Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T06:03:02.460Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ousting Jurisdiction and the European Conventions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2017

Richard Fentiman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Brussels and Lugano Conventions together create a common European regime for regulating jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. This was never intended to replace entirely the equivalent rules of national law, and local rules conferring jurisdiction generally govern if the defendant is not domiciled in a Contracting State. But it remains unclear when, if at all, national rules for declining jurisdiction may be employed if a court’s competence derives from the European regime.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 3 , 2000 , pp. 107 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Brussels Convention will be superseded from 1 March 2002 (save in Denmark) by Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, OJ 2001 L 12/1 (familiarly, the ‘Brussels I Regulation’).

2 Equivalent rules relating to matrimonial matters are contained in Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, OJ 2000 L 160/19 (the ‘Brussels II Regulation’). Although not directly this paper’s concern, the following discussion is as relevant mutatis mutandis to the European mat rimonial regime.

3 Art. 4.

4 Following The Spiliada [1987] AC 460 (HL).

5 Art. 4.

6 Sarrio SA v. Kuwait Investment Authority [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 113 (CA); Haji-loannou v. Frangos [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 337 (CA).

7 Re Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd. [1992] Ch 72 (CA).

8 The literature is extensive. See, in particular: Briggs, A. and Rees, P. Civil jurisdiction and Judgments, (2nd edn. London, LLP, 1997), 162 Google Scholar et seq.; Cheshire and North, Private International Law 13th edn. (London, Butterworths, 1999), 262 Google ScholarPubMed et seq.; Collins, , Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (London, Butterworths, 1983), 97 Google Scholar; Dicey, and Morris, , The Conflict of Laws 13th edn. (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2000), 393–394 Google Scholar; Droz, G. La compe tence judiciaire et l’effet des jugements dans la CEE (Paris, Dalloz, 1972), para. 164 Google Scholar; Gaudemet-Tallon, H. Les Conventions de Bruxelles et de Lugano 2nd edn. (1996), paras. 75, 84, 93, 11Google Scholar; Hartley, T.C. Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1984), 77 Google Scholar; Kaye, P. Civil Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Aldershot, Dartmouth, 1987), 1244—1245Google Scholar; O’Malley, S. & Layton, A. European Civil Practice (London, Sweet 8c Maxwell, 1989), 30-31Google Scholar; Geimer, , in Tebbens, H., Kennedy, T. and Kohler, C. (eds.) Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments in Europe (London, Butterworths, 1992)Google Scholar; Jayme, ibid.; Mennie, in Jayme, E. (ed.) Ein internationals Zivilverfahrensrecht für Gesamteuropa (C.F. Müller, 1992)Google Scholar; North, in Nouveaux itinéraires en droit, Hommage à Francois Rigaux, (Brussels, Bruylant, 1993), 373; Tebbens, , in Sumampouw, M. & Barnhoorn, L.A.N.M. (eds.) Law and Reality: Essays on National and International Procedural Law in Honour of Voskuil (The Hague, Nijhoff, 1992), 47 Google Scholar; Collins, , “Forum non conveniens and the Brussels Convention” 106 (1990) LQR 535 Google Scholar; Gaudemet-Tallon, , “Le ‘forum non conveniens’, une menace pour la convention de Bruxelles?” (1991) Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 491 Google Scholar; Briggs, , “Forum non conveniens and the Brussels Convention Again” 107 (1991) LQR 180 Google Scholar, “Spiliada and the Brussels Convention” (1991) LMCLÇJ 10; North, “The Brussels Convention and Forum Non Conveniens” 12 IPRax 183 (1992); Fentiman, , “Jurisdiction, Discretion and the Brussels Convention” (1993) Cornell Int. LJ 59 Google Scholar; Hogan, , “The Brussels Convention, Forum Non Conveniens and the Connecting Factor Problem” (1995) ELRev 471 Google Scholar; Kennett, , “Forum non conveniens in Europe” 54 (1995) CLJ 552 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beernaert, and Coibon, , “La doctrine du forum (non) conveniens—Reconciliation avec le texte de la Convention de Bruxelles” Journal des Tribunaux, No 5970, 20 May 2000 Google Scholar.

9 [1992] Ch 72 (CA), overruling S & W Berisford v. New Hampshire Insurance Co. [1990] 3 WLR 988; Arkwright Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bryanston Insurance Co. Ltd. [1990] 3 WLR 705; Briggs, above n 8; Collins, above n 8; Hartley, , “Forum non conveniens in Europe” (1992) 17 ELRev 553 Google Scholar; Kaye, , “The EEC Judgments Convention and the Outer World: Goodbye to Forum non conveniens?” (1992) JBL 47 Google Scholar.

10 At 97.

11 OJ 1992 C 219/4.

12 Ace Insurance SA v. Zurich Insurance Company [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 618 (CA); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Novo Nordisk A/S [2000] 1 I L Pr 73 (CA); see also, The Po [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 206 (CA).

13 The Nile Rhapsody [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 382 (CA).

14 [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 618 (CA).

15 [2000] 1 WLR 1545 (HL).

16 Case C-412/98 [2000] 3 WLR 1625 (ECJ); see, Muchlinski, , “Corporations in International Litigation: Problems of Jurisdiction and the UK Asbestos Cases” 50 (2001) ICLQ 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Interestingly, perhaps significantly, Group ]osi was not cited on the Harrods point in Ace Insurance.

17 See also, Fentiman, above n 8 at 84, 94 et seq.; Kennett, above n 8 at 552.

18 A view apparently accepted by Cheshire and North, above n 8 at 264.

19 An argument apparently accepted by counsel, but not considered, in Ace insurance SA v. Zurich Insurance. See, Droz, above n 8; O’Malley & Layton, above n 8 at 30-31; Gaudemet-Tallon, above n 8 at paras. 75, 84, 93, 111; Kennen, above n 8 at 564 et seq.

20 Re Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd., above n 7; Jenard Report, OJ 1979 C 59, 3, 7, 13, 15.

21 Rejected in Sinochem international Oil Co. Ltd. v. Mobil Sales and Supply Corp. (No 2) [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 758, and (implicitly) in Eli Lilly and Co v. Novo Nordisk AIS, above n 12; see, Cheshire & North, above n 8 at 265; Fentiman, above n 8 at 95.

22 Fentiman above n 8 at 95-96; Kennett, above n 8 at 568-569.

23 As argued unsuccessfully in Ace Insurance SA v. Zurich Insurance Co., above n 12; see, North, above n 8 at 183.

24 Such as Art. 5(1), or 5(3).

25 See, Fentiman above n 8 at 85 et seq.

26 Ace Insurance SA v. Zurich Insurance Co., above n 12 at 626.

27 S & W Berisford plc v. New Hampshire Insurance Co [1990] 3 WLR 688, 702.

28 Arkwright Mutual Insurance Co v. Bryanston Insurance Co Ltd, above n 9 at 720.

29 Ace Insurance SA v. Zurich Insurance, above n 12 at 627.

30 International Credit and Investment Co. v. Adham [1999] I L Pr 302 (CA).

31 Supported by Hartley, above n 8 at 77; Collins, above n 8 at 97; Kaye, above n 8 at 1244-1245; Collins above n 8 at 536.

32 Jenard Report, above n 20 at 3-8.

33 And echoed, without reference to Article 220, in the Preamble to the Lugano Convention.

34 Above n 20 at 15.

35 Cheshire & North, above n 8 at 264-266

36 Accepted in S & W Berisford plc v. New Hampshire Insurance Co. [1990] QB 631, 701, but rejected in Harrods.

37 S & W Bertsford v. New Hampshire insurance Co., above n 9, 700; Arkwright Mutual insurance Co. v. Bryanston insurance Co. Ltd., above n 9 at 712-713.

38 OJ 1979 C 59/71, para. 176.

39 Case C-387/98, [2000] ECR 1-9337.

40 At para. 19.

41 Ibid.

42 Case C-178/83 Firma P v. Firma K [1984] ECR 3033.

43 Art. 17.

44 Art. 16.

45 By Droz and others; see n 19 above.

46 As in Harrods itself. See also Ace Insurance SA v. Zurich Insurance, above n 12; consid ered below.

47 See further, Fentiman, above n 8 at 88-94.

48 Banco Atlantico SA v. British Bank of the Middle East [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 504, 510 (CA).

49 See Fentiman, above n 8 at 94-95.

50 Although this may be a factor in the exercise of discretion: De Dampierre v. De Dampierre [1988] AC 92 (HL).

51 The position is classically stated in The Eleftheria [1970] P 94, 100.

52 British South Africa Co. v. Cia. de Mocambique [1893] AC 602 (HL).

53 Proposed in O’Malley & Layton, above n 8 at 30-31.

54 Schlosser Report, above n 38 at paras. 76-78.

55 Above n 38 at para. 176.

56 See above, Part II.A(1)

57 Case C-387/98, [2000] ECR 1-9337.

58 It was rejected in Sinochem International Oil Co. Ltd. v. Mobil Sales and Supply Corp. (No 2) [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 758, and (implicitly) in Eli Lilly and Co v. Novo Nordisk A/S, above n 12.

59 Re Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd., above n 7; Jenard Report, above n 20 at 3, 7, 13, 15.

60 Schlosser Report, above n 38, paras. 76–78.

61 Cf. Jenard Report, above n 20 at 14.

62 Case G-t 12/98 Croup Josi Reinsurance Co SA v. UGIC [2000] 3 WLR 1625 (ECJ).

63 See, Fentiman, above n 8 at 95-96; Kennett, above n 8 at 568-569.

64 Case C-178/83 Firma P v. Firma К [1984] ECR 3033.

65 Ace Insurance SA v. Zurich Insurance Co, above n 12.

66 Sarrio SA v. Kuwait Investment Authority, above n 6 at 123; The Xin Yang [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 217, 221-222.

67 Haji-loannou v. Frangos, above n 6 at 348.

68 Sarrio SA v. Kuwait investment Authority, above n 6 at 123; The Xin Yang, above n 66 at 217, 221-222; Haji-loannou v. f rangos, above n 6 at 348.

69 Above n 12. The decision in Ace is consistent with that in Eli Lilly and Co v. Novo Nordisk A/S, above n 12, (Danish defendant; alternative forum in New Jersey), in which Harrods was approved, although the argument from collateral effects was not considered. Surprisingly, it was assumed in Ace that the question had been answered in Eli Lilly.

70 Arguably, jurisdiction also existed under Art. 5(1), but the point was not argued.

71 Above n 12 at 626.

72 Case C-412/98 [2000] 3 WLR 1625 (ECJ); significantly perhaps, Group Josi was not relied upon in the present context in Ace. It was cited peripherally to establish that Ace was domiciled in Belgium under Art. 8 of the Lugano Convention.

73 [2000] 1 WLR 1545 (HL).

74 Above at 1562.

75 1971 Protocol on interpretation, Article 3; see, Fentiman, above n 8 at 83.

76 As apparently did the House of Lords in Harrods.

77 Above n 12 at 626.

78 Above n 1.

79 See generally, Kohler, “Interrogations sur les sources du droit international privé europeen après le traité d’Amsterdam” (1999) Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 3; Israel, J. “Conflicts of Law and the EC after Amsterdam: A Change for the Worse?” 7 (2000) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

80 See recital 6, and the Explanatory Memorandum, para. 3.

81 Or by the Lugano Convention.

82 OJ 1999 C 376, para. 1.

83 As in Art. 4.

84 Recital 1.