Views
Reappreciating the Composite Approach with Anupam Mittal v Westbridge II
Written by: Aditya Singh, BA.LL.B. (Hons) student at the National Law School of India University(NLSIU), Bengaluru and line editor at the National Law School Business Law Review (NLSBLR)
I. INTRODUCTION
The debate surrounding the composite approach i.e., the approach of accommodating the application of both the law applicable to the substantive contract and the Lex Fori to the arbitration clause has recently resurfaced with Anupam Mittal v Westbridge Ventures II (“Westbridge”). In this case, the Singapore Court of Appeal paved way for application of both the law governing substantive contract and the Lex Fori to determine the arbitrability of the concerned oppression and mismanagement dispute. The same was based on principle of comity, past precedents and s 11 of the International Arbitration Act. The text of s 11 (governing arbitrability) does not specify and hence limit the law determining public policy to Lex Fori. In any event, the composite approach regardless of any provision, majorly stems from basic contractual interpretation that extends the law governing substantive contract to the arbitration clause unless the presumption is rebuttable. For instance, in the instant case, the dispute would have been rendered in-arbitrable with the application of Indian law (law governing substantive contract) and hence the Singapore law was inferred to be the implied choice.[1] Read more
Measure twice, cut once: Dutch case Presta v VLEP on choice of law in employment contracts
Presta v VLEP (23 june 2023) illustrates the application of the CEJU’s Gruber Logistics (Case C-152/20, 15 July 2021) by the Dutch Supreme Court. In order to determine the law applicable to an individual employment contract under article 8 Rome I, one must compare the level of protection that would have existed in the absence of a choice of law (in this case, Dutch law) with the level of protection offered by the law chosen by the parties in the contract (in this case, the laws of Luxembourg), thereafter, the law of the country offering the highest level of employee protection should be applied.
U.S. Supreme Court Renders Personal Jurisdiction Decision
This post is by Maggie Gardner, a professor of law at Cornell Law School. It is cross-posted at Transnational Litigation Blog.
The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday upheld the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s corporate registration statute, even though it requires out-of-state corporations registering to do business within the state to consent to all-purpose (general) personal jurisdiction. The result in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. re-opens the door to suing foreign companies in U.S. courts over disputes that arise in other countries. It may also have significant repercussions for personal jurisdiction doctrine more broadly. Read more
News
Call for Papers: OGEL Special Issue on ‘Space Mining: National and International Regulation for and against Commercial Mining of Outer Space Resources’
OGEL Special Issue on ‘Space Mining: National and International Regulation for and against Commercial Mining of Outer Space Resources’ will include dispute resolution over space mining plans as well as dispute resolution among participants in space mining operations – state vs state and space versus corporations and corporations versus corporations.
Outer Space clearly involves interesting private international law issues.
Proposals should be submitted to the editors by 31st March 2025, with final papers to be submitted before 31st May 2025.
For more information, please refer to here.
CoL.net Virtual Roundtable on the Commission’s Rome II Report
ConflictofLaws.net will be hosting an ad-hoc virtual roundtable on the Commission’s Rome II Report
on 11 March 2025, 12pm–1.30pm (CET).
The conversation will focus on the long-awaited report published by the Commission on 31 January 2025 and its implications for a possible future reform of the Regulation.
The event will feature the following panellists:
Rui Dias
University of Coimbra
Thomas Kadner Graziano
University of Geneva
Xandra Kramer
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Eva Lein
University of Lausanne &
British Institute of International and Comparative Law
Tobias Lutzi
University of Augsburg
Everyone interested is warmly invited to join via this Zoom link.
Registration open: Australasian Association of Private International Law inaugural conference, Brisbane, Australia, 16-17 April 2025
Registration is now open for the inaugural conference of the Australasian Association of Private International Law, to be held at the Ship Inn conference centre at Southbank, Brisbane from 16-17 April 2025.
The program features panels on
• Private International Law and Technology;
• Anti-suit and Anti-enforcement Injunctions;
• Private International Law and Climate Change; and
• Prenuptial Agreements.
Attendance at conference sessions can be used for CPD; check local requirements.
Conference fees
Reduced fees apply to members of AAPrIL. You can join the Association at https://aapril.org/membership/
Member (2 days) $110
Member (1 day) $60
Non-member (2 days) $150
Non-member (1 day) $80
Student: Free to attend the conference only.
Conference dinner: $110 for a three course meal and a selection of drinks
Aboute AAPrIL
The Australasian Association of Private International Law (AAPrIL) is a group of people committed to furthering the understanding of private international law in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific region.
AAPrIL was founded in 2024 by private international lawyers from Australia and New Zealand who have known one another for years through engaging with the discipline of private international law, including through conferences of the Journal of Private International Law, meetings of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, and numerous other academic activities. The inuagural AAPrIL President is Professor Mary Keyes. The Hon Andrew Bell, Chief Justice of New South Wales.