foreign jurisdiction Flashcards
(41 cards)
when do you consider jurisdiction?
AT THE BEGINNING
if C (pre-action) - which country’s courts will you issue proceedings
if D - consider whether you will submit to jurisdiction or not (acknowledgement/defence)
Regulations - do C/D have to be domicile in the EU?
NO
in 2015 - art.24 was changed to add ‘regardless of domicile’ so now neither C or D have to be domicile
EXAM STRUCTURE - REGULATION
apply this first (before CL)
ONE - does the regulation apply?
TWO - do the english and welsh courts have jurisdiction? (if no - do NOT go on to CL or step 3)
THREE - English and Welsh courts accept jurisdiction? (may or may not accept or WILL if art.29/30 doesn’t apply)
REMEMBER: CONCLUDE EACH STEP
EU Regulation - when did it come into force
10 Jan 2015
STEP ONE: DOES THE REGULATION APPLY?
- Is there an international element? (“Yes the defendant is based abroad”)
2. Material Scope? PART A: - "connection" with EU MS - D's domicile - ex. jurisdiction - choice
PART B:
- type of claim
- civil/com
- not excluded
- Temporal scope
- art.66
- CF issued on or after 10th Jan 2015 (‘instituted’)
STEP TWO: does english and welsh court have jurisdiction
order of priority:
- exclusive jurisdiction (art.24) - e.g. ownership of land (but not damage to land bc that isn’t in rem)
- submission (art.26) - modified in ‘weaker party’ cases
- choice (art.25) - modified in ‘weaker party’ cases
- domicile or special jurisdiction (art.4, art.7, art.8)
- domicile = D friendly
- special = C friendly
- can only use special jurisdiction rules if D domiciled in EU MS
go bottom up in exam
if art.24,25,26 don’t apply - 1 liner saying it doesn’t apply
step three - will the english courts accept jurisdiction?
art. 29 - MUST STAY (of its own motion)
- if same cause of action, same parties
- prevent parallel proceedings
art. 30 - MAY STAY
- related actions
- what constitutes ‘related’ depends on circumstances + discretion of the court
- related if ‘expedient’ to hear/determine them together and avoid risk of irreconcilable judgements resulting from seperate proceedings
art.32 - court deemed first seized when document instituting proceedings is received by the court + service if req + C gets on with steps required (in E&W - this would be issue CF and press on with service)
COMMON LAW - PROCEDURE
ONE OF THESE 3 OPTIONS:
ONE - PRESENCE
TWO - SUBMISSION
THREE - PERMISSION FROM COURT
presence (D inside jurisdiction) - CL procedure
Proceedings (CF) served on foreign D within the jurisdiction
How?
- serve english CF on D
- D can be in jurisdiction temporarily or permanently
- D/cause of action = degree of connection with E&W
D may contest
- D can make app requesting court stay proceedings because E&W not ‘forum conveniens’
- court has discretion to stay because of this
- BOP on D
- D must show another jurisdiction that is clearly/distinctly more appropriate (otherwise request should be refused)
Maharanee v Wildensteine
D in jurisdiction 1 day each year for Ascot races
C served on D whilst D physically present within jurisdiction
= effective service (despite D having no other connection with the jurisdiction)
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v Actien-Gesellschaft
D was at a trade fair in London for 9 days
= D present in the jurisdiction (carrying on business in jurisdiction and capable of being served personally)
[predates CPR but still good law)
submission - CL procedure
D submits to jurisdiction of courts of england and wales
how?
- D appoints agent to accept CF (e.g. solicitor instructed to accept service, NB. if just instructing solicitor for general advice, that is not enough)
- enter appearance (i.e. take a step, e.g. submit defence
(so be clear if you don’t want to submit - do nothing more than AOS within time limit and apply under CPR 11 for declaration that E&W court lacks jurisdiction to hear dispute)
Williams & Glyn’s Bank v Astro
appearing in proceedings to contest jurisdiction does not itself constitute submission to the jurisdiction
permission from court - CL procedure (what is it)
Courts of England and Wales give C permission to serve proceedings on foreign defendant out of jurisdiction (CPR 6.36, 23)
How? 3 step test:
- Jurisdictional gateway
- reasonable prospect of success
- E&W is proper place to bring claim (BOP on C)
- CONCLUSION
permission from court (CL procedure)
- JURISDICTIONAL GATEWAY
TORT (6B PD 3.9(1))
CONTRACT (6B PD 3.1(6), (7))
NECESSARY OR PROPER PARTY (6B PD 3.1(3), (4))
- for other people
permission from court (CL procedure)
- reasonable prospect of sucess
CPR 6.36(1)(b) - low threshold
- equated to prospect of success needed to resist summary judgement (De Molestina v Ponton)
permission from court (CL procedure)
- e&w is the proper place to bring claim
BOP ON C (CPR 6.37(3))
- court’s discretion to refuse permission if E&W not proper place
- two step test
ONE - proper forum? (spiliada factors)
TWO - substantial justice reason for case to be heard in England anyway
FORUM CONVENIENS (‘NATURAL FORUM’)
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex
- Residence/place of defendant
- Availability of witnesses – fly out?
- Location of experts – if tort case, doctors in UK?
- Cost/delay/inconvenience to proceedings
- Governing law/applicable law – BUT E&W court can apply other law
- Local knowledge – will this help?
- Where all the stuff happened?
SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE REQUIRES CASE TO BE HELD IN E&W anyway? (if not natural forum)
Consider:
• Availability of legal aid in 1 jurisdiction but not the other?
• Risks of assassination?
• Risk of trumped up charges?
• Lack of fair trial?
• Risk of improper government interference in a different jurisdiction?
Bier v Mines de Potasse
REGULATION - SPECIAL JURISDICTION
place ‘harmful event occurred’ expanded
- where tort was committed
- OR where damage was sustained
art.8(1) co-defendants
SPECIAL JURISDICTION PROVISION
- sued in courts where co-defendant is domiciled
- if claims so closely connected it is expedient to hear and determine them together
- Sue D2 as co-defendant where you’re suing D1
WEAKER PARTY PROVISIONS - background
Regulation contains:
• Exclusions (matters expressly excluded from its scope)
• Exceptions (rules which apply as an exception to general provision of art.4)
Some contractual relationships = characterised by marked imbalance of power (weaker party needs special protections)
general rule for weaker parties
Weaker party (insured/consumer/employee) = can only be sued in Regulation MS where they are domiciled
Stronger party (insurer/vendor/employer) = can be sued in Regulation MS in which weaker party is domiciled (or where employee carries out its work)
consumer contracts
art. 17 - consumer contracts
art. 18 - consumer can bring proceedings against other party to contract (See list)
art. 19 - choice of jurisdiction clauses with consumer are only valid if