New civil procedure rules in Singapore

New civil procedure rules in Singapore

New civil procedure rules (Rules of Court 2021) for the General Division of the High Court (excluding the Singapore International Commercial Court (‘SICC’)) have been gazetted and will be implemented on 1 April 2022. The reform is intended to modernise the litigation process and improve efficiency.[1] New rules for the SICC have also been gazetted and will similarly come into operation on 1 April 2022.

This update focuses on the rules which apply to the General Division of the High Court (excluding the SICC). New rules which are of particular interest from a conflict of laws point of view include changes to the rules on service out. The new Order 8 rule 1 provides that:

‘(1) An originating process or other court document may be served out of Singapore with the Court’s approval if it can be shown that the Court has the jurisdiction or is the appropriate court to hear the action.

(3) The Court’s approval is not required if service out of Singapore is allowed under a contract between the parties.

CJEU Rules on the interplay between Brussels IIA and Dublin III

This post was contributed by Dr. Vito Bumbaca, who is Assistant Lecturer at the University of Geneva

In a ruling of 2 August 2021 (A v. B, C-262/21 PPU), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarified that a child who is allegedly wrongfully removed, meaning without consent of the other parent, should not return to his/ her habitual residence if such a removal took place as a consequence of the ordered transfer determining international responsibility based on the Dublin III Regulation. The judgment is not available in English and is the first ever emanating from this Court concerning the Brussels IIA-Dublin III interplay.

The Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (Brussels IIA Regulation) complements the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and is applicable to 26 EU Member States, including Finland and Sweden. The Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast) (Dublin III), is pertinent for asylum seekers’ applications commenced at least in one of the 31 Dublin Member States (EU/EFTA), comprising Finland and Sweden, bound by this Regulation.

Questions for a CJEU urgent preliminary ruling:

The CJEU was referred five questions, but only addressed the first two.

‘(1) Must Article 2(11) of [Regulation No 2201/2003], relating to the wrongful removal of a child, be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which one of the parents, without the other parent’s consent, removes the child from his or her place of residence to another Member State, which is the Member State responsible under a transfer decision taken by an authority in application of Regulation [No 604/2013], must be classified as wrongful removal?

The Tango Between Brussels Ibis Regulation and Rome I Regulation under the Beat of Package Travel Directive

Written by Zhen Chen, doctoral candidate at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands

The article titled ‘The Tango Between Art.17(3) Brussels Ibis and Art.6(4)(b) Rome I under the Beat of Package Travel Directive’ is published on Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law with open access, available at

In the field of European private international law, Brussels Ibis Regulation and Rome I Regulation are dancing partners that work closely with different roles. When it comes to consumer protection, Brussels Ibis Regulation is the leader and Rome I Regulation is the follower, since special protective rules over consumer contracts were first introduced in Articles 13–15 Brussels Convention[1] and then followed by Article 5 Rome Convention.[2]


Virtual Workshop (in German) on February 1: Wolfgang Wurmnest on International Jurisdiction for Antitrust Violation Claims

On Tuesday, Feb 1, 2022, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its  monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00-12:30 (CET). Wolfgang Wurmnest (University Hamburg) will speak, in German, about the topic.

International Jurisdiction for Antitrust Violation Claims

The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.

If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to

Third Issue of Journal of Private International Law for 2021

The third issue of the Journal of Private International law for 2021 was released today. It features the following articles:

Jonannes Ungerer, “Explicit legislative characterisation of overriding mandatory provisions in EU Directives: Seeking for but struggling to achieve legal certainty”

Traditionally, the judiciary has been tasked with characterising a provision in EU secondary law as an overriding mandatory provision (“OMP”) in the sense of Art 9(1) Rome I Regulation. This paradigm has however shifted recently as the legislator has started setting out such OMP characterisation explicitly, which this paper addresses with regard to EU Directives. The analysis of two Directives on unfair trading practices in the food supply chain and on the resolution of financial institutions reveals that their explicit legislative characterisations of OMPs can benefit legal certainty if properly drafted by the EU and correctly transposed into national law by the Member States. These requirements have not yet been fully met as there are inconsistencies and confusion with only domestically mandatory provisions, which need to be resolved. More generally, the paper elucidates the tensions of competence between legislators and courts on both the EU and national levels due to the explicit legislative characterisation. It also considers the side effects on pre-existing and future provisions in Directives without explicit legislative characterisation. Finally, it acknowledges that the extraterritorial effect of OMPs is intensified and therefore requires the legislator to seek international alignment.

The sixth EFFORTS Newsletter is here!

EFFORTS (Towards more EFfective enFORcemenT of claimS in civil and commercial matters within the EU) is an EU-funded project conducted by the University of Milan (coord.), the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law, the University of Heidelberg, the Free University of Brussels, the University of Zagreb, and the University of Vilnius.

The sixth EFFORTS Newsletter was just released, giving access to up-to-date information about the Project, save-the-dates on forthcoming events, conferences and webinars, and news from the area of international and comparative civil procedural law.

The EFFORTS Reports on national case-law have also been posted: you may follow this link for the Reports on Belgian, French and Luxembourg case-law, respectively. The other reports will be posted in the forthcoming weeks.

Regular updates are also available via the Project’s website, as well as  LinkedIn and Facebook pages.

Project JUST-JCOO-AG-2019-881802
With financial support from the Civil Justice Programme of the European Union