Forum Non Conveniens doctrine – post Brexit applicability in transnational litigation

Roč.30,č.2(2022)

Abstrakt

The article follows the origin of the English forum non conveniens doctrine development in stay proceedings, its alterations, and applicable tests leading to CJEU’s decision in Owusu. Owusu ultimately forbade English courts to stay its proceedings and allow a “more convenient” forum to decide on the dispute merits in cases where the jurisdiction was conferred by the Brussels regime – not only concerning other EU courts but worldwide. With the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, a question appears whether English courts might again exercise this power. If affirmatory, the paper proceeds to assess various applicable, or presumably fitting, instruments, both for allocation of jurisdiction, and recognition and enforcement of judgments – Lugano Convention, Hague Convention 2005, and Hague Convention 2019. The paper also assesses how these instruments might interact with the use of forum non conveniens doctrine.


Klíčová slova:
Forum non conveniens; jurisdiction; enforcement; recognition; Lugano Convention; Hague Convention 2005; Hague Convention 2019; Brexit

Stránky:
285–303
Biografie autora

Lukáš Grodl

Department of International and European Law, Faculty of Law, Masaryk University, Brno

Ph.D. student

Reference

ANTON, A. Private International Law. Edinburgh: W Green & Son Ltd. 1967, 626 p. ISBN 0414000021.

ARZANDEH, A. Forum (non) conveniens in England: past, present, and future. Oxford: Hart, 2019, 157 p., Studies in private international law. ISBN 978-1-78225-640-3.

BELL, A. S. Forum shopping and venue in transnational litigation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, 346 p. Oxford private international law series. ISBN 0-19-924818-4.

BERARD, M. Chapter 6: The Limits to the Parties’ Free Choice of Jurisdiction – Is an Objective Link between the Parties’ Selected Jurisdiction and their Dispute Required? A Review of the Approach of International Instruments and National Courts. In: AFFAKI, B. G., NAÓN, H. A. G. (eds.). Jurisdictional Choices in Times of Trouble, Dossiers of the ICC Institute of World Business Law. Paris: Kluwer Law International; International Chamber of Commerce. 2015, Vol. 12, pp. 84–100.

BRAND, R. A., JABLONSKI, S. R. Forum non conveniens: history, global practice, and future under the Hague convention on choice of court agreements. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007, 342 p., CILE studies. ISBN 978-0-19-532927-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195329278.001.0001

BRIGGS, A. Private International Law. British Yearbook of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, Vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 577–606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bybil/67.1.577

BRIGGS, A. The Death of Harrods: Forum Non Conveniens and the European Court. Law Quarterly Review, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2005, Vol. 121, pp. 535–540.

BRIGGS, A. Civil jurisdiction and judgments. Sixth edition. Abingdon, Oxon: Informa law from Routledge, 2015, 988 p. ISBN 9781138825604.

BRIGGS, A. Civil jurisdiction and judgments. Seventh edition. Abingdon, Oxon: Informa law from Routledge, 2021, 941 p. ISBN 9780367415327.

COLLINS, L. et al. Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2012, 1950 p. ISBN 978-0414024533.

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL EMPTY, Assessment on the application of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to accede to the 2007 Lugano Convention, COM(2021) 222 final.

Declarations, Reservations, Depositary communications. HCCH [online]- 2020, [cit. 10. 8. 2021]. Available at: https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/notifications/?csid=1318&disp=resdn

FELDMAN, K. N., VELLA, S. M.. The Evolution of „Forum Conveniens“: Its Application to stay of proceedings and Service Ex juris. Advocates’ Quarterly. Ontario: Agincourt, 1989, Vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 161–173.

FITZGERALD, M. UK Application to Join Lugano Convention following Brexit: An Update. Lexology [online]. 2021 [cit. 19. 8. 2021]. Available at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=82d63f4b-f470-4c7a-acf4-9bec870a8140

GARCIMARTÍN, F., SAUMIER, G.. Explanatory Report on the 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention. The Hague: Permanent Bureau of the Conference, 2020, 181 p. ISBN 978-90-83063-32-4.

GRODL, L. England to Become the Prime Jurisdiction for International Commercial Disputes – Anti-Suit Injunction as a Tool for Assurance. The Lawyer Quarterly. Prague: Institute of State and Law of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, 2021, Vol 11, no. 2, pp. 360-380. ISSN 1805-840X.

Hague Conference on Private International Law. Prel. Doc. No 26 of December 2004 - Explanatory Report on the preliminary draft Convention on exclusive choice of court agreements, drawn up by Trevor C. Hartley and Masato Dogauchi, 2004.

HAM, J. (Br)exit Strategy: The Future of the Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine in the United Kingdom After ‘Brexit’. Cornell International Law Journal. Ithaca: Cornell Law School, 2020, Vol. 52, pp. 717–746.

HARTLEY, T., DOGAUCHI, M. Explanatory Report on the 2005 HCCH Choice of Court Agreements Convention. The Hague: Permanent Bureau of the Conference, 2005, 103 p. ISBN 978-1-78068-209-9.

HESS, B., MANTOVANI, M. Current developments in forum access: Comments on jurisdiction and forum non conveniens – European perspectives on human rights litigation. MPILux Research Paper Series 2019. Luxembourg: Max Planc Institute, 2019, no. 1, 35 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3325711

JOSEPH, D. Jurisdiction and Arbitration agreements and their enforcement. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2010, 861 p. ISBN 978-1-84703-897-5.

KAMEL, A. Cooperative Federalism: A Viable Option for Implementing the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. The Georgetown Law Journal. Georgetown: Georgetown University Law Center, 2014, Vol. 102, pp. 1821–1840.

LANDBRECHT, J. The Hague Conference on Private International Law: Shaping a Global Framework for Party Autonomy. International Business Law Journal. London: Thomson Reuters, 2017, Vol. 1/2017, pp. 35–45.

LEIN, E. Unchartered territory? A few thoughts on private international law post Brexit. In: BONIMI, A., ROMANO, G. P. (eds.). Yearbook of Private International Law. Vol. 17 (2015/2016). Lausanne: Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, 2017, pp. 33–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9785/9783504385163-004

MALACHTA, R. Prorogace soudu a asymetrické doložky v 21. století. In: KORONCZIOVÁ, A., HLINKA, T. Míľniky práva v stredoeurópskom priestore 2019. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, 2019, pp. 69–78. ISBN 978-80-7160-517-1.

MALACHTA, R. Mutual Trust between the Member States of the European Union and the United Kingdom after Brexit: Overview. In: VALDHANS, J. Brexit and its Consequences. COFOLA International 2020. Brno: Masaryk University, 2020, p. 39–65. ISBN 978-80-210-9800-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5817/CZ.MUNI.P210-9801-2020-2

MAY, T. Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk triggering Article 50. gov.uk [online]. 29. 3. 2017 [cit. 30. 8. 2021]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prime-ministers-letter-to-donald-tusk-triggering- article-50

MITCHENSON, J., SCHULTZ, T. Rediscovering the Principle of Comity in English Private International Law. European Review of Private Law. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International Issue, 2018, Vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 311–340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/ERPL2018025

NIELSEN, P. A. The Hague 2019 Judgments Convention - from failure to success? Journal of Private International Law. London: Taylor & Francis, 2020, Vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 205–246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2020.1759854

Notification to the Parties of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, concluded at Lugano on 30 October 2007. Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA [online]. 14. 4. 2020 [cit. 24. 5. 2020]. Available at: https://www.eda.admin.ch/dam/eda/fr/documents/aussenpolitik/voelkerrecht/autres-conventions/Lugano2/200414-LUG_en.pdf

NYUTS, A. Chapter 13: Owusu, Gasser, Turner and West Tankers – Is the Hague Convention on Choice-of-Court Agreements the Solution? In: AFFAKI, B. G., NAÓN, H. A. G. (eds.). Jurisdictional Choices in Times of Trouble, Dossiers of the ICC Institute of World Business Law. Paris: Kluwer Law International; International Chamber of Commerce, 2015, Vol. 12, pp. 191–202.

PALERMO, G. The Future of Cross-Border Disputes Settlement: Back to Litigation? In: GONZÁLEZ-BUENO, C. 40 under 40 International Arbitration. Madrid: Dykinson, 2018, pp. 360–375.

RAPHAEL, T. The Anti-Suit Injunction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, 483 p. ISBN 978-0-19-928732-1.

Report by Mr P. Jenard on the Protocols of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 29 February 1968 on the mutual recognition of companies and legal persons and of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. OJ 1979 C 59.

Report by Professor Dr Peter Schlosser on the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Association of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and to the Protocol on its interpretation by the Court of Justice.

SCHUZ, R. Controlling Forum-Shopping: The Impact of MacShannon v. Rockware Glass Ltd. International & Comparative Law Quarterly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986, Vol. 35, no. 2, p. 374–412.

STEWART, D. The Hague Conference Adopts a New Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. American Journal of International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019, Vol. 113, no. 4, pp. 772–783. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2019.53

UNGERER, J. Consequences of Brexit for European Private International Law. European Papers. 2019, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 395–407.

VLAS, P. Chapter II: Jurisdiction. In: MAGNUS Ulrich and Peter MANKOWSKI. Volume 1 Brussels Ibis Regulation – Commentary. Cologne: Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, 2015, pp. 76–407.

WATERS, A. “Forum Shopping” in Fraud Actions Following Owusu v. Jackson. Journal of International Banking and Financial Law. London: Butterworth & Co., 2010, Vol. 25, pp. 355–363.

ZABLOUDILOVÁ, K. Choice of Court Agreements after Brexit. In: ROZEHNALOVÁ, N. Universal, Regional, National – Ways of the Development of Private International Law in 21st Century. Brno: Masaryk University, 2020, pp. 266–314. ISBN 978-80-210-9496-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5817/CZ.MUNI.P210-9497-2019-13

ZHAO, N. Completing a long-awaited puzzle in the landscape of cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments: An overview of the HCCH 2019 judgments convention. Swiss Review of International and European Law. Zürich: Swiss Association of International Law, 2020, Vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 345–368.

Astro Exito Navegacion S.A. v W.T. Hsu [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 666 (Q.B. Comm Ct.).

Case C-314/92: Reference for a preliminary ruling made by the House of Lords, by order of that court dated 13 July 1992, in the case of Ladenimor SA against Intercomfinanz SA.

Connelly v RTZ Corporation [1996] QB 361 (CA).

Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed in Lugano on 30 October 2007 — Explanatory report by Professor Fausto Pocar (Holder of the Chair of International Law at the University of Milan) (“Pocar Report”), OJ C 319.

De Dampier v De Dampier [1988] 1. A.C. 92 (H.L.).

Egbert v Short [1907] 2 Ch 205.

European Asian Bank v Punjab and Sind Bank [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 651.

Gomez v Gomez-Monche Vives [2008] EWHC 259 (Ch), [2008] 3 WLR 309.

In re Norton’s Settlement [1908] 1 Ch 471 (CA).

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2005. Andrew Owusu v N. B. Jackson, trading as "Villa Holidays Bal-Inn Villas" and Others, Case C-281/02.

Judgment of the Court of 19 February 2002. Case C-256/00.

Judgment of the Court of 28 September 1999. Case C-440/97.

Judgment Selections. HCCH [online]. 2019 [cit. 23. 8. 2021]. Available at: https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/specialised-sections/judgments

Logan v Bank of Scotland [1906] 1 KB 141 (CA 1905).

M’Morine v Cowie, 7 D 270 IH (1845).

Macadam v Macadam, 11 M 860 (1873).

MacShannon v Rockware Glass Ltd. [1978] A.C. 795 (H.L.).

Mohammed v Bank of Kuwait and the Middle East KSC [1996] 1 WLR 1483 (CA).

New Hampshire Insurance Co v Strabag Bau AG [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 361 (CA).

Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197.

Re Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd (No. 2) [1992] Ch 72 (CA).

Sim v Robinow (1892) 19 R 665 (IH).

Spiliada Maritime Corp. v Cansulex Ltd. [1987] A.C. 460 (H.L.); [1986] 3 All ER 843, [1987] AC 460, [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1, [1987] ECC 168, [1987] 1 FTLR 103, [1986] UKHL 10, [1986] 3 WLR 972.

St. Pierre v South American Stores (Gath & Chaves), Ltd. [1936] 1. K.B. 382 (C.A.).

The Abidin Daver [1984] AC 398 (HL), para. 410.

The Atlantic Star [1973] QB 364 (CA) 381G and 382C.

Vernor v Elvies, 6 Dict. of Dec. 4788 (1610).

Metriky

0

0


158

Views

122

PDF (English) views