Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T23:36:29.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND THE BRUSSELS I REGULATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2019

Uglješa Grušić
Uglješa Grušić*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, University College, London, u.grusic@ucl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines how the jurisdictional rules of the recast of the Brussels I Regulation, namely the rules of exclusive jurisdiction for immovable property and company law and governance matters and the rules of special jurisdiction for contracts and torts, deal with unjust enrichment claims and issues concerning unjust enrichment. It also asks whether a new special jurisdiction rule for unjust enrichment should be added to the Regulation.

Keywords

private international lawconflict of lawsjurisdictionunjust enrichmentrestitutionBrussels I Regulation Recast
Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 68 , Issue 4 , October 2019 , pp. 837 - 868
Copyright
Copyright © The Author (2019). Published by Cambridge University Press for the British Institute of International and Comparative Law 

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.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank Professor Charles Mitchel FBA QC (Hon) and two anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

1 Zweigert, K and Kötz, H, An Introduction to Comparative Law (Weir, Tony trans, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press 1998) ch 38Google Scholar.

2 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [2012] OJ L351/1, replacing Regulation No 44/2001 [2001] OJ L12/1.

3 Brussels I Regulation Recast art 7(1).

4 ibid art 7(2).

5 Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) [2007] OJ L199/40; Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) [2008] OJ L177/6.

6 For unjust enrichment, see Rome II Regulation art 10.

7 <https://www.hcch.net/en/projects/legislative-projects/judgments>.

8 Case C-366/13 Profit Investment SIM SpA v Ossi ECLI:EU:C:2016:282, [2016] 1 WLR 3832; Case C-102/15 Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich ECLI:EU:C:2016:607, [2016] 5 CMLR 14; Case C-185/15 Kostanjevec v F&S Leasing GmbH ECLI:EU:C:2016:763, [2017] 4 WLR 7; Case C-417/15 Schmidt v Schmidt ECLI:EU:C:2016:881, [2017] ILPr 6.

9 [1999] 1 AC 153.

10 Siemens (n 8), AG opinion [61].

11 von Bar, C, Clive, E and Schulte-Nölke, H (eds), Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law: Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) (Sellier 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Case C-294/92 [1994] ECR I-1717.

13 (n 9).

14 [1992] 2 AC 1 (HL).

15 Braithwaite, J, ‘Thirty Years of Ultra Vires: Local Authorities, National Courts and the Global Derivatives Markets’ (2018) 71 CLP 369Google Scholar.

16 Gretton, G, ‘Proprietary Issues’ in Johnston, D and Zimmermann, R, Unjustified Enrichment: Key Issues in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge University Press 2002) 571Google Scholar; Visser, D, ‘Unjustified Enrichment’ in Smits, JM (ed), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law (2nd edn, Edward Elgar 2012) 947, 956Google Scholar; Zimmermann, R, The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (Oxford University Press 1996) Ch 26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zweigert and Kötz (n 1) 559–61.

17 Birks, P, An Introduction to the Law of Restitution (Clarendon 1985) 57–73Google Scholar; Birks, P, ‘Restitution and Resulting Trusts’ in Goldstein, SR (ed), Equity and Contemporary Legal Developments (Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1992) 335Google Scholar; Chambers, R, Resulting Trusts (Clarendon 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Mee, J, ‘The Past, Present, and Future of Resulting Trusts’ (2017) 70 CLP 189Google Scholar; Swadling, W ‘Explaining Resulting Trusts’ (2008) 124 LQR 72Google Scholar.

19 Schlechtriem, P, Coen, C and Hornung, R, ‘Restitution and Unjust Enrichment in Europe’ [2001] ERPL 377, 388Google Scholar.

20 This rule is subject to an exclusion for tenancies of immovable property concluded for temporary private use for a maximum period of six months.

21 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [1972] OJ L299/32.

22 Zimmermann (n 16) 29–30.

23 (n 12).

24 Draft Common Frame of Reference (n 11) art 1:102 in Book VII; Siemens (n 8), AG opinion [61].

25 Webb v Webb (n 12) [14]. The only exception are cases concerning tenancies of immovable property.

26 ibid [15].

27 ibid.

28 ibid [16]–[17].

29 ibid [18].

30 Harris, J, ‘Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Transnational Trust Litigation’ in Hayton, D (ed), The International Trust (3rd edn, Jordan Publishing 2011) 3, 14Google Scholar.

31 Briggs, A, ‘Trusts of Land and the Brussels Convention’ (1994) 110 LQR 526, 530Google Scholar; Peel, E, ‘Jurisdiction under the Brussels Convention’ in Rose, F (ed), Restitution and the Conflict of Laws (Mansfield Press 1995) 1, 35Google Scholar.

32 Kaye, P, ‘Creation of an English Resulting Trust of Immovables Held to Fall outside Article 16(1) of the European Judgments Convention’ [1995] IPRax 286, 289Google Scholar.

33 Briggs, A and Rees, P, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (4th edn, Informa 2005) para 2.44Google Scholar.

34 [2017] UKSC 6, [2017] AC 424 [15].

35 McFarlane, B, The Structure of Property Law (Hart 2008)Google Scholar; McFarlane, B and Stevens, R, ‘The Nature of Equitable Property’ (2010) 4 Journal of Equity 1Google Scholar; McFarlane, B and Stevens, R, ‘What's Special about Equity? Rights against Rights’ forthcoming in Samet-Porat, I, Smith, H and Klimchuk, D (eds), Philosophical Foundations of the Law of Equity (Oxford University Press 2019)Google Scholar.

36 McFarlane and Stevens, ‘The Nature of Equitable Property’ (n 35) 1.

37 ibid 27.

38 Gardner, S, ‘“Persistent Rights” Appraised’ in Hopkins, N (ed), Modern Studies in Property Law – Volume 7 (Hart 2013) 321Google Scholar; Jaffey, P, ‘Explaining the Trust’ (2015) 131 LQR 377Google Scholar; Penner, JE, ‘The (True) Nature of a Beneficiary's Equitable Proprietary Interest under a Trust’ (2014) 27 Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 473CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zaccaria, EC, ‘The Nature of the Beneficiary's Right under a Trust: Proprietary Right, Purely Personal Right or Right against a Right?’ (2019) 135 LQR 460Google Scholar.

39 [1991] 1 WLR 1410.

40 [1992] ILPr 374 [13] (Scott LJ), [15] (Taylor LJ); cf [16] (Nourse LJ).

41 Webb (n 12), AG opinion [24].

42 Case C-438/12 ECLI:EU:C:2014:212, [2015] Ch 140.

43 German Civil Code para 1094(1).

44 Case C-605/14 Komu v Komu ECLI:EU:C:2015:833, [2016] 4 WLR 26 [25]. See also [31].

45 [1979] OJ C59/1 35.

46 [1979] OJ C59/71 para 168.

47 Collins, L (gen ed), Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws (15th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2012)Google Scholar para 23-063; Dickinson, A and Lein, E (eds), The Brussels I Regulation Recast (Oxford University Press 2015)Google Scholar para 8.23 (M Lehmann).

48 MacMillan, C, ‘The European Court of Justice Agrees with Maitland: Trusts and the Brussels Convention’ [1996] Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 125, 129Google Scholar (fn omitted).

49 (n 14).

50 Braithwaite (n 15) 384.

51 (n 9).

52 Brussels I Regulation Recast art 25(5); Deutsche Bank AG v Asia Pacific Broadband Wireless Communications Inc [2008] EWCA Civ 1091, [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 129.

53 Braithwaite (n 15) 387–8 (fns omitted).

54 ibid 388–9.

55 Lomas v JFB Firth Rixson Inc [2010] EWHC 3372 (Ch), [2011] 2 BCLC 120 [5]; <https://www.bis.org/publ/otc_hy1905.htm>.

56 Brussels I Regulation Recast art 25.

57 Banco Santander Totta SA v Companhia de Carris de Ferro de Lisboa SA [2016] EWCA Civ 1267, [2017] 1 WLR 1323; Dexia Crediop SpA v Comune di Prato [2017] EWCA Civ 428, [2017] 1 CLC 969.

58 Cuniberti, G, ‘Choice of Law in Domestic Contracts: Towards a Right to Access Foreign Financial Markets?’ in Watt, H Muir et al. (eds), Global Private International Law: Adjudication without Frontiers (Edward Elgar 2019) 464, 469Google Scholar, fn 66: ‘the architect of the Santander decision, Judge Blair, had participated in the drafting of ISDA's Master Agreements as a financial law specialist. The Santander case was the occasion to provide after-sales services.’

59 Case C-144/10 [2011] ECR I-3961. See also JP Morgan Chase Bank NA v Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts [2010] EWCA Civ 390, [2012] QB 176.

60 R Fentiman [2011] CLJ 513.

61 Strong, T and Lewis, R, ‘Swaps and Capacity – New Recession, Similar Challenges to Liability’ (2011) 4(1) Bankers’ Law 32, 37Google Scholar. Similarly, Marsh, N and Felton, O, ‘Your Place or Mine? The ECJ Brings Clarity to the Rules on Jurisdiction’ (2011) 26 Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law 500Google Scholar; Shine, PM, ‘Support from the English Courts and the European Court of Justice for Jurisdiction Clauses in the ISDA Master Agreement’ (2012) 27 Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation 38, 42Google Scholar.

62 Depfa Bank plc v Provincia di Pisa [2010] EWHC 1148 (Comm), [2010] 2 CLC 478 and [2012] EWHC 687 (Comm), [2012] 1 CLC 569; UBS AG (London Branch) v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig GmbH [2010] EWHC 2566 (Comm), [2010] 2 CLC 499. See also Regione Piemonte v Dexia Crediop SpA [2014] EWCA Civ 1298.

63 Haugesund Kommune v Depfa ACS Bank [2010] EWCA Civ 579, [2012] QB 549.

64 Brussels I Regulation Recast art 4(1).

65 ibid art 7(1).

66 ibid art 7(2).

67 cf ibid art 7(3) on jurisdiction over civil claims for damages or restitution based on acts giving rise to criminal proceedings.

68 Case 34/82 Martin Peters Bauunternehmung GmbH v Zuid Nederlandse Aannemers Vereniging [1983] ECR 987; Case 189/87 Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schröder, Münchmeyer, Hengst and Co [1988] ECR 5565.

69 Kalfelis (n 68); Case C-548/12 Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL and Fräßdorf ECLI:EU:C:2014:148, [2014] QB 753.

70 In Kalfelis (n 68), the Court of Justice did not accept AG Darmon's idea, advanced at [29] of his opinion, of ‘channelling’, according to which a court with jurisdiction under what is now art 7(1) should also have jurisdiction over related non-contractual claims.

71 Case C-26/91 Jakob Handte & Co GmbH v Traitements Mécano-chimiques des Surfaces SA [1992] ECR I-3967 [16].

72 Case C-196/15 Granarolo SpA v Ambrosi Emmi France SA ECLI:EU:C:2016:559, [2016] ILPr 32.

73 Martin Peters (n 68) [13]; Jakob Handte (n 71).

74 Jakob Handte (n 71) [16].

75 Case C-27/02 Engler v Janus Versand GmbH [2005] ECR I-481 [51].

76 Case 9/87 SPRL Arcado v SA Haviland [1988] ECR 1539.

77 Case C-334/00 Fonderie Officine Meccaniche Tacconi SpA v Heinrich Wagner Sinto Maschinenfabrik GmbH (HWS) [2002] ECR I-7357 [22]. cf Brussels I Regulation Recast art 17.

78 Case 38/81 Effer SpA v Kantner [1982] ECR 825; Boss Group Ltd v Boss France SA [1997] 1 WLR 351 (CA).

79 Tesam Distribution Ltd v Schuh Mode Team GmbH [1990] ILPr 149 (CA).

80 Similar questions arise when a party argues that a contract has been frustrated or terminated for another reason, eg breach, duress, undue influence, mistake or even pre-contractual misrepresentation and non-disclosure: Agnew v Lansforsakringsbolagens AB [2001] 1 AC 223 (HL).

81 Profit Investment (n 8); Kostanjevec (n 8); Schmidt (n 8).

82 (n 9).

83 (n 8).

84 ibid [54]. The court referred here to Effer (n 78).

85 (n 8) [55].

86 ibid, AG opinion [68], [70].

87 ibid [69], [77]. See also Kleinwort Benson HL (n 9) 175–7 (Lord Nicholls); Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Glasgow City Council (No 2) [1996] QB 678 (CA), 700–1 (Millett LJ).

88 Profit Investment (n 8), AG opinion [71].

89 ibid [72].

90 ibid [73].

91 Case C-133/11 ECLI:EU:C:2012:664, [2013] QB 523.

92 Profit Investment (n 8), AG opinion [74].

93 ibid [75].

94 ibid [78].

95 ibid [79], [80].

96 ibid [80]. See n 85.

97 Profit Investment (n 8), AG opinion [81].

98 ibid [82]. The AG concluded here that drawing an analogy with art 12(1)(e) of Rome I required ‘the action for restitution [to] be subject to the same jurisdiction as that which governs the contract’. This is plainly wrong. Art 7(1) of the Brussels I Regulation Recast gives jurisdiction to the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question. The law governing a contract under the Rome I Regulation is the law chosen by the parties (art 3) or, in the absence of party autonomy, a law designated by art 4. Art 4 does not use the place of performance as a relevant connecting factor.

99 (n 8).

100 ibid, AG opinion [58].

101 ibid [60].

102 (n 8).

103 ibid [38]. See also ibid [42].

104 (n 9).

105 (n 15).

106 For other explanations, see Stevens, R, ‘Conflict of Laws’ in Birks, P and Rose, F (eds), Lessons of the Swaps Litigation (Mansfield Press 2000) 329, 332Google Scholar.

107 The Court of Appeal had referred to the Court of Justice a question for preliminary ruling on art 5(1) of the Brussels Convention. The Court of Justice declined to give a ruling on the basis that the case arose in the context of an intra-UK dispute under the 1984 Act: Case C-346/93 Kleinwort Benson Ltd v City of Glasgow District Council [1995] ECR I-615.

108 Lords Goff, Clyde and Hutton. Lords Mustill and Nicholls dissenting.

109 Lords Hutton, Mustill and Nicholls.

110 Panagopoulos, G, Restitution in Private International Law (Hart 2000) 206ffGoogle Scholar.

111 (n 9) 167–9 (Lord Goff), 181–2 (Lord Clyde), 195 (Lord Hutton). This approach was also adopted by Leggatt LJ in the Court of Appeal (n 87) 689–91 and Hirst J in the High Court [1993] QB 429, 439–40.

112 (n 9) 181 (Lord Clyde), 195 (Lord Hutton). This was also the approach of Leggatt LJ in the Court of Appeal (n 87) 689–91 and Hirst J in the High Court (n 111) 439–40.

113 (n 9) 174–7 (Lord Nicholls, with whom Lord Mustill agreed). This was also the approach of Roch and Millett LJJ in the Court of Appeal (n 87) 694–6, 699–701.

114 Jakob Handte (n 71) [16].

115 (n 8) [53].

116 Engler (n 75) [51].

117 Fonderie (n 77) [22].

118 Lord Millett wrote, with remarkable prescience, in Millett, P, ‘Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in the Law of Restitution’ in Sood, TK (ed), Current Legal Issues in International Commercial Litigation (Faculty of Law: National University of Singapore 1997) 203, 211Google Scholar, while Kleinwort Benson was in the House of Lords, that ‘It is quite possible that we will be reversed by the House of Lords and vindicated by the European Court of Justice.’

119 (n 8) [55].

120 Kleinwort Benson CA (n 87) 699.

121 Profit Investment (n 8), CJEU judgment [55], [58], AG opinion [80].

122 Fonderie (n 77), opinion of AG Geelhoed [81]–[83].

123 (n 8), AG opinion [78].

124 (n 8).

125 ibid, AG opinion [60].

126 (n 8), AG opinion [82].

127 ibid.

128 Consolidated version of 1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations [1998] OJ C27/34.

129 (n 9) 168 (Lord Goff), 180–1 (Lord Clyde).

130 Rome Convention art 22(1)(b).

131 Lords Goff, Clyde and Hutton. This was also the approach of Leggatt LJ and Hirst J in the lower courts.

132 Lords Clyde and Hutton. This was also the approach of Leggatt LJ and Hirst J in the lower courts.

133 (n 8).

134 (n 8).

135 Similarly, Briggs, A, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (5th edn, Informa 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar para 2.170; Peel, E, ‘Jurisdiction over Restitutionary Claims’ [1998] LMCLQ 22Google Scholar; Virgo, G, ‘Jurisdiction over Unjust Enrichment Claims’ (1998) 114 LQR 386Google Scholar. cf Dickinson, A, ‘Restitution and the Conflict of Laws in the House of Lords’ (1998) 8 RLR 104Google Scholar; Leslie, R, ‘Unjustified Enrichment in the Conflict of Laws’ (1998) 2 Edinburgh Law Review 233CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McGrath, PA, ‘Kleinwort Benson v Glasgow City Council: A Simple Point of Jurisdiction’ (1998) 18 CJQ 41Google Scholar; Panagopoulos (n 110) 210–1; Pitel, SGA, ‘Jurisdiction over Restitutionary Claims’ [1998] CLJ 19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

136 Kleinwort Benson CA (n 87) 700 (Millett LJ).

137 Brussels I Regulation Recast recitals 15, 16. These wider objectives can be taken into account in the interpretation of art 7(1): Profit Investment (n 8), CJEU judgment [53], AG opinion [81].

138 (n 9) 169 (Lord Goff), 184–5 (Lord Clyde), 191 (Lord Hutton).

139 Case C-386/05 Color Drack GmbH v Lexx International Vertriebs GmbH [2007] ECR I-3699; Case C-204/08 Rehder v Air Baltic Corporation [2009] ECR I-6073.

140 Case C-533/07 Falco Privatstiftung and Rabitsch v Weller-Lindhorst [2009] ECR I-3327; Case 14-76 A De Bloos, SPRL v Société en commandite par actions Bouyer [1976] ECR 1497; Case 12-76 Industrie Tessili Italiana Como v Dunlop AG [1976] ECR 1473.

141 (n 8).

142 See Kleinwort Benson CA (n 87) 694–6 (Roch LJ).

143 Peel (n 31) 14–20, 25.

144 (n 8).

145 ibid [39].

146 ibid. See also Kleinwort Benson CA (n 87) 699–701 (Millett LJ); Fawcett, JJ, Harris, J and Bridge, M, International Sale of Goods in the Conflict of Laws (Oxford University Press 2005)Google Scholar para 8.31; Peel (n 135) 25; Peel (n 31) 11–20; Virgo (n 135) 389–90. In Profit Investment (n 8), AG Bot said, somewhat cryptically, at [85] of his opinion, that ‘in the specific case of an action for nullity, the obligation forming the basis of the action is the defining obligation’. In Kleinwort Benson HL (n 9), Lord Nicholls said, at 176, that where the existence of the contract is in dispute, the ‘obligation in question’ refers to the obligation whose existence is in dispute.

147 An analogy can be drawn with the separability doctrine under art 25 of the Brussels I Regulation Recast. Fraud, duress and forgery are examples of defects which can lead to the invalidity of both the main contract and the jurisdiction clause contained in the main contract: Deutsche Bank (n 52) [24].

148 Fonderie (n 77), opinion of AG Geelhoed [83].

149 [2007] EWHC 9 (Ch), [2007] 1 WLR 2489.

150 ibid [26].

151 ibid [27].

152 ibid [28].

153 ibid.

154 ibid.

155 Sharab v Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal Bin Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud [2012] EWHC 1798 (Ch), [2012] 2 CLC 612 [51].

156 Brogsitter (n 69) [25]–[26].

157 Arcado (n 76).

158 Profit Investment (n 8) [55].

159 Strathaird Farms Ltd v GA Chattaway & Co 1993 SLT (Sh Ct) 36; Eddie v Alpa Srl [2000] SLT 1062.

160 Kalfelis (n 68) [17].

161 Case C-51/97 Réunion européenne SA v Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV and the Master of the vessel Alblasgracht V002 [1998] ECR I-6511 [24]. Similarly, Brogsitter (n 69) [27].

162 Jakob Handte (n 71), opinion of AG Jacobs [11]; Fonderie (n 77), opinion of AG Geelhoed [73].

163 Case C-89/91 Shearson Lehmann Hutton Inc v TVB Treuhandgesellschaft für Vermögensverwaltung und Beteiligungen mbH [1993] ECR I-139, opinion of AG Darmon [102]; Case C-341/16 Hanssen Beleggingen BV v Prast-Knipping ECLI:EU:C:2017:551, opinion of AG Øe [31].

164 Briggs, A, Private International Law in English Courts (Oxford University Press 2014)Google Scholar paras 4.236, 4.252, 4.253, 4.256, 4.258 (cf Briggs (n 135) paras 2.190, 2.197); Dickinson and Lein (eds) (n 47) paras 4.80–4.81 (M Lehmann); Hartley, T, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments in Europe (Oxford University Press 2017)Google Scholar paras 8.25, 8.76, 8.138; Peel (n 31) 20–31.

165 Engler (n 75), opinion of AG Jacobs [57]: ‘The category of tort, delict or quasi-delict is not merely negative or residual, but has a positive content.’ See also Case C-603/17 Bosworth v Arcadia Petroleum Ltd ECLI:EU:C:2019:65, opinion of AG Øe [74].

166 Case 21-76 Handelskwekerij GJ Bier BV v Mines de potasse d'Alsace SA [1976] ECR 1735 [16]; Case C-572/14 Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH v Amazon EU Sàrl ECLI:EU:C:2016:286, [2016] ECDR 23 [41].

167 (n 68).

168 Briggs (n 135) para 2.188; Panagopoulos (n 110) 203.

169 Case C-261/90 Reichert v Dresdner Bank AG (No 2) [1992] ECR I-2149, opinion of AG Gulmann 2169.

170 (n 8).

171 Brussels I Regulation Recast art 1(1).

172 (n 8), AG opinion [60].

173 ibid [61].

174 ibid.

175 ibid [62].

176 ibid. The AG relied here on the fact that where charges have been levied by a Member State in a manner incompatible with EU law, the repayment thereof is not premised on any liability on the part of that Member State: Case C-188/95 Fantask A/S ea v Industriministeriet (Erhvervministeriet) [1997] ECR I-6783 [38].

177 In Reichert (n 169), the Court of Justice held that an action under national law, such as the action paulienne in French law, whereby a creditor seeks to set aside a gift of property made by the debtor in a way which the creditor regards as being in fraud of his rights does not come within what is now art 7(2). AG Wahl described the action in question in Reichert as having a ‘quasi-restitutionary nature’: Siemens (n 8), AG opinion [65].

178 Kleinwort Benson (n 9); judgment of the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) of 13 January 1998 in case 7 Ob 375/97s; judgment of the Högsta Domstolen (Supreme Court, Sweden) of 31 August 2009 in case Ö 1900-08 (NJA 2000:49). These cases are cited in Siemens (n 8), AG opinion [67], fn 44. One could add here the judgments of the Corte di cassazione (Supreme Court, Italy) of 27 March 2009, no 7429 and of 29 May 2008, no 14201 and of a court in Bergamo, 21 January 2002, referred to in Beaumont, P et al. (eds), Cross-border Litigation in Europe (Hart 2017) 174Google Scholar, fn 47 (S Bariati et al.).

179 Siemens (n 8), AG opinion [69].

180 ibid [68], [70].

181 ibid [74].

182 ibid [72]. Similarly, Briggs (n 135) para 2.190. One should note, however, that art 2 of the Rome II Regulation defines ‘damage’ as any consequence arising out of tort/delict, unjust enrichment, negotiorum gestio or culpa in contrahendo.

183 See also Brussels I Regulation Recast art 7(4).

184 Siemens (n 8), AG opinion [73].

185 ibid [74].

186 (n 9).

187 ibid 172 (Lord Goff), 177 (Lord Nicholls), 196 (Lord Hutton). Similarly, Kleinwort Benson HC (n 111) 442–3 (Hirst J).

188 ibid 172 (Lord Goff), 177 (Lord Nicholls), 185 (Lord Clyde).

189 ibid 172 (Lord Goff), 177 (Lord Nicholls).

190 ibid 196. Similarly, Kleinwort Benson CA (n 87) 691–2 (Leggatt LJ); Kleinwort Benson HC (n 111) 442–3 (Hirst J).

191 (n 68) [19].

192 This is clear if one considers the wording of the reference for a preliminary ruling: ‘Does [art 7(2)] confer, in respect of an action based on claims in tort and contract and for unjust enrichment, accessory jurisdiction on account of factual connection even in respect of the claims not based on tort?’

193 Dexter Ltd (In Administrative Receivership) v Harley (Times, 2 April 2001); Aspen Underwriting Ltd v Credit Europe Bank NV [2018] EWCA Civ 2590, [2019] 1 Lloyd's Rep 221 [147]–[152]. See also Davenport v Corinthian Motor Policies at Lloyds 1991 SLT 774, 781; Compagnie Commerciale Andre SA v Artibell Shipping Co Ltd (No 1) 1999 SLT 1051, 1059–60.

194 Zweigert and Kötz (n 1) Ch 38.

195 With the exception of a very brief mention of what is now art 7(3) of the Brussels I Regulation Recast in some reports.

196 (n 8), AG opinion [69]. See also Kleinwort Benson HL (n 9) 167 (Lord Goff).

197 A Nuyts, ‘Study on Residual Jurisdiction: Review of the Member States’ Rules Concerning the “Residual Jurisdiction” of Their Courts in Civil and Commercial Matters pursuant to the Brussels I and II Regulations’ (3 September 2007) <http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/news/docs/study_residual_jurisdiction_en.pdf>.

198 Moniteur belge, 27 July 2004, 57344.

199 CPR Practice Direction 6B para 3.1(16).

200 Rome II Regulation art 10; A Chong, ‘Choice of Law for Unjust Enrichment/Restitution and the Rome II Regulation’ (2008) 57 ICLQ 863, 864–72.

201 Zweigert and Kötz (n 1) Ch 38.

202 Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548 (HL); Mitchell, C, Mitchell, P and Watterson, S, Goff & Jones: The Law of Unjust Enrichment (9th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2016)Google Scholar.

203 Hill, J, ‘Jurisdiction in Matters Relating to a Contract under the Brussels Convention’ (1995) 44 ICLQ 591CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brussels I Regulation Recast recitals 15, 16, 21.

204 Chong (n 200) 882, 883, fn 145.

205 Dickinson (n 135) 116; Hartley (n 164) para 8.139; Panagopoulos (n 110) 201–3; Peel (n 31) 23–4.

206 See Hartley, T, ‘Jurisdiction in Tort Claims for Non-physical Harm under Brussels 2012, Article 7(2)’ (2018) 67 ICLQ 987CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

207 In favour of this connecting factor are Hartley (n 164) para 8.139 and Peel (n 31) 23–31.

208 See Siemens (n 8), AG opinion [61].

209 Chong (n 200) 884.

210 Dickinson (n 135) 116; Panagopoulos (n 110) 201–2.

211 Sharab (n 155) [68]; Bazhanov v Fosman [2017] EWHC 3404 (Comm) [85].

212 Briggs (n 135) para 4.81.

213 ISC Technologies Ltd v Guerin [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep 430, 433; Polly Peck International plc v Nadir (No 3), 22 March 1993 (CA); Nycal (UK) Ltd v Lacey [1994] CLC 12, 17; Cecil v Bayat [2010] EWHC 641 (Comm) [115](3), reversed on other grounds in [2011] EWCA Civ 135, [2011] 1 WLR 3086; Sharab (n 155) [69], [72]–[77]; Bazhanov v Fosman (n 211) [85]. See also Zumax Nigeria Ltd v First City Monument Bank Plc [2016] EWCA Civ 567, [2016] 1 CLC 953 [79], [80].

214 In favour of this connecting factor is Peel (n 31) 23–31.

215 Chong (n 200) 885–8.

216 Bazhanov v Fosman (n 211) [76]; Banque Cantonale de Geneve v Polevent Ltd [2015] EWHC 1968 (Comm), [2016] QB 394 [18]; ED&F Man Capital Markets Ltd v Come Harvest Holdings Ltd [2019] EWHC 1661 (Comm) [73]. See also the judgment of a court in Bologna, 9 November 2015, referred to in Beaumont et al. (n 178) 181 (S Bariati et al.).

217 Siemens (n 8), AG opinion [69].