Views
Indonesia deposits its instrument of accession to the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention
Guest post by Priskila P. Penasthika, Ph.D. Researcher at Erasmus School of Law – Rotterdam and Lecturer in Private International Law at Universitas Indonesia.
Indonesian Accession to the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention
After almost a decade of discussions, negotiations, and preparations, Indonesia has finally acceded to the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention. In early January this year, Indonesia enacted Presidential Regulation Number 2 of 2021, signed by President Joko Widodo, as the instrument of accession to the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention. The HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention is the first HCCH Convention to which Indonesia became a Contracting Party.
In its accession to the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention, Indonesia made a declaration to exclude documents issued by the Prosecutor Office, the prosecuting body in Indonesia, from the definition of public documents whose requirements of legalisation have been abolished in accordance with Article 1(a) of the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention.
In accordance with Article 12 of the Convention, Indonesia deposited its instrument of accession to the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands on 5 October 2021. The ceremony was a very special occasion because it coincided with the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Convention. Therefore, the ceremony was part of the Fifth Meeting of the Special Commission on the practical operation of the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention and witnessed by all Contracting Parties of the Convention.
The Minister of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia, Yasonna H. Laoly, joined the ceremony and delivered a speech virtually via videoconference from Jakarta. Minister Laoly voiced the importance of the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention for Indonesia and underlined Indonesia’s commitment to continue cooperating with the HCCH.
Indonesia’s accession to the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention brings good news for the many parties concerned. The current process of public document legalisation in Indonesia still follows a traditional method that is highly complex, involves various institutions, and is time-consuming and costly. Because of the accession to the Convention, the complicated and lengthy procedure will be simplified to a single step and will involve only one institution – the designated Competent Authority in Indonesia. Referring to Article 6 of the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention, in its accession to the Convention, Indonesia designated the Ministry of Law and Human Rights as the Competent Authority. When the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention enters into force for Indonesia, this Ministry will be responsible for issuing the Apostille certificate to authenticate public documents in Indonesia for use in other Contracting Parties to the Convention.
A Reception Celebrating the 60th Anniversary of the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention and Indonesian Accession
To celebrate the 60th anniversary of the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention and Indonesia’s accession to it, an evening reception was held on 5 October 2021 at the residence of the Swiss ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands in The Hague. The reception was organised at the invitation of His Excellency Heinz Walker-Nederkoorn, Swiss Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, His Excellency Mayerfas, Indonesian Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and Dr Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary-General of the HCCH. Representatives of some Contracting Parties to the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention attended the reception; among other attendees were the representatives from recent Contracting Parties such as the Philippines and Singapore, as well as some of the earliest signatories, including Greece, Luxembourg, and Germany.
The host, Ambassador Walker-Nederkoorn, opened the reception with a welcome speech. It was followed by a speech by Ambassador Mayerfas. He echoed the statement of Minister Laoly on the importance of the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention for Indonesia, especially as a strategy to accomplish the goals of Vision of Indonesia 2045, an ideal that is set to commemorate the centenary of Indonesian independence in 2045. Ambassador Mayerfas also emphasised that Indonesia’s accession to the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention marked the first important step for future works and cooperation with the HCCH.
Thereafter, Dr Christophe Bernasconi warmly welcomed Indonesia as a Contracting Party to the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention in his speech at the reception. He also voiced the hope that Indonesia and HCCH continue good cooperation and relations, and invited Indonesia to accede to the other HCCH Conventions considered important by Indonesia.
The Entry into Force of the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention for Indonesia
Referring to Articles 12 and 15 of the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention, upon the deposit of the instrument of accession, there is a period of six months for other Contracting Parties to the Convention to raise an objection to the Indonesian accession. The HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention will enter into force for Indonesia on the sixtieth day after the expiration of this six-month period. With great hope that Indonesia’s accession will not meet any objection from the existing Contracting Parties to the Convention, any such objection would affect only the entry into force of the Convention between Indonesia and the objecting Contracting Party. The HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention will therefore enter into force for Indonesia on 4 June 2022.
A more in-depth analysis (in Indonesian) concerning the present procedure of public document legalisation in Indonesia and the urgency to accede to the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention can be accessed here. An article reporting the Indonesian accession to the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention earlier this year can be accessed here.
United Kingdom Supreme Court confirms that consequential loss satisfies the tort gateway for service out of the jurisdiction
This post is written by Joshua Folkard, Barrister at Twenty Essex.
In FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC v Lady Brownlie [2021] UKSC 45 (“Brownlie II”), the Supreme Court held as a matter of ratio by a 4:1 majority that consequential loss satisfies the ‘tort gateway’ in Practice Direction (“PD”) 6B, para. 3.1(9)(a).
Background
PD 6B, para. 3.1(9)(a) provides that tort claims can be served out of the jurisdiction of England & Wales where “damage was sustained, or will be sustained, within the jurisdiction”. Brownlie concerned a car accident during a family holiday to Egypt, which tragically claimed the lives of Sir Ian Brownlie (Chichele Professor of Public International Law at the University of Oxford) and his daughter Rebecca: at [1], [10] & [91]. On her return to England, however, Lady Brownlie suffered consequential losses including bereavement and loss of dependency in this jurisdiction: at [83].
The question whether mere consequential loss satisfies the tort gateway had been considered before by the Supreme Court in the very same case: Brownlie v Four Seasons [2017] UKSC 80; [2018] 2 All ER 91 (“Brownlie I”). By a 3:2 majority expressed “entirely obiter” (Brownlie II, at [45]) the Court had answered affirmatively: [48]-[55] (Baroness Hale), [56] (Lord Wilson) & [68]-[69] (Lord Clarke). However, the obiter nature of that holding combined with a forceful dissent from Lord Sumption (see [23]-[31]) had served to prolong uncertainty on this point.
Majority’s reasoning
When asked the same question again, however, a differently-constituted majority of the same Court gave the same answer. Lord Lloyd-Jones (with whom Lords Reed, Briggs, and Burrows agreed: see [5] & [7])) concluded that there was “no justification in principle or in practice, for limiting ‘damage’ in paragraph 3.1(9)(a) to damage which is necessary to complete a cause of action in tort or, indeed, for according any special significance to a place simply because it was where the cause of action was completed”: at [49]. The ‘consequential’ losses suffered in England were accordingly sufficient to ground English jurisdiction for the tort claims.
Three main reasons were given. First, Lord Lloyd-Jones held that there had been no “assimilation” of the tests at common law and under the Brussels Convention/Regulation, which would have been “totally inappropriate” given the “fundamental differences between the two systems”: at [54]-[55]. Second, his Lordship pointed to what he described as an “impressive and coherent line” of (mostly first-instance) authority to the same effect: at [64]. Third, it was said that the “safety valve” of forum conveniens meant that there was “no need to adopt an unnaturally restrictive reading of the domestic gateways”: at [77].
Economic torts?
What is now the position as regards pure economic loss cases? Although Lord Lloyd-Jones concluded that the term “damage” in PD 6B, para. 3.1(9)(a) “simply refers to actionable harm, direct or indirect, caused by the wrongful act alleged” (at [81]), his Lordship expressly stated that:
- “I would certainly not disagree with the proposition, supported by the economic loss cases, that to hold that the mere fact of any economic loss, however remote, felt by a claimant where he or she lives or, if a corporation, where it has its business seat would be an unsatisfactory basis for the exercise of jurisdiction”: at [76].
- “The nature of pure economic loss creates a need for constraints on the legal consequences of remote effects and can give rise to complex and difficult issues as to where the damage was suffered, calling for a careful analysis of transactions. As a result, the more remote economic repercussions of the causative event will not found jurisdiction”: at [75].
The status of previous decisions on the meaning of PD 6B, para. 3.1(9)(a) in economic tort cases appears to have been called into doubt by Brownlie II because (as noted by Lord Leggatt, dissenting: at [189]) those decisions had relied upon an “inference” that PD 6B, para. 3.1(9)(a) should be interpreted consistently with the Brussels Convention/Regulation. That approach was, however, rejected by both the majority and minority of the Supreme Court: at [74] & [189]. It therefore appears likely that the application of Brownlie II to economic torts will be the subject of significant future litigation.
Which law governs disputes involving corporations?
Guest post by Dr Sagi Peari, Senior Lecturer/Associate Professor at the University of Western Australia
When it comes to the question of the applicable law that governs disputes involving corporations: one must make a sharp distinction between two principal matters: (1) matters relating to external interactions of corporation (such as disputes between a corporation and other external actors, such as other business entities or individuals); and (2) matters relating to the internal interactions of a corporation (such as disputes within the corporate structure or litigation between a corporation and its directors). A claim of a corporation against another in relation to a breach of contract between the two is an example of a dispute related to external affairs of a corporation. A claim of a corporate shareholder against a director in the firm is an example of a dispute concerning corporate internal affairs.
The division between external and internal affairs of corporation is an important one for the question of applicable law. A review of the case law suggests a strong tendency of the courts to apply the same choice-of-law rules applicable to private individuals. Thus, the general rule of the place of tort applies equally to corporations and private individuals.[1] In similar, the advancing principle of party autonomy[2] does not distinguish between corporations and other litigants on its operational level. The very fact that litigation involves a corporation does not seem prima facie to affect the identity of the applicable law rules.
The situation becomes dramatically different in cases concerning the internal affairs of a corporation. These are the situations involving claims between the corporate actors (i.e. executives, shareholders and directors) and claims between those actors and the corporation itself. Here, different considerations seem to apply. First, internal affairs of corporations tend to be excluded by the various international statutes aiming to harmonise the applicable law rules.[3] Second, there is a clear tendency of the rules to adhere to a single connecting factor (such as the place of incorporation or corporate headquarters with some further constitutional implications[4]) to determine the question of the applicable law. Thirdly, there is a clear tendency of rejecting the party autonomy principle in this sphere according to which corporate actors are not free to determine the applicable law to govern their dispute.[5]
One of the neglected frameworks for addressing the external/internal affairs distinction relates to the classical corporate law theory on the nature of corporations and the relationships within the corporate structure. Thus, the classical vision of corporations perceives a corporation as an artificial entity that places the state at the very centre of the corporate creation, existence and activity.[6] Another, perhaps contradictory vision, challenges the artificial nature of corporation. It views corporation as an independent moral actor what dissects its existence from the originating act of incorporation.[7] Lastly, the third vision of corporation evaluates the corporate existence from the internal point of view by focusing on the bundle/nexus of contracts within the corporate structure.[8]
One could argue that an exercise of tackling the various theories of corporations could provide an invaluable tool for a better understanding of the internal/external division and subsequently shed light on the question of applicable law rules. Thus, for example, the traditional insistence of choice-of-law to equalise between corporations and private individuals seems to correlate with the ‘personality’ vision of corporation. On a related note, the insistence of the choice-of-law doctrine on a single connecting factor that denies party autonomy seems to be at odds with the nexus-contract theory and aligns with the traditional artificial entity theory of the corporation.
From this perspective, placing this question within the conceptual framework of corporate law could enable us to grasp the paradigmatic nature of the division and contemplate on whether the various suggestions for reform in the area of choice-of-law rules applicable to corporations do not just correlate with the underlying concerns and rationales of private international law/conflict of laws, but also those of corporate law.
I have tackled these (and other) matters in my recent article published in the 45 (3) Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 469-530 (2021) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3905751.
[1] See eg Regulation 864/2007, on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II), 2007 O.J. (L 199) 40 (EC), art 4 (1).
[2] See eg Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts, 2015.
[3] See eg Regulation 864/2007, on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II), 2007 O.J. (L 199) 40 (EC), art 1 (2) (f).
[4] See eg Case C-212/97, Centros Ltd. v. Erhvervs-og Selskabsstyrelsen, 1999 E.C.R. I-1459, 2 C.M.L.R. 551 (1999).
[5] See eg Hague Principles, Commentaries, 1.27-1.29.
[6] See eg Dartmauth College v Woodward 17 U.S. 518, 636 (1819)
[7] See eg Peter A French, ‘Responsibility and the Moral Role of Corporate Entities’, in Business as Humanity (Thomas J Donaldson and RE Freeman eds, 1994) 90.
[8] Of course, the distinction between the above-mentioned three theories is not sharp and variations and overlaps have been suggested over the years in the corporate law literature.
News
GEDIP Position paper on Parenthood
The European Group for Private International Law (GEDIP) has recently adopted a Position paper on the Proposal for a Council Regulation in matters of Parenthood.
The Group welcomes the EU’s intention to legislate in this field, since parenthood is a status from which persons derive numerous rights and obligations. However, the Group is of the opinion that there are important shortcomings in the Proposal due to the narrow perspective taken and an insufficient consideration of the legal complexities concerning parenthood in cross-border situations. It therefore encourages a reconsideration of the Proposal in the light of its observations.
Virtual Workshop (in English) on January 9: Jie (Jeanne) Huang on Can Private Parties Contract out of the Hague Service Convention?
On Tuesday, January 9, 2024, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its 40th monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00-12:30 (CET). Jie (Jeanne) Huang (University of Sydney Law School) will speak, in English, about the topic
2nd Postgraduate Law Conference of the Centre for Private International Law 6 May 2024
The Centre for Private International Law (CPIL) of the University of Aberdeen is pleased to announce that it is now accepting is now accepting submissions for the 2nd Postgraduate Law Conference of the Centre for Private International Law which will take place online on 6 May 2024.