Views
Maintenance Duties for a Gestational Surrogate Following Non-Recognition – An Unreported Spanish Judgment
Written by Nicolás Zambrana-Tévar LLM, PhD (KIMEP University)
Facts of the case
An unreported judgment of the Family, Childhood and Capacity Section of the Tribunal de Instancia de Alicante (No. 3), dated 29 April 2026, has attracted attention for ordering a Mexican gestational surrogate to pay child maintenance to the Spanish father for whom she carried a child, despite having no custody, no exercise of parental authority, and no contact rights (here and here).
From Symbolism to Substance: Comity and Judicial Reform in South Africa’s Foreign Judgments Regime
South Africa occupies a strategic position in African and Global South trade networks, yet its economy continues to lag behind its BRICS partners and many of its African peers. A recurring, if underexamined, contributor to this underperformance is the state of its private international law governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (REFJ). The article, published in the Journal of African Law (2026), investigates why and how the principle of comity might help resolve this issue.
The empirical picture is striking. Of the reported South African REFJ cases collated for this study, roughly 44 per cent of foreign judgments brought for enforcement are refused. Contrary to what one might expect, the leading cause is rarely fraud or public policy. Instead, over half of all refusals (53 per cent) turn on a single, narrow ground: the rendering court’s lack of “international competence” under South African law. Under the framework laid down in Jones v Krok (1995), a foreign court is internationally competent only where the debtor was resident in, or voluntarily submitted to, that court’s jurisdiction. Every other basis for jurisdiction recognised elsewhere – the place of contractual performance, the place where harm occurred, or a valid choice-of-court agreement standing alone- is, on the weight of authority, insufficient.
Persistent and Reasonable Efforts in the Field of Cross-Border Service of Documents. Continuation or Stay of Proceedings?
A. The Impetus for Presenting the Issue
In light of the publication of three judgments of the Thessaloniki First Instance Court concerning the service of documents in Contracting States to the 1965 Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters [hereinafter: HSC], the issue examined was whether proceedings may continue despite the absence of a certificate of service from the State addressed. In this context, a decisive role for the judge is played by the answer to the question whether “persistent efforts” within the meaning of the Greek version of Article 15(2)(c) HSC, or “reasonable efforts” (in the English-language formulation), were undertaken by the competent authorities of the State addressed in order to obtain a certificate. The same issue arises under the relevant EU Regulation (Article 22 Regulation 2020/1784), concerning cross-border service within the EU. Finally, the very recent amendment of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, introducing new Article 134A GCCP, is also of particular interest.
The discussion will begin with the case law referred to above, examined in the light of the HSC (B). This will be followed by a reference to the corresponding provision of the EU Regulations (C). Next, a preliminary account will be given of the recent provision of Article 134A GCCP and its innovative features (D). This will be followed by an analysis of the terms “persistent effort” and “reasonable effort” (E-F). The study concludes with a detailed presentation of German legal scholarship (G), followed by a brief conclusion (H).
News
Programme for the Online Book Launch – Choice of Law for Consumer Contracts in Theory and Practice
The following post has been kindly shared with us by Benedikt Schmitz (University of Groningen).
We are pleased to announce the programme for the upcoming virtual book launch of Choice of Law for Consumer Contracts in Theory and Practice (Edward Elgar Publishing). Building upon research conducted during Dr. Benedikt Schmitz’s doctoral studies at the University of Groningen, Schmitz updated his work to turn it into an essential reference for both practitioners and academics. The event is hosted by the WEAKER PIL research line (weakerparties.eu).
Seminar Netherlands Commercial Court – Interim Remedies
Text kindly provided by Willem Visser (Court Registrar and Senior Clerk Netherlands Commercial Court)
On 13 November 2026, the Netherlands Commercial Court is organizing a seminar on the commonalities and differences between interim remedies available under common and civil law. The speakers will be Mr Andrew Henshaw (Justice at the London Commercial Court), and professors Xandra Kramer and Gerard Meijer (Erasmus University Rotterdam).
This seminar may be joined online or in the courtroom. Registration is free of charge. For more information and registration, see Seminar: Interim Remedies – Commonalities and Differences in Common Law and Civil Law | NCC.
At this seminar also the book ‘Private International Law: a Step-by-Step Approach‘, authored by Willem Visser (Boom, 2026), will be presented.
Call for DPhil Applications
The following post has kindly been shared with us Roxana Banu (University of Oxford).
The Conflict of Laws/Private International Law academic team at the University of Oxford invites applications from students interested in pursuing a doctorate (DPhil, corresponding to a PhD) in the field. The Oxford Conflict of Laws team is one of the largest at any academic institution in the UK. It comprises four full-time faculty members (Associate Professor Roxana Banu, Professor Andrew Dickinson, Associate Professor Brooke Marshall and Dr Johannes Ungerer).