Views
UK Supreme Court in Jalla v Shell: the claim in Bonga spill is time barred
The UK Supreme Court ruled that the cause of action in the aftermath of the 2011 Bonga offshore oil spill accrued at the moment when the oil reached the shore. This was a one-off event and not a continuing nuisance. The Nigerian landowners’ claim against Shell was thus barred by the limitation periods under applicable Nigerian law (Jalla and another v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company and another [2023] UKSC 16, on appeal from [2021] EWCA Civ 63).
On 10 May 2023, the UK Supreme Court has ruled in one of the cases in the series of legal battles started against Shell in the English courts in the aftermath of the Bonga spill. The relevant facts are summarized by the UK Supreme Court as follows at [6] and [7]:
Data on Choice-of-Court Clause Enforcement in US
The United States legal system is immensely complex. There are state courts and federal courts, state statutes and federal statutes, state common law and federal common law. When I imagine a foreign lawyer trying to explain this system to a foreign client, my heart fills with pity.
This feeling of pity is compounded when I imagine this same lawyer trying to advise her client as to whether a choice-of-court clause will be enforced by a court in the United States. The law on this subject is complicated. It is, moreover, not easy to determine how it is applied in practice. Are there differences in clause enforcement rates across the states? Across federal circuits? Do state courts enforce these clauses at the same rate as federal courts? Until recently, there was no data that would allow a foreign lawyer – or a U.S. lawyer, for that matter – to answer any of these questions.
Over the past several years, I have authored or co-authored several empirical articles that seek to answer the questions posed above. This post provides a summary of the data gathered for these articles. All of the cases referenced involve outbound choice-of-court clauses, i.e. clauses that select a jurisdiction other than the one where the suit was filed. Readers interested in the data collection process, the caveats to which the data is subject, or other methodological issues should consult the articles and their appendices. This post first describes state court practice. It then describes federal court practice. It concludes with a brief discussion comparing the two.
Polish Constitutional Court about to review the constitutionality of the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign State?
Written by Zuzanna Nowicka, lawyer at the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights and lecturer at Department of Logic and Legal Argumentation at University of Warsaw
In the aftermath of the judgment of the ICJ of 2012 in the case of the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening) that needs no presentation here (for details see, in particular, the post by Burkhard Hess), by its judgment of 2014, the Italian Constitutional Court recognized the duty of Italy to comply with the ICJ judgment of 2012 but subjected that duty to the “fundamental principle of judicial protection of fundamental rights” under Italian constitutional law (for a more detailed account of those developments see this post on EAPIL by Pietro Franzina and further references detailed there). In a nutshell, according to the Italian Constitutional Court, the fundamental human rights cannot be automatically and unconditionally sacrificed in each and every case in order to uphold the jurisdiction immunity of a foreign State allegedly responsible for serious international crimes.
Since then, the Italian courts have reasserted their jurisdiction in such cases, in some even going so far as to decide on the substance and award compensation from Germany. The saga continues, as Germany took Italy to the ICJ again in 2022 (for the status of the case pending before the ICJ see here). It even seems not to end there as it can be provocatively argued that this saga has its spin-off currently taking place before the Polish courts.
News
Bridging Legal Systems: A Comparative-Empirical Study on the European Account Preservation Order by Dr. Carlos Santaló Goris
Warmest congratulations to Dr. Carlos Santaló Goris on the publication of his book, The Application of the European Account Preservation Order in Germany, Luxembourg and Spain. A Comparative-Empirical Analysis (Nomos, 2025).
This scholarly work offers a timely and much-needed exploration of the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO), the first cross-border civil interim measure at EU level. Conceived to enable the provisional attachment of debtors’ bank accounts across Member States, the EAPO aspires to procedural uniformity. Yet, as this study so lucidly demonstrates, its application remains deeply embedded in national procedural systems, giving rise to significant divergences and legal complexity.
With admirable clarity, analytical depth, and empirical rigour, Dr. Santaló Goris leads the reader through this intricate legal terrain. By examining, in particular, the operation of the EAPO in three distinct jurisdictions – Germany, Luxembourg, and Spain – his manuscript illustrates the practical challenges posed by procedural fragmentation while offering valuable guidance for navigating the instrument across legal systems.
This manuscript stands out as a thoughtful and impactful contribution to the field of European civil procedure. What distinguishes it most is its remarkable ability to bridge legal theory and judicial practice. Through a combination of comparative analysis, stakeholder perspectives, and data-driven insights, it offers a comprehensive and balanced account of how the European Account Preservation Order operates in practice, making it an indispensable resource for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers alike.
Congratulations, Carlos, on this well-deserved accomplishment!
More information on this book is available here.
Webinar on the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention, 30 June & 1 July
|
This research project examines the legal framework for the cross-border protection of children, focusing on the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (‘the 1996 Hague Convention’).
|
The International Committee of the Singapore International Commercial Court: A Transnational Appeal Mechanism
Written by Yip Man (Professor of Law, Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University)
To bolster Singapore’s position as an international dispute resolution hub, the Singapore International Commercial Court (International Committee) Bill[1] was introduced in Parliament on 14 October 2024 to establish the International Committee of the Singapore International Commercial Court (the SICC), a standalone body, to hear prescribed civil appeals and related proceedings from prescribed foreign jurisdictions.[2] The Bill was passed by Parliament on 12 November 2024. The Singapore International Commercial Court (International Committee) Act 2024 (the “International Committee Act”) is uncommenced.[3] Read more