict of laws in the South African courts: an(other) recent missed opportunity
Posted on behalf of Jason Mitchell, barrister at Maitland Chambers in London and at Group 621 in Johannesburg.
An Australian, Hannon, wants to book a Southern African safari with his partner, Murti, as a surprise birthday gift. He sees one he likes on an Australian travel website. Hannon fills in the online form.
It turns out that the website is just the agent for a South African company, Drifters Adventours. Drifters emailed Hannon the price and payment details. Attached to the email is a brochure. The brochure says, “Drifters do not accept responsibility for any loss, injury, damage, accident, fatality, delay or inconvenience experienced while on tour.” The brochure also says, “You will be required to complete and sign a full indemnity prior to your tour departure.” Read more
The Titanium Brace Tightens: Rome II and Director Liability after Wunner
By Luisa Cassar Pullicino and Krista Refalo, Ganado Advocates
In the preliminary reference Case C-77/24 Wunner (the Titanium Brace case), the CJEU was asked to determine whether a damages claim brought by a consumer directly against company directors for losses suffered from unlicensed online gambling fell within the scope of the Rome II Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 864/2007), or whether it was excluded under Article 1(2)(d) as a “non-contractual obligation arising out of the law of companies”.
The practical stakes were considerable. If Rome II applied, Article 4(1) would designate the law of the place where the damage occurred — which, for online gambling losses, would normally be the habitual residence of the consumer. If excluded, the applicable law would instead be determined by national conflict-of-laws rules, typically, the lex societatis.
‘Salami-slicing’ and Issue Estoppel: Foreign Decisions on the Governing Law
One of the requirements for issue estoppel is identity of issue. However, the process of ‘refining down’ or ‘salami-slicing’[1] is not always clear. The argument that the issue is different because the two courts would arrive at different conclusions on the governing law is increasingly being utilised as a litigation strategy. If the first court applied its choice of law rules to determine that the governing law of the claim is Utopian law, would an issue estoppel arise over this decision in the second court if under the second court’s choice of law rules, Ruritanian law is the governing law? The answer depends on whether the ‘slice’ is thick or thin. Is the relevant issue ‘What law governs the dispute or issue?’ or ‘What law is identified by our (forum) choice of law rules to govern the dispute or issue?’ Read more
News
PAX Moot 2026 Vladimir Koutikov Round has come to an end – announcement of winners
This post has previously been published by PAX Moot (with minor changes). Photo: University of Ljubljana Team.
The PAX Moot 2026 — Vladimir Koutikov Round has come to an end, and what an incredible edition it has been. We hope it was an unforgettable experience for all participants — a unique opportunity to engage in high-level argumentation on Private International Law, grow advocacy skills, and forge lasting friendships along the way.
Without further ado, we are proud to announce the results of this year’s competition:
- Winner — University of Ljubljana
- Runner-up — Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski
Call for Contributions (International Conference and Edited Volume): Imagining Decolonial Legal Methods in Europe (Pushing Boundaries)
The following Call for Contributions has been kindly shared with us by Sandrine Brachotte (UAntwerpen):
Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 3/2026: Abstracts
The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts“ (IPRax) features the following articles: