Flux Belges et Lux

Khalifeh v Blom Bank SAL [2021] EWHC 3399 (QB) is the second High Court judgment in the space of a few weeks to involve Lebanese Banks and the application of the protective regime for consumers in EU private international law. (See earlier Bitar v Banque Libano-Francaise).

Foxton J explains why there is such activity: difficult financial conditions faced by Lebanese banks and their customers at the current time, and the practical impossibility of transferring foreign currency out of Lebanon, caused acute anguish for those with foreign currency accounts in Lebanese banks. Understandably they have explored every avenue open to them in an effort to access their hard-won savings.

Jurisdiction would seem not to be in dispute (presumably given the presence of non-exclusive choice of court in a general agreement), applicable law is. Even in consumer contracts, Article 6 Rome I allows parties to the contract to chose applicable law – except such choice must not deprive the consumer of the protection of the mandatory elements of the law that would apply had no choice been made: that ‘default law’, per Article 6(1) Rome I, is the law of the consumer’s habitual residence.

Whether choice of law has been made is to be determined in accordance with Article 3, which proscribes that choice of law must be  either nominatim, or ‘clearly demonstrated’ by the circumstances of the case. The latter is often referred to as ‘implicit’ choice of law although there is nothing truly implicit about it: choice of law cannot be made happenstance, it must have been made clearly (even if not in so many words). [47] ff the judge considers whether ‘implicit’ choice has been made, referring to Avonwick,  and holds [66] that there was, namely in favour of Lebanese law. He concludes this as a combined effect of

a jurisdiction clause in a related, general agreement which he found to be exclusive [63] in favour of Beirut; I have to say I do not think the judgment engages satisfactorily with the argument that this hybrid clause itself is questionable under the lex causae (including consumer law) that would have to apply to it;

the express reference to an agreement to comply with and facilitate the enforcement of identified provisions of Lebanese law; and

the express choice of Lebanese law in a closely related and interwoven contract.

Clearly some of this analysis is fact-specific and subjective however in my view the lex causae element of hybrid choice of court has more beef to the bone.

As for the issue of ‘activities directed at’ the UK, this is discussed [68] ff. First up is an interesting discussion on the relevant time at which the habitual residence of the consumer has to be considered. In light ia of CJEU Commerzbank, which presumably was not available at the time of the discussion, I would suggest the conclusion [73] that the temporal element needs to be fixed at the very beginning, to avoid see-sawing and dépeçage, may need revisiting.

In terms of the actual directing of activities, Pammer /Alpenhof of course is discussed as is Emrek. Having discussed the evidence, the conclusion [105] ff is that there was no direction of activities.

As a result, the remainder of the judgment deals with the substantive issues under Lebanese law.

I do not know whether permission to appeal has been sought. There are sections in the judgment that in my view would merit it.

Geert.

EU private international law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.9.2.7, 2.270 ff; Heading 3.2.4, Heading 3.2.5.

Khalifeh v Blom Bank SAL [2021] EWHC 3399 (QB) (17 December 2021)
'Implied' choice of (Lebanese) law under A3 Rome I, held no consumer contract under A6 Rome I (contrast with https://t.co/cCLpRV7EGphttps://t.co/3pGSujhBYQ

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 17, 2021

Many thanks Haco van der Houven van Oordt for flagging an (anonymised) judgment by the Den Bosch Court of Appeal, in which it refused to recognise the punitive damages element of a US (Tennessee) judgment. Damages had been awarded after a horse trainer based in The Netherlands, who had been tasked to look after and train the horse of the US based claimant, had subsequently been tasked to sell the horse and in doing so hid part of the sale price from the owner. Half a million dollar was awarded, of which exactly half in punitive damages.

The judge follows the Gazprom criteria for recognition and enforcement in The Netherlands and only objected to the punitive damages element. A bid by claimants (heirs of the meanwhile deceased owner) to argue recoverability of a chunk of the punitive damages slice, arguing that it was compensation for lawyers’ fees in the US proceedings, failed: the Dutch held that costs compensation are not ordinarily part of the punitive element of the damages and that transcripts of the US judgment and proceedings certainly did not reveal any trace of that argument.

Not an extraordinary judgment. But an instructional one.

Geert.

Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus & Ors [2021] EWHC 3462 (Comm), sees Henshaw J unpicking the follow-up to a trial of applications and claims made by the Claimants for the purpose of enforcing an unsatisfied judgment for approximately US$300 million, handed down in December 2017.

The relevant part of the complex judgment, for the purposes of the blog, is a ‘tracing claim’: claimant argue that monies stolen from them by one of the defendants can be traced or followed into a variety of assets said to be held by companies within Cypriot trusts structures for the benefit of said defendant and his family. What is being traced are shares in Exillon, an oil company which Mr Arip developed after he fled Kazakhstan for Dubai. The proceeds of the shares went partially into the purchase of real estate, with another (substantial) part remaining liquid in a Swiss bank account.

Defendants submit that the tracing claim is governed by Kazakh law, and that that law does not recognise the concept of tracing. The judge, with respect, and perhaps he was echoing submissions, takes a rather unstructured approach to the conflict of laws analysis from which the judgment subsequently never recovers. Many first instance judgments in the UK intuitively start by quoting a relevant section from Dicey (whose 16th ed I am told might be out end of 2022), and then somehow engineer the analysis around it. In the case at issue, the Dicey rule that is zoomed in on [85], is disputes over real property, which are subject to lex situs (lex rei sitae). At [88] the judge then refers to Akers v Samba in which the Supreme Court, albeit at the jurisdictional level, held “the situs or location of shares and of any equitable interest in them is the jurisdiction where the company is incorporated or the shares are registered”. [89]:

It would follow that, insofar as relevant, questions of title to the Exillon shares, whose proceeds (a) were used to purchase the Properties and (b) remain in the form of the £72 million in the BJB account in Switzerland, would be likely to be governed by Manx law, Exillon having been incorporated in the Isle of Man.  A possible alternative would be English law on the basis that the shares were traded on the London Stock Exchange.  The parties have in any event agreed that, so far as relevant to these claims, Manx law is the same as English law.

[91] some role for Kazakh law is suggested to still exist when considering whether the English law preconditions for a tracing claim are met.  ‘It is generally a pre-condition of tracing in equity that there be a fiduciary relationship which calls the equitable jurisdiction into being’. [92] The law applicable to a cause of action or issue determines whether a person is required to hold property on constructive or resulting trust, hence it is necessary to consider whether duties imposed by the relevant foreign law are to be regarded as fiduciary.

Only in an afterthought [94] does the judge consider the lex causae governing unjust enrichment, equitable claims and negotiorum gestio, per Rome II as retained in UK law (and in Dicey). [The judgment is not in fact clear on when the claim was introduced and therefore might be subject to acquired as opposed to retained EU law].

The lex causae for the qualification of the current claims (proprietary restitution) as one of these entries in Rome II [96] is matter of factly presented as English law. [99] the judge dismisses the relevance of the succinct Rome II analysis for, harking back to his first reference to Dicey, the fundamental nature of the Claimants’ claim in the present case is held to be a proprietary one hence Dicey’s lex situs rule is said to apply without a need to consider Rome II.

Surely the right order is to qualify the claim, using autonomous EU interpretation, under (retained) Rome I cq Rome II and with reference to CJEU authority- with of course some of the recent qualification issues following CJEU Hrvatske Sume thrown in. Subsequently to only consider the English common law to the extent statutorily retained EU law does not govern the issue. The approach in the judgment is unsatisfactory and in that respect joins Fetch.AI Lrd & Anor v Persons Unknown Category A & Ors [2021] EWHC 2254 (Comm) , which Amy Held and Matthias Lehmann discuss critically this morning.

Geert.

Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus & Ors [2021] EWHC 3462 (Comm) (21 December 2021)
Includes somewhat fuzzy discussion of applicable law to (share) tracing and ownership claims, as well as unjust enrichment etc and Rome IIhttps://t.co/6GCjwBJCqY

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 22, 2021

I am hoping to tackle some of the pre-Christmas queue this week, kicking off with the Opinion (no English version available) of Pikamae AG in C-568/20 J v H Limited. The case concerns the enforcement of a 2019 decision of the England & Wales High Court [I believe that judgment is Arab Jordan Investment Bank Plc & Anor v Sharbain [2019] EWHC 860 (Comm). The dates do not quite correspond (6 days of) but the amounts and line of argument do].

Clearly the UK were still a Member State at the time. The English decision was based, in turn, on two Jordanian judgments of 2013. It had rejected, on the basis of the English common law (judgments issued outside the EU are not subject to EU recognition and enforcement rules), the arguments against enforcement in the UK. The judge subsequently issued an Article 53 Brussels Ia certificate.

The issue is not whether a judgment merely confirming a non-EU judgment, may be covered by Article 53 Brussels Ia. CJEU Owens Bank has already held they cannot (see Handbook, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.573). The issue is rather whether, exequatur having been abandoned in Brussels Ia, arguments as to whether the judgment in the State of origin be at all covered by Brussels Ia, may be raised by way of an Article 45 objection to recognition and enforcement.

CJEU Diageo Brands, among others, has confirmed the narrow window for refusal of recognition on the basis of ordre public. The AG suggests wrong decisions on the scope of application of BIa, leading to incorrect A53 certificates, may fall within that category. Far from upsetting the principle of mutual trust, he suggests it is a necessary ‘safety valve’, a “soupape de sécurité » (40) which assist with said mutual trust. The AG qualifies the opinion by suggesting the issuing of an A53 certificate for a judgment that merely enforces an ex-EU judgment, is a grave error in the scope of application of the Regulation.

Should the CJEU confirm, discussion of course will ensue as to what are clear errors in the scope of application, or indeed in the very interpretation of Brussels Ia.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed 2021, Heading 2.2.17.1.

Opinion Pikamae AG yday, #CJEU C-568/20
Member State court may refuse recognition of other MS (UK, pre #Brexit) High Court judgment if said judgment merely enforces judgment from a third State, Jordan. Brussels Ia Title 3 'judgments' must emanate from a MShttps://t.co/NkJ6zh9FU9

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 17, 2021

Mahmudov & Anor v Sanzberro & Ors [2021] EWHC 3433 (QB) tackles the issue of libel tourism. As Collins Rice J puts it [3]

underlying the contest of law is a contest of two mainstream policies embodied in modern defamation law: on the one hand, the need for the law to keep up with the borderless realities of the internet, and on the other the need for international libel to be dealt with by the courts best able fairly to do so (or, to put it less neutrally, to prevent ‘libel tourism’).

The case is held under Brussels Ia for the claim was introduced on 31 December 2020, ‘IP completion day’.  Parties mostly seem at loggerheads over the implications of CJEU C-509/09 eDate. Claimants suggest eDate establishes a stand-alone full jurisdictional gateway for the Member State where the aggrieved has his or its centre of interests – CoI. Defendant claims [19]

there is still a binary choice, as per Shevill: to sue either (a) where a defendant is domiciled or (b) where a completed tort (the harmful event) occurred. The effect of eDate, they say, is that claimants taking the second route in their CoI country can now get global relief rather than being limited to compensation for harm arising in that individual state. CoI is not jurisdictional in the pure sense of introducing a freestanding basis for bringing an action somewhere; it is jurisdictional only to the limited or secondary (but nevertheless important) extent of the nature and quantum of the relief that may be sought.

Parties oddly seem in agreement that Shevill v Presse Alliance (No.2) [1996] AC 959 reaffirmed ([11] in Mahumdov]

that what constituted the ‘harmful event’ was to be determined by the national court applying its own substantive law. In other words, the preliminary jurisdictional question for the High Court in a libel case brought against a non-domiciled defendant was whether a claimant could show to the requisite standard that all the components of a tort actionable in the UK were present

I find that debatable to say the least, and in fact that consensus has an important impact on the judge’s final conclusion, which rejects CoI as a stand-alone gateway: [28] the judge sides with the defendants for the claimant’s reading would imply ‘an autonomous meaning of the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ ‘. The latter, many might argue, must be the implication of the CJEU’s overall application of Brussels Ia. At [34] Napag Trading is offered in support however the judge I feel in Mahmudov should  have made a clearer distinction (as the judge did in Napag Trading) between the EU-governed jurisdictional gateway for tort, and the (England and Wales) governed Civil Procedure Rules test for a ‘good arguable case’. As I note in my review of Napag Trading, these CPR rules may still form a formidable procedural hurdle, however properly distinguishing between them is important, among others for costs reasons.

Geert.

Mahmudov & Anor v Sanzberro & Ors [2021] EWHC 3433 (QB) (17 December 2021)#libel tourism
Held E&W courts do not have jurisdiction per #CJEU Brussels Ia, Shevill, eDate etchttps://t.co/9vP1s5TJZd

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 20, 2021

The CJEU held yesterday in Grand Chamber in C-251/20 GtflixTV – for the facts see my initial flag of the case here. I reviewed the Opinion of Hogan AG here. The AG need not have bothered for the Court entirely ignores the Opinion.

The AG had predicted, as had I, that the CJEU would not heed his calls (joining those of plenty of AGs before him) that the Article 7(2) CJEU Bier introduced distinction between Handlungsort and Erfolgort be abandoned or at least curtailed. The CJEU however also dismisses his suggestion that the case at issue, which involves defamation of competitors over the internet, does not engage the Bolagsupplysningen case-law (infringement of personality rights over the internet) but rather Tibor Trans on acts of unfair competition.

I do not see quite clearly in the Grand Chamber’s mention [28] that Gtlix did not request inaccessibility of the information in France: for Gtflix did request retraction.

Instead of qualifying locus damni jurisdiction, the CJEU squarely confirms its faith in the Mosaic consequences of Article 7(2) locus damni jurisdiction. Each court in whose district damage has occurred, will continue to have locus damni jurisdiction even if the claimant requests rectification of the information and the removal of the content placed online in the Handlungsort or centre of interests jurisdiction. Locus damni jurisdiction in my view extends only to the damage occurring in that district (for Article 7(2) determines territorial, not just national jurisdiction), albeit in current, internet related case the CJEU [38] would seem to speak of ‘national’ jurisdiction, linked to accessibility in the Member State as a whole.

Those courts’ locus damni jurisdiction is subject to the sole condition that the harmful content must be accessible or have been accessible in that Member State. Per CJEU Pinckney, an additional direction of activities to that Member State is not required (the recent High Court approach in Mahmudov on which I shall blog shortly, is at odds with that approach nota bene).

Grand Chamber judgments must not only be expected in cases where earlier authority is radically changed or qualified. It can also occur in cases where the CJEU wishes to reconfirm a point earlier made but stubbornly resisted in scholarship and lukewarmly embraced in national court practice.

Geert.

#CJEU Gtflix. Insulting comments viz competitor do fall within A7(2) Brussels Ia forum delicti. Aggrieved claimant may sue for damages in every jurisdiction where the publication was accessible. Court confirms Mozaik jurisdiction https://t.co/dhz5AlGJ9A https://t.co/GOwADA02Wu

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 21, 2021

Athena Capital Fund Sicav-Fis SCA & Ors v Secretariat of State for the Holy See [2021] EWHC 3166 (Comm) features as defendant the Secretariat of State of the Holy See  (not the Holy See itself), and relates to a fraud and embezzlement claim of property in Chelsea, London.

Defendant says that from the perspective of Claimants, the purpose and intention of bringing these proceedings is to try to influence the criminal process in Italy, and/or the publicity emanating from the criminal process.

For its jurisdictional challenge, defendant argues [81] i) The claim was not a “civil and commercial matter” within the meaning of A1(1) BIa; ii) one of the claimants was not a party to the relevant Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) and could not rely upon it [this was summarily dealt with [88] by suggesting an amendment of claim] and, more forcefully, (iii) Defendant was not a party to the SPA for the purposes of A25 BIa.

Salzedo J justifiably in my view held [84] that

whether the claim is a civil or commercial matter does not turn on the subjective intentions of the claimant as to the ultimate effect that a claim might have on its interests, but on an objective reading of the claim itself and the relief that it seeks from the court. On that basis, it is a claim for declarations against the Defendant concerning the Defendant’s entry into commercial transactions with the Claimants.

and that the transaction was not entered into by the Defendant in the purported exercise of public powers: [86]

The Transaction was one that any private person could have entered into if it had the requisite funds. Nothing that was essential to the Transaction required sovereign powers to enter it and nothing that the Defendant did or purported to do was in the exercise of public authority.

As for the defendant not being a party to the SPA, the context here is whether a party involved in the signing accepted the SPA and its choice of court as an agent of the defendant. The judge, confirming the parties’ consensus, points out that that agency issue befalls to be addressed by English law. It is not said why that is the case however it is of course the result of the amended A25 – as others before it, however, the court does not complete the lex fori prorogati analysis with the recital 20 in fine mandated renvoi. On the agency issue the judge holds there is a good arguable case that the relevant agent did bind the defendant.

Next [103] ff follows a CPR-heavy discussion on the amendment of the claim form, seeing as the claimants erroneously assumed [120] that BIa was not engaged as the Vatican is not party to Brussels Ia. At [123] the conclusion is that the claim form may be amended and that defendants’ time spent in dealing with the service out issues under the common law (a wasted exercise as BIa applied), may be met in the costs order.

Once the A25 point rejected, there would have been a most narrow window for any kind of stay, yet the defendants try anyways, with [129] a series of abuse and case management arguments. One particularly poignant one is that the proceedings would interfere with a criminal proceeding. After discussion the judge [159] dismisses the idea on the facts, seeing as none of the declarations sought would involve any assertion as to what does or does not amount to criminality as a matter of the law of the Vatican State.

[163] ff discusses the abuse of process issue which the defendants, I understand, presented more or less as being integrated into the criminal procedure element, discussed above. That was wise, for abuse of process, while entertained among others in Vedanta, is arguably noli sequitur in a BIa claim. [Support for the alternative view here was sought [172ff] in Messier-Dowty v Sabena SA[2000] 1 WLR 2040]

The case-management stay proper is discussed 192 ff with reference ia to Municipio, and Mad Atelier. The judge in current case is very aware of not re-introducing through the back door what CJEU Owusu shut the front door on. He summarily discussed the possibility anyway, only to reject it.

An interesting case.

Geert.

1/2 Jurisdiction. Fraud, embezzlement re investments by the Holy See.
Held claim is within scope of Brussels Ia; A25 choice of court applies despite claimants' late recourse to that ground; no stay on grounds that proceedings would interfere with foreign criminal proceeding. pic.twitter.com/7OXCsiOkUJ

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 1, 2021

Bitar v Banque Libano-Francaise S.A.L. [2021] EWHC 2787 (QB) discusses whether a Lebanese bank could be considered to have ‘directed’ its activities at the UK under the CJEU Pammer Alphenhof criteria, thus triggering the consumer section of the (acquired) EU Brussels Ia Regulation.

Kent DJ held it had: claimant’s arguments are at [29] ff, purporting to build evidence of a chain of marketing aimed at the expat Lebanese community. They show the importance of information put on websites, often made to look more glamorous by the addition of elements such as links to England and London in particular.  The judge is on point I find where he dismisses the singular relevance of the use of English etc in a world where every Tom Dick and Harry put that on their website. However he does conclude [65]

the website pages to which I have referred which were visible from the United Kingdom do indeed give the impression to a fair-minded observer—and I would say quite a strong impression—that the Bank was interested in obtaining custom from the expatriate Lebanese community in whichever part of the world not insignificant numbers of those who can be treated as falling within that expression were gathered and that in 2014 did include England. 

Geert.

EU private international law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.9.2.7, 2.270 ff

Bitar v Banque Libano-Francaise [2021] EWHC 2787 (QB) (20 October 2021)
Unsuccessful application for finding of lack of jurisdiction
Application of retained EU law on consumer contracts, Brussels Ia
Whether Bank 'directed' its activities at the UKhttps://t.co/bLQ9dfI2AV

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 25, 2021

Chowdhury v PZU SA [2021] EWHC 3037 (QB) is worth a brief post on the determination of ‘domicile’ for the purposes of the insurance title of Brussels Ia (the very same Title and provisions which I discuss in Betty Tattersal). Ritchie J discusses whether the claimant was ‘resident’ in England and Wales for despite the insurance section talking of ‘domicile’, the Regulation refers for that notion to the residual rules of the Member States; and in England and Wales, domicile for natural persons, for private international law purposes, is determined by their ‘residence’.

The judge held, having summarised all relevant authority, that the earlier finding of residence absolutely stands [72]:

Claimant was a British citizen, with a British passport, who grew up in Worthing and was educated in England, worked in England, had his parents and family in England, had his friends in England, had rented flats in London, in Earls Court and in Putney, had his benefits paid in England, had his property by way of clothes and personal items in England and kept some of those at his parents’ house in Worthing, in his own room there.

That he gave up his rental accommodation in England was entirely due to him seeking medical treatment in Germany on account of the very tort he is suing for. Clearly that could not dislodge his English residence, despite the most likely temporary impact on physical stays in England.

Geert.

Chowdhury v PZU SA [2021] EWHC 3037 (QB) (12 November 2021)
Brussels Ia, jurisdiction under the insurance title, road accident in Poland.
Whether claimant was 'resident' in the UK (held affirmatively).#travellawhttps://t.co/238oD8hIhE

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 13, 2021

I am slowly getting through the in-tray with back cases, looking in this post at the UKSC judgment in Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group [2021] UKSC 48. There is plenty of analysis on the case already out there, among Gilles Cuniberti and a team of CMS lawyers. I previously discussed the judgment appealed.

The SC dismissed the appeal and the judgment therefore stands: parties’ choice of English law for the underlying contract was found to also be an express choice of the law governing the arbitration agreement. I suggested that finding was optimistic on the facts of the case. Moreover it would seem at odds with the separability line previously towed by the English courts: there may be perfectly valid reasons for having a different lex causae for the underlying contract, the arbitration clause, the lex arbitri and indeed the lex curia. Identity should not be too readily assumed. The SC however would seem to have been swayed by the New York Convention’s call for straightforwardness in enforcement (here lies as the SC notes a difference with previous case-law which concerned the pre-enforcement stage).

Not only is the UKSC approach at odds with the French SC, as I noted in my review of the Court of Appeal judgment. I am also not convinced that for the enforcement stage the SC should insist one keeps things simple whilst at many other stages through its authority it encourages often convoluted argument.

Geert.

Giles Cuniberti on Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group [2021] UKSC 48
For my review of the Court of Appeal judgment, and the conflicting French view, see https://t.co/xk2iONVqIt
Re governing law of an #arbitration agreement https://t.co/hnnLZzyxpt

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 28, 2021

Heslop v Heslop & Anor [2021] EWHC 2957 (Ch) essentially queries whether Deceased testator actually had any estate or interest in Jamaican Property which she could pass by will.

Under the Moçambique rule (after British South Africa Co v Companhia de Moçambique [1893] AC 602) an English court will not, as a matter of its own limits to jurisdiction, by and large determine matters of title to foreign land. The purpose of the rule is the maintenance of comity and the avoidance of conflict with foreign jurisdictions. The rule has been discussed on the blog before and it finds its EU equivalent of course in Article 24  Brussels Ia.

After considering the rule and the facts of the case, Dray DM holds it is not triggered here for [51-52]

the relief sought (across the two claims) is relief of an in personam nature in a dispute between the two central protagonists, the Second Defendant (the asserted trustee) and the Claimant (the asserted beneficiary) under the asserted trust. The fact that the land in question is situated in Jamaica does not preclude this court from having jurisdiction to hear the claim. The proceedings do not involve any determination of rights in rem. They do not assert a property right which is by its nature enforceable against third parties and they do not purport to bind strangers/third parties. For instance, no possession order, effective against the world at large, is sought (and none could be granted by this court). Neither is any order directed to the Jamaican Land Registry claimed (ditto). The court is only asked to resolve a dispute between those before it, the proceedings being based on an alleged personal (trust) relationship between the Claimant and the Defendants.

Obiter he then [57ff] considers forum non conveniens (argued in fact by neither parties), with the complication [63] that the two claims before the court have not been consolidated and are thus separate claims, albeit proceeding together, and that the first claim was commenced before the end of the Brexit transition period whereas the second claim was commenced afterwards. The judge holds (again: obiter) [68] (seeing also that no consolidation has been sought) that the former claim needs to be assessed viz BIa and the latter viz the post-Brexit rules, [74 ff] that under BIa A24 is not engaged for the same reason as the Moçambique rule, and [72] that if it had been, he would have been minded to follow (with all the necessary caveats  Kennedy v National Trust for Scotland‘s reflexive application.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.208.

1/2 Moçambique rule re jurisdiction for title to foreign land does not apply to in personam orders viz
trustees of a trust of foreign land
Obiter consideration of forum non, reflexive application A24 BIa, and on joining a pre-#Brexit with a post-Brexit claim under the #WA

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 13, 2021

Mann v Towarzystwo Ubezpieczen Inter Polska SA & Ors [2021] EWHC 2913 (QB) showcases the recalcitrance which parties can still demonstrate to object to service despite the EU Service Regulation 1393/2007, should they have the obstinance, and deep enough pockets, to do so. Daniel Matchett reviews the case here and I am happy to refer.

Master Thornett at 5 is particularly on point when he refers to the need, particularly for professional defendants, to seek advice on E&W CPR early:

I do not find Mr Grochowalski’s emphasis upon the First Defendant being a small niche company in the Polish insurance market and as had no previous experience of a claim against it brought in another jurisdiction relevant. I am satisfied that such a company could and should taken reliable advice to understand about the English proceedings from service in May 2017 if not previously upon their notification by the Claimants’ solicitors. This could have been done by a variety of means…

Of additional note to Daniel’s assessment I find is the jurisdictional challenge dismissed seemingly by Master Brown in 2017 for reasons I understand of the tardiness of the objection, and the unsuccessful current attempt to resurrect it in this later application. One assumes claimant may have argued the contract was a consumer contract, allowing her (and now that she has sadly passed away, her husband) from pursuing the case in her own domicile.  An objection to jurisdiction which, going by the little the judgment reveals of the contractual circumstances, may have had some merit had it been brought earlier (I emphasise however I do not have much to go by here).

Geert.

Ia re Service Regulation 1393/2007
Mann v Towarzystwo Ubezpieczen Inter Polska SA & Ors [2021] EWHC 2913 (QB) (01 November 2021)https://t.co/hELuzC3gkG
via @IMTravelLawyer https://t.co/zKRjQodDsZ

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 17, 2021

First Advocate-General Szpunar opined a the end of October in C-421/20 on the law applicable to a damages suit following infringement of Community Design rights. No English edition of the Opinion is as yet available.

The two parties had earlier been at loggerheads on the jurisdictional issues, see CJEU C-433/16 BMW v Acacia and the provisional measures implications of the relevant Regulation 6/2002  were discussed in Spin Master. Current case not only puts into the spotlight the ‘international’ dimension required to trigger EU conflict of laws (it is in this section that I was pleased to see the AG refer to the 2016 ed of the Handbook), it also discussed the relationship between the core EU Regulations Brussels Ia, Rome I and II on the one hand, and lex specialis on the other, in the case at issue: A82(5) Regulation 6/2002: ‘5. Proceedings in respect of the actions and claims referred to in Article 81(a) and (d) may also be brought in the courts of the Member State in which the act of infringement has been committed or threatened.’ The result of the jurisdictional provisions is a cascade system which is also present in the relevant Trademark Regulation, prompting the AG to seek inspiration in CJEU AMS Neve.

BMW’s action, which was granted by the first instance German courts, seeks not just inductive relief viz Acacia’s distribution of wheel rims in Germany, but also damages for the alleged Community design infringement and (with a view to supporting the damages claim), access to documents, accounts etc. – this will have an immediate echo to readers of the blog I assume of ‘procedural’ issues to which I (and the AG) return below.

A relevant provision in the Community Design Regulation – CDR is Article 88, Applicable law:

1. The Community design courts shall apply the provisions of this Regulation.

2. On all matters not covered by this Regulation, a Community design court shall apply its national law, including its private international law.

3. Unless otherwise provided in this Regulation, a Community design court shall apply the rules of procedure governing the same type of action relating to a national design right in the Member State where it is situated.

A similar reference to national law with renvoi, is present in A89 with respect to ‘sanctions in actions for infringement’. With the inclusion of renvoi (‘a Community design court shall apply its national law, including its private international law’) inevitably reference is made to Rome II for that Regulation forms the applicable private international law in the Member States.

A first question was whether BMW’s requests re access to documentation, may be subject to lex fori processualis – answered in the negative by the AG with reference to CJEU C‑479/12 H. Gautzsch Großhandel , and to CJEU Nintendo. Whether these observations (and authorities) on the procedural issues extends to Rome I /II is not discussed. Readers will be aware that I find that an important question that remains outstanding.

The next issue is whether Rome II and /or the CDR apply at all to the litigation at issue in view of the light ‘international’ touch to the case. In view inter alia of the AG’s own Opinion in Vinyls Italia, he answers in the affirmative. For more detail on the issue please refer to the Opinion however I find among others his point convincing (43) that a restrictive view within the Community Design (and other intellectual property rights litigation) sphere, would hand a means to claimants artificially to split their claims so as to shop for the lex fori in Mozaik fashion. He rejects BMW’s alternative view based on the effet utile of A82(5) CDR. 

Up next is the question whether, having established Rome II applies, A8(2) Rome II needs to be applied using AMS Neve or alternatively Nintendo, to determine the ‘country in which the act of infringement was committed’. There is much detail on this in the Opinion (readers may refer to Annette Kur’s paper which also discussed this and is referred to in the Opinion), with the AG I think opting for the Nintendo route – I am not too proud to admit as I have done before, that the specific relation between secondary IPR law and EU conflict of laws, is not my specialty.

Geert.

Opinion Szpunar AG in Acacia v BMW, on the applicable law for damages following infringement of Community Designhttps://t.co/BEGw9uR6yJ
AG opts for country of the initial counterfeit
Humbled to see the 2016 ed of the Handbook cited https://t.co/kC5qt73lwh

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 28, 2021

Sánchez-Bordona AG opined at the end of October on the law applicable to the Peeters /Gatzen suit (of Nk v BNP Paribas fame) in Case C‑498/20 ZK, in his capacity of successor to JM, insolvency practitioner in the insolvency of BMA Nederland BV v BMA Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt AG – ZK v BMA for short. An English version of the Opinion is still not available.

Peeters /Gatzen is a tortious suit brought by a liquidator. In Nk v BNP Paribas the CJEU held it is covered by Brussels Ia, not by the Insolvency Regulation. The obvious applicable law port of call is Rome II. A first point which the AG discusses is a rather important discussion on the lex societatis exception to Rome II. The extent of that exception is important e.g. also for business and human rights cases, for the Peeters /Gatzen suit essentially engages duty of care towards third parties.

The AG emphasises (35) one of my points of attention in the BIa /Rome I/II interplay: that in accepting a certain amount of consistency in interpretation, the courts must nevertheless appreciate each instrument’s autonomy and quite different subject-matter. (46) The reasoning behind the exclusion of the lex societatis from the 1980 Rome Convention is said to be the ambition at the time to harmonise company law across the EU which, as we know from CJEU Daily Mail and all its successors, has still not come true. The AG then refers to the internal /external dimension of corporate relations such as discussed in C‑25/18 Kerr and C‑272/18 Verein für Konsumenteninformation. However he then suggests (51) that the reference to the ‘internal’ dimension of the life of a corporation does not suffice to justify 2 of the examples which Rome II explicitly lists in A1(2)d as being part of the corporate exception: the
personal liability of officers and members as such for the obligations of the company or body and the personal liability of auditors to a company or to its members in the statutory audits of accounting documents.

At (52-53) he then posits his way out of the conundrum, immediately acknowledging that the criterion he suggests may not be easily applicable: all contractual and non-contractual elements for which a specific solution exists which emanates from the relationship between those elements and the internal life and mechanisms of a corporation (whether they relate to the internal workings or the external relations), are covered by one statutory corpus, namely the lex societatis. Put differently, they are excluded insofar as and because their corporate law element absorbs all other. Specifically viz non-contractual obligations, if the relevant rule is so ‘drenched’ with elements specific to the corporate law context that it looses its meaning outside that context, that rule qualifies as being part of the lex societatis exception.

He immediately acknowledges (56) that this kind of litmus test is not easy to apply in practice and suggest (57 ff) to employ the ratio legis of the liability at stake to assist with the exercise. If that ratio lies in the general neminem laedere rule, Rome II is engaged. If that ratio however immediately follows from corporate law considerations, such as a director’s loyalty to the corporation, the exception is engaged. The AG lists examples (63), including the scenario at stake in CJEU OFAB. At (66) the AG concludes, albeit not directly, that the Peeters Gatzen suit in all likelihood is not covered by Rome II and he discusses the other questions in subsidiary fashion.

(67ff) with reference ia to CJEU Lazar the CJEU refers to the tricky characterisation of damage as (in)direct and opts in cases such as these that the direct damage occurs in the insolvent (or otherwise facing liquidity issues) corporation: the diminishing impact on the creditors is indirect, ricochet. Locus damni therefore is The Netherlands if the referring judge finds that the insolvent corporation’s estate is based there. (76) Whomever initiates the suit (the insolvency practitioner and /or the creditors) is irrelevant, as is (80) the fact that some of the creditors are located outside the EU.

(83ff) then follows the discussion of A4(3) Rome II’s escape clause (most recently discussed in Scott v AIG). A pre-existing contractual relationship (which the AG suggests (95ff) may also be called upon by claimants that are not party to that relationship) is just one among many factors that may play a role – not a particularly dominant one: (93-94) particularly where such relationship (such as here, taking the form of a credit facility) is one where choice of law was made: A4(3) RII is directed at situations where the non-contractual relationship has a closer connection to a law other than the locus damni. Lex voluntatis does not necessarily reflect the tort’s closer relationship but rather the parties’ voluntary expression.

An important Opinion.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed 2021, para 4.22.,  para 4.39 ff.

Opinion Sánchez-Bordona AG re applicable law for the Peeters/Gatzen #insolvency suit (citing ia @JanvonHein1)
Rome II:
scope of application: lex societatis exclusion
A4(1) determining locus damni
A4(3) factors feeding into proper law of the tort analysishttps://t.co/YzZih7VYRQ

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 29, 2021

I did say I was mopping up the queue this week so here’s a post reminding us of the Paris Court  of Appeal overturning an earlier judgment which had held that an arbitrator’s liability falls within Brussels Ia. I have analysis and further reference to the first instance judgment here, and Gilles Cuniberti’s approving view on the Court of Appeal’s decision is here.

The ruling means the court of the locus arbitri, the curial seat as agreed between the parties, is the natural home for any subsequent disputes involving liability of the arbitrators. I agree with Gilles that this makes a lot of sense from a consolidation and neutrality point of view. I do not however feel for a moment that it clearly follows from Brussels Ia, including its arbitration recital (which has the trimmings of an encyclopaedia, weighing in at more than half a page and 4 paragraphs).

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.3.4, para 2.110 ff..

Paris CA holds arbitrator's liability falls within VIa #arbitration exception
For the judgment overruled, see https://t.co/GSKX4qA6W7 https://t.co/sZZLu6FQ6h

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 28, 2021

I posted the Tweet below in October,  and am posting mostly to report that I do not as yet have more to go by. The suit is against James Finlay and follows in the footsteps of one brought in 2017, pre-Brexit therefore.  The 2017 action per CJEU Owusu v Jackson cannot be subject to a forum non conveniens challenge, and I am as yet not aware of an Article 33-34 Brussels IA ‘forum non light’ defence. This new, 2021 action has already been said to be met with a forum non challenge. It will be interesting to see first of all whether the forum non challenge in the latest suit will be impacted by the unavailability in principle of forum non in the 2017 suit; additionally, whether defendants are aiming to have the 2017 suit thrown out on the basis of A33-34 BIa (so far I have not seen indications that they will).

As I point out in the Tweet, had the UK been allowed to join Lugano, forum non would not be available to this newest suit.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Chapter 7.

An initial 2017 suit it seems under Brussels Ia and a current one under Scottish rules, in the ancestral home of forum non conveniens.
Note had the UK joined Lugano, forum non would not have been an option #bizhumanrights #CSR https://t.co/7mMcwYwegm

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 16, 2021

I am trying to catch up with blog posts this week and Robbins v Buzzfeed UK LTD (Approved) [2021] IEHC 433 goes back to the start of exam time at Leuven (early June). Claimant resides in California and is domiciled in the United States. Defendant has its registered office in London. The proceedings concern articles which were posted in May, June and November 2019 on the website “BuzzFeedNews.com” which related to claims of sexual misconduct, bullying and harassment, by the plaintiff, of certain employees and attendees at his events, alleged to have occurred between the 1980s and 2009 in the United States and in Canada.

Heslin J reviews the usual CJEU suspects, including Shevill and e-Date /Olivier Martinez, with [36] an interesting discussion of the impact of the applicable law. The substantively applicable law will always of course be a national law (additionally, Rome II exempts defamation from its scope of application). The Irish common law requires publication to at least one other, for there to be defamation. This would, so the argument goes, require claimant to prove the extent of consultation so as to establish jurisdiction. The judge holds that  Shevill is not authority

for the proposition that, in order to successfully invoke jurisdiction pursuant to Article 7(2), a plaintiff has an obligation to prove publication or that, having regard to the facts in the present case,  a plaintiff must prove that articles which he says were defamatory and which were in fact available to readers in this jurisdiction were downloaded or read by specific numbers of persons in this jurisdiction.

However he also holds claimant has proved readership figures of more than 13,000 as at the date the proceedings were instituted. I agree that as the passerelle to applicable law is noli sequitur in the application of A7(2) BIa. However the Mozaik findings in Shevill do mean that if such as here, jurisdiction is only based on locus damni, actual readership does need to be shown. A spanner in those works is CJEU Martinez at 51, where the CJEU uses the term “ accessible”, not the term “ accessed” [42].  In the light of claimant having proven actual downloads, the issue is of no relevance to the case [43] albeit it is yet more discussed and indeed at length, ia [57 ff] with reference to Ryanair v Fleming [2016] 2 IR 254 (a non-BIa case).

[79] a forum non application is of course rejected with reference to CJEU Owusu v Jackson despite a suggestion [83] that the principle in Owusu only applies to A4 BIa domicile jurisdiction.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.12.2.5.

The UK Supreme Court in Lloyd v Google [2021] UKSC 50 held a few weeks back. It allowed the appeal, meaning the Court of Appeal‘s judgment is no longer good law and the High Court‘s approach is now the rule. The judgment essentially means that loss of control over private data is not considered ‘damage’ within the data protection Act 1998. The issue is one of statutory interpretation: on its proper interpretation, the SC understands the term “damage” in s. 13 to mean material damage (financial loss for instance) or mental distress, and not just unlawful processing. Loss of control therefore may still play a role in the common law tort of misuse of private information, and ‘damage’ was of course also considered flexibly in the context of consequential losses (Brownlie).

On class actions, the SC’s judgment is a set-back, too, with the judgment [80] holding

What limits the scope for claiming damages in representative proceedings is the compensatory principle on which damages for a civil wrong are awarded with the object of putting the claimant – as an individual – in the same position, as best money can do it, as if the wrong had not occurred. In the ordinary course, this necessitates an individualised assessment which raises no common issue and cannot fairly or effectively be carried out without the participation in the proceedings of the individuals concerned. A representative  action is therefore not a suitable vehicle for such an exercise.

Geert.

The UK SC has allowed the appeal in Lloyd v #Google, restoring the first instance judge's narrower concept of damage (viz loss of control of personal data) under UK's implementation of the precursor to the #GDPR https://t.co/U5UToXDITq
For background see https://t.co/LOlbmKOolF pic.twitter.com/XkW97N4vVN

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 10, 2021

London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited v Kingdom of Spain & Anor (M/T ‘Prestige’ Nos. 3 and 4) [2021] EWCA Civ 1589 is yet another judgment in the Prestige series on which I have reported before (use of the search tag ‘Prestige’ brings you to 4 earlier posts). I often refer to the comparative advantage of civil procedure in England and Wales, inter alia relating to the speed of procedures. Current litigation most certainly does not fit that bill: it is slow, opaque and dense with issues, arguments have been allowed to run in a convoluted way, and a certain amount of consolidation would have been in order, I submit.

The judgment in this post is the appeal against the judgment of Henshaw J on arbitration and State immunity, and the judgment of Butcher J on service, state immunity and the insurance title of Brussels Ia.

In summary, Henshaw J’s judgment stands (he had held Spain does not have immunity in respect of these proceedings; that the permission to serve the arbitration obligation our of jurisdiction, granted earlier to the Club should stand; and that the court should appoint an arbitrator);  Butcher J’s judgment also largely stands, but for his decision on the ‘Award Claims’ (the Club seeking liability and damages for breach of the State’s obligation to honour the arbitration award which had declared the State bound to pursue its claims in London arbitration). The Court of Appeal held, as did Butcher J, that the arbitration exception applies to the Award Claims (an unlikely analogy featured with CJEU Assens Havn) and that jurisdiction for them must be determined in accordance with domestic law principles [84], however unlike the first instance judge it found [126] there is no serious issue to be tried on the award claims.

Geert.

EU Private international law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.84 ff.

London Steam-Ship Owners' MIA v Spain [2021] EWCA Civ 1589 (4/11/2021)
Various appeals, partially allowed, re the Prestige oilspill. State immunity, #arbitration etc. Background here https://t.co/LgOFOXsRmo
Six complex findings, see below. More next weekhttps://t.co/ItT0tFTO3U pic.twitter.com/LrxhXIRPLy

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 5, 2021

Ditto Ltd v Drive-Thru Records LLC [2021] EWHC 2035 (Ch) discusses the contract and tort gateways for jurisdiction in England and Wales (they need to be met for claimant to hold onto an earlier granted permission for ‘service out’ of the jurisdiction). The dispute concerns the world of music catalogues, advance royalties and (marketing) services rendered, or not, in regard to the  catalogued artists. Defendants are both based in California, claimant is England-incorporated. Concurrent proceedings are underway in New York.

Of interest to the blog is firstly the contractual gateway, which is to some degree assessed under retained EU law, for as part of its argument, claimant argues the lex contractus is English law.  That determination of the applicable law is done under (retained( EU law and Francis DM holds that it is not English law. No choice of law had been made per Article 3, which (in the absence of any protected categories) brings us into the cascade of A4 Rome I. It is worthwhile to repeat counsel argument in full [56-57]

Ms Lacob [for defendants] contended that the law of the agreements should be determined in accordance with paragraph (2) as being that of the State of California. That was on the basis that the party which was required to effect the characteristic performance of each of the agreements was Drive-Thru and War Road respectively, and their country, or (in this case) territorial unit, of habitual residence, being the place where they had their central administration, was California. She identified the performance which was characteristic of each of the agreements as being Drive-Thru and War Road’s obligations to licence the exploitation of their portfolio works, to remaster and remix their recordings or the release new recordings, as the case may be, and (in the case of War Road) to sign up new bands; in contrast, Ditto’s only obligation was to pay money which was not the performance which was characteristic of the agreements.

Mr Kitson for Ditto [claimant] took issue with this. He pointed to the fact that Drive-Thru and War Road themselves contended in the New York proceedings that Ditto was in breach of its obligations (whether express or implied) under the agreements to take possession of the recordings and to distribute the same so as to earn royalties for the parties’ joint benefit. Thus, he argued, the performance characteristic of the agreement was not all on the side of Drive-Thru and War Road.

The reference to the arguments in the New York proceedings is interesting for it suggests ‘form’. However the judge agreed [58] with defendants that

these agreements are ones under which there were substantial performance obligations (other than simply the payment of money) on both sides. In reality, the agreements were joint ventures for the development and exploitation of Drive-Thru’s and War Road’s existing and future portfolio works for their mutual benefit. They are the type of agreements which Mann J refers to in his judgment in Apple Corps at paragraph 54 where it is not possible to identify a characteristic performance provided by one only of the parties.

Even the centre of gravity rule (recital 19, which the judge does not refer to) does not assist here hence the analysis needs to jump to A4(4)’s ‘proper law of the contract’ rule.  [59]

What then is the country or territorial unit with which the agreements are most closely connected? On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that it is the State of California. That was where Drive-Thru and War Road were based and where for the most part they would perform their obligations under the agreements. In contrast, Ditto’s own obligations relating to the digital distribution of the portfolio works were not ones which, on the evidence, fell to be performed in England to any particular extent, even if Ditto’s central administration was based in England. Instead, Ditto’s rights to exploitation of the portfolio works, and any corresponding obligations relating to the distribution of such works, were worldwide, reflecting the global reach of the Ditto Music brand.

Conclusion is that California law is the lex contractus.

The contractual gateway was however found to have been fulfilled on the basis of CPR PD6B paragraph 3.1 ‘contract made within the jurisdiction’. The judge finds that the contracts were ‘made’ both in CAL and in E&W [54] although he does lament [48] the artificial nature of the issue as the law currently stands: were contracts are ‘made’. I find this is especially relevant in a contemporary context of electronic correspondence, Zoom meetings and the like. Where a contract is ‘made’ seems fairly nugatory these days.

The tort gateway is discussed without reference to UKSC Brownlie for that was en route at the time of the discussions in current case. It is at any rate held to be met [[71] for claimant has quite clearly sustained damage in England as a result of the alleged misrepresentations.

At [72] ff follows an interesting, brief discussion on the location of intellectual property with finally the curtain drawn on English proceedings as a result of forum non [80 ff].

Geert.

1/2 Ditto v Drive-Thru Records [2021] EWHC 2035 (Ch) (17 November 2021)
Permission to serve out set aside
Contract gateway discussed viz retained EU law, A4(4) Rome I (leading to CAL law)
Tort gateway upheld: damage sustained in E&W
Obiter discussion of…

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 18, 2021