Views
Report on the ABLI/HCCH 4th Joint Webinar on “Cross-Border Commercial Dispute Resolution – Electronic Service of Documents and Remote Taking of Evidence“
by Achim Czubaiko-Güntgen, Research Fellow („Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter“) and PhD Candidate, supported by the German Scholarship Foundation, Institute for German and International Civil Procedural Law, University of Bonn.
With the fourth instalment in their ongoing webinar series on “Cross-Border Commercial Dispute Resolution”, the Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) and the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) returned to the topic of “Electronic Service of Documents and Remote Taking of Evidence”. Contrary to the first webinar in 2021, this session focussed not solely on the HCCH 1970 Evidence but equally on the HCCH 1965 Service Convention. Having finally overcome the immediate constraints of the Covid-19 pandemic, this time the renowned speakers were able to elaborate more on the long-term development and visions in the practice of the two legal instruments with regard to their respective areas of law.
The Nigerian Court of Appeal Upholds South African Choice of Court and Choice of Law Agreement
Case Citation:
Sqimnga (Nig.) Ltd v. Systems Applications Products (Nig.) Ltd [2025] 2 NWLR 423 (Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, Nigeria)
The dispute in this case arose between two Nigerian companies, Sqimnga Nigeria Ltd (the appellant) and Systems Applications Products Nigeria Ltd (the respondent). Both parties had entered into a Master Service Agreement in Nigeria, relating specifically to software solutions. A critical provision of this agreement stipulated that the laws of South Africa would govern any disputes, and further, that South African courts would possess exclusive jurisdiction to hear any matters arising from the agreement.
When a disagreement emerged between the parties, Sqimnga Nigeria Ltd initiated legal proceedings at the Lagos State High Court. The respondent immediately contested the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court, relying on the contractual clause mandating the use of South African law and courts. Read more
Silence Is Not Submission: Chinese Court Refuses to Enforce U.S. Default Judgment Rendered in Breach of Arbitration Agreement
Written by Dr. Meng Yu, lecturer at China University of Political Science and Law, and co-founder of China Justice Observer.
ABSTRACT
In around 2019, a Chinese court in Hebei Province refused to enforce a US default monetary judgment from a California court on the grounds that a valid arbitration agreement was in place (Sunvalley Solar Inc. v Baoding Tianwei Solarfilms Co. Ltd. (2019) Ji 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 3). This decision underscored the court’s reliance on the arbitration agreement’s validity, even though a subsequent legislative proposal to include arbitration agreements as an indirect jurisdictional filter in China’s Civil Procedure Law (2023 Amendment) was ultimately not adopted.
News
First Issue of Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2026
The first issue of the Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2026 was recently published last month. It contains the following works on private international law:
Bulat Karimov, “Arrest of Associated Ships from a Common Law Perspective”
The Arrest Conventions 1952 and 1999 provide for the arrest of ships owned by the person who would be liable for the claim in personam. The widespread use of one-ship companies has effectively circumvented these provisions. It has allowed shipowners to limit or avoid their liability by distributing their fleet between one-ship companies. The only country that has introduced separate associated ship provisions is South Africa. Other countries do not follow this example and generally deal with one-ship companies through beneficial ownership and piercing the corporate veil. The article examines the law and practice of arresting associated ships in South Africa, the US , England, Singapore and Australia. Particular focus is paid to the impropriety criterion, which is part of piercing the corporate veil but is irrelevant to the South African approach. It is concluded that the primary function of impropriety is preventing overreaching, which means subversion of the idea of separate legal personality of a shipowning company. The “objective” and “reasonableness” approaches are suggested as a middle ground to the problem discussed.
This article considers remedies leading to compelling satisfaction of a judgment, from assets in a wealth structure used by a judgment debtor, or assets produced by them, or from persons who have received such assets. These include (1) enforcement by equitable execution, (2) enforcement disregarding “sham” or invalid trusts or through an undisclosed legal power, (3) the effect of the Model Form of Freezing Injunction, and (4) use of the Insolvency Act 1986, s.423 to unwind transactions prejudicing creditors, including when to attribute to others a debtor’s purpose to prejudice creditors. It considers the relevance of a person having legal or de facto control of assets to the availability of these remedies.
Adrian Briggs, “The Death of Henry v Geoprosco“
Michal Hain, “Is a Foreign Judgment a Debt?”
Joseph Khaw, “Going Cherry Picking”
Paul MacMahon, “Pre-emptive Challenges to Recognition of Foreign Arbitral Awards”
Seminar on International Insolvency and 2026 Seminar Series on the Reform of the Brussels I bis Regulation (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid)
The Área de Derecho Internacional Privado of the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM) announces two initiatives of particular interest for scholars and practitioners of private international law.
1. Seminar: Nuevas perspectivas de la insolvencia internacional: reestructuraciones preconcursales y concursales
On Friday, 6 March 2026 (12:45), a seminar will be held at the Faculty of Law of UAM (Seminario II) in the framework of the research project “Nuevas perspectivas de la insolvencia internacional: reestructuraciones preconcursales y concursales” (PID 2022-140017OB100), coordinated by Professors Iván Heredia Cervantes and Elisa Torralba Mendiola. Read more
FAMIMOVE is back! – FAMIMOVE 3.0 starts on 1 March 2026
FAMIMOVE 3.0 is an international project co-funded by the European Commission under the JUST-2025-JCOO program. The project’s full name is Families on the Move: The Coordination between international family law and migration law.
This project seeks to build on the results of FAMIMOVE 2.0 by focusing on children on the move in vulnerable situations and by consolidating the networks already established of experts in family law, child protection and migration law. It involves 7 universities in 6 EU Member States.
The duration of the project is two years from 1 March 2026 to 29 February 2028.