Jurisdiction Flashcards Preview

International Private Law > Jurisdiction > Flashcards

Flashcards in Jurisdiction Deck (42):

What are the relevant instruments?

Brussels bis I Regulation.
Logano Convention 2007.
1982 Act - sch4,8,9


What is the scope of the Brussels bis I Regulation?

- civil and commercial matters
- no revenue, custom, administration


LTU v Eurocontrol

- concerned a claim by Eurocontrol held to be outwith regulation scope
- Eurocontrol was created by international treaty
- ECt seems to establish that public law matters are excluded from the scope of the Convention


Land Berlin v Sapir

- Claim made by public body
- Action for recovery of payment under state compensatory scheme
- Held not to be a public law matter, more like a civil claim

- pre-condition of bringing cases together is that all defenders must have EU domicile


Daniel v Foster

Action raised in Dumbartonshire. Man claimed lack of jurisdiction - primarily lived in Sussex.

- having regard to nature - he was domicile in Dumbarton
- 2 jurisdictional domiciles


Peters v ZNAV

Special jurisdiction: contract.

- association of companies formed in Netherlands sued German company owing them money
- Held that agreement to be part of association is a contract


Klienwort Benson v City of Glasgow DC

- plaintiff was a bank owing money to Glasgow council
- action to recover money - contract was void on basis that Glasgow council had acted ultra vires when they entered contract
- Held that action did not relate to contract
- justiciable in court of domicile


Be Bloos v Bouyer

- dispute must be about particular obligation not whole contract
- jurisdiction not applicable if concerns more than 1 obligation, unless same state


Bank of Scotland v Seitz

No place of performance specified. Contractual dispute between German and Scottish companies.

- Scots law governed contract so it follows that Scots law will apply


Car Trim Gmbh v KeySafety Systems

- Italian and German company
- Held to be sale of goods contract


Color Drack Gmbh v Lexx Int.

- Austria, German company
- German company supply goods to Austrian company.
- multiple areas of supply
- Austrian courts had jurisdiction - any place could hear action in Austria


Wood Floor Solutions v Silva Trada SA

- Luxembourg company in breach of Austrian
- Austrian company - activities in different countries
- main provision = Austrian = jurisdiction


Rehder v Air Baltic Corp C

- where more than one court has jurisdiction, party can chose most convenient court to hear dispute


Bier case

Discharge of waste material (France) caused loss to horticultural land (Netherlands).

- Held that action for damages could be raised in either place
- Plaintiff can chose place of action where resultant harm and place giving rise to damage are not the same


Dumez France SA v Hessiche Landesbank

- Rhine case does not apply where claimant claims loss suffered through others
- Loss must be suffered by direct victim
- French company attempted to claim damages from German bank who had provided poor advice to subsidiary German companies who went bust


Zuid-Chemie BV

- Dutch company bought defective goods in Belgium brought back to Netherlands
- Netherlands was place where damage occured
- This was where attempt to use materials was used


Shevill v Presse Alliance SA

- Rhine principle: defamation could be claimed in France or Eng
- France - damages for reputation everywhere
- England - only damages in England (disincentive)


Kainz v Pantherwerke (bike)

- Held: where manufacturer makes defective product, place where product manufactured could hear action
- German manufacturers had jurisdiction even though incident occured in Austria


SAR Schotte Gmbh v Parfums

- suing agency/branch/establishment art7(5)
- German company merely extentsion of French company
- de facto branch of main French company


Courtaulds Clothing Brands Ltd v Knowles

- pursuer tried to sue "one person" business at their business address as "other establishment"
- court rejected this argument


Freeport Plc v Olle Arnoldsson

- different nature of action does not preclude application of connected jurisdiction
- contract and tort actions against English and Swedish companies could be heard together
- as judgements could be contradictory


Benincasa v Dentalkit Srl (art17)

- point of contract related to his would be running of the shop
- could not be regarded as consumer


Gruber v Baywa AG

- tiles purchased to re-roof dwelling house also used partly for farming
- where dual purpose relates to trade/profession


Prostar Management v Twaddle

- could not be regarded as consumer case
- footballer & management agreement
- agreement concerned trade of pro footballer


Semple v Quayle

- solicitor raised proceedings against client in Sco
- former client moved to Eng. - rejected claim as consumer
- held: depended on reasons client wanted advice/representation from solicitors


Pammer case

- e-commerce activity must be directed to state where consumer is based
- must be a link between consumer and member state


Muhlleitner v Yusulfi

- Austrian consumer online search German retailer
- telephone no. international dialling code
- rule not limited to distance contracts


Webb v Webb

- concerned flat purchased by England in France for son
- property held in trust
- Ect held: this involved a personal claim not a right in rem


Rosler v Rottwinkel

- tenant must be natural person
- landlord/tenant domicile same Regulation state


Examples of exclusive jurisdiction.

Rights in rem immoveable property: courts have jurisdiction no matter defenders domicile

Tenancies: courts where defender is domicile - natural person, tenant/landlord same reg state

Companies: where association has its seat

IP: where application takes place/deemed to take place

Enforcement of judgments: courts where judgement has been or is to be enforced


Barratt Int. Resorts Ltd v Martin

- action raised in Sco regarded property management in Spain
- dispute was not about real right in immoveables
- CoS in Sco had jurisdiction


AS Autoteile Service

- Dispute was about liability, not enforcing judgement
- enforcement of judgements is narrowly interpreted


Examples of protective jurisdiction?

Brussels bis I Regulation.

- insurance (art 10 - 16)
- employment (art 20-23)
- consumer (art 17 - 19)


What is a prorogation clause?

Brussels bis I art25.

- presumption that chosen court has exclusive jurisdiction in relation to dispute


Meeth v Glacetal Sarl

- split jurisdiction clause is acceptable for exclusive jurisdiction
- Ger and French companies
- sue where client domicile


MSG case

- oral shipping contract
- Ger sent written letter stating exclusive jurisdiction
- later prorogation clause was valid as French company had not objected


'Italian torpedo' case

- Italian court accepted proceedings despite exclusive jurisdiction clause Austria
- Ect held court first seised rule applied
- Judgement clearly wrong


Drouout Assurances SA v CMI

- action arising from sinking ship
- Held: yes same action: same substance
- insurers stand in defeat of person granting insurance
- Netherlands and France


Owusu v Jackson

- non-domiciled Eng. hired Jamaica holiday house
- Jamaica most appropriate court
- Ect held: this was EU case because one of defendants domicile in EU country


Lennon v Scottish Daily Record

- defamation claim in England
- England argued Scotland courts better to hear
- plea rejected
- case had more connections to Scotland


Sim v Robinow

- although both companies resident in SA, Sco courts more competent to hear


Spiliada Maritime Corp.

- England refused plea of forum non conveniens
- in this case, fully recognised doctrine in England