Before : MR JUSTICE PETER SMITH Between :
|
|
- Bertram Sharp
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 1023 (Ch) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION Case No: HC09CO1648 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 11/05/2010 Before : MR JUSTICE PETER SMITH Between : Secret Hotels 2 Limited - and - E.A. Traveller Limited Claimant Defendant Charlotte Edge (instructed by Blake Lapthorn) for the Claimant Mark Warwick (instructed by Jeffrey Green Russell) for the Defendant Peter Smith J : Hearing dates: 27th April Judgment INTRODUCTION 1. This appeal has been extremely well argued by both parties on this appeal. It is the Claimant s appeal with permission from Master Moncaster against his decision dated 9th February 2010 when he granted the Defendant s application for a stay of these proceedings pursuant to Article 27 of the Council Regulation (EC) no 44/2001 ( the Judgment Regulations ). BACKGROUND 2. The Claimant is a company registered and domiciled in England and Wales. Until 1st February 2009 it provided holiday accommodation in (amongst other countries) Cyprus. Until 25th February 2009 it operated under the name of Med Hotels Ltd. In this judgment I shall call it Med. 3. The Defendant (EA Traveller Ltd) ( Traveller ) is registered and domiciled in Cyprus. At all material times Traveller operated as Med s agent in Cyprus under two written agreements ( the Agency Agreements ) the first dated 12th April 2006 and the second ( the 2007 Agreement ) dated 18th September Clause 14 of the 2007 Agreement provided this Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English Law and the parties irrevocably submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts to settle any disputes that may arise in connection with this Agreement.
2 5. Traveller s obligations under the Agency Agreements included making hotel bookings on Med s behalf and acting as a local point of contact for holidaymakers. 6. On 1st February 2009 Med sold its business assets including the name Med Hotels Ltd to Thomas Cook. From that date onwards it ceased to operate in Cyprus and no longer had any need for Traveller s services. 7. The contractual period of the 2007 Agreement was from 1st May 2007 to 30th April Following the sale of its assets as I have said Med has not required Traveller s services under that Agreement. It is not clear at the moment what is the position about the 2007 Agreement. By that I mean Med s stance as to whether it terminated the same pursuant to any contractual right or whether its non use of Traveller before the expiration of the term covered by the 2007 Agreement is a breach of some express or implied term has not yet been ventilated. 8. It should be noted however that clause 12.3 provided:- in the event the volume of business (measured by passenger numbers and financial turnover) decreases by greater than 20% over the previous full season, measured by the company s data, then both parties reserve the right to review the exclusive nature of this Agreement and may consider contracting with third parties 9. Although this is not a part of the claim brought by Traveller in Cyprus (see below) it is not inconceivable that that clause with its contemplated minimum percentage might lead to an implied term that neither party should by its action take any step to prevent the maintenance of the minimum level contemplated by clause It is therefore capable of being argued that by unilaterally disposing of its business Med has in effect broken the Agreement which contemplated that for the period of its duration a certain minimum level of business would be achieved. 10. That is not currently a claim but the position of any claims under the 2007 Agreement is at a very early stage relatively speaking. PROCEEDINGS 11. There was an exchange of correspondence between the parties respective lawyers following the sale of the assets. It is fair to say in my view that Med kept Traveller in the dark about what was going on; Traveller only found out about the sale from the press. It instituted proceedings in Cyprus in the Limassol District Court of Cyprus on 13th March The endorsement of claims in those proceedings states the claim is for:- Euro 3,000,000 for damages for breach of the terms of the Agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1) that was signed on 18th September 2007 which Agreement is supplemented and/or amended by arrangements and/or agreements, partly in writing and partly orally, effected between the Plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 and which resulted in the Plaintiff suffering damages and losses
3 12. The witness statement of Franklin Price on behalf of Traveller states that the claim is for damages for breach of the terms of the Agreement on the basis that Med has placed its business with other Agents in Cyprus prior to the sale of its business and has suffered loss. It is submitted on behalf of Med that the claim is speculative. In my view it is impossible to evaluate the claim `at this stage. 13. However it does not (despite its generalised form) apparently make any claim arising out of the failure to continue with the 2007 Agreement. This appears at least partly to be based on a misconception that Med is acting in breach of the exclusivity clause when in fact Med having sold its business is not carrying on any business in Cyprus. The former business owned by it is now being operated by Thomas Cook which has of course no contractual liability to Traveller. 14. On 14th May 2009 Med issued the present proceedings in England claiming an account in respect of all sums held by Traveller on its behalf and the payment of the sums found to be due on taking the account. JURISDICTION OF THE ENGLISH AND CYPRIOT COURTS 15. Both Cyprus and the United Kingdom are member states for the purposes of the Judgment Regulations. It is common ground that, subject to Articles 27 and 28, both the English and Cypriot courts have jurisdiction to determine both Med s and Traveller s claims. The English court has jurisdiction by virtue of the jurisdiction clause and article 23 of the Judgment Regulations and the Cypriot court has jurisdiction by virtue of article 5 because Cyprus was the place for the performance of the 2007 Agreement. 16. Either court was appropriate because the jurisdiction clause was non exclusive. Thus both parties contemplated the possibility that in the event of a dispute the proceedings could be commenced in either Cyprus or the United Kingdom. 17. One further factor I should mention is that the 2007 Agreement is governed by English law. TRAVELLER S APPLICATION 18. On 18th June 2009 Traveller applied for a stay of the English proceedings on the basis that the English proceedings and the Cyprus proceedings involve the same cause of action under Article 27 of the Judgment Regulations and that the Cyprus court was first seized. 19. Its application was initially put on the basis that the two sets of proceedings involve the same cause of action because they were between the same parties and arose out of the same contractual relationship. That argument was not pursued before the Master and has not been pursued on the appeal before me. 20. During the hearing Traveller submitted that its claim in the Cyprus proceedings could as a matter of law be set off against Med s claim in the English proceedings so that
4 both sets of proceedings would necessarily involve the same cause of action for the purposes of Article That stance was accepted by Med before the Master (see paragraph 5 of the Master s judgment). Miss Edge who appeared before the Master and who appears for Med accepted that was the position below. 22. In Med s Appellant s Notice (ground 2) it sought to resile from that stance and to argue that there was no right of set off in the hands of Traveller against Med s claim for an account in England and Wales. That technically was a new matter but after hearing submissions I determined that it was appropriate to allow, in the justice of the case, Med to withdraw the concession it made so that that issue could be fully argued on the appeal. I could see no discernable prejudice being suffered by Traveller in response to that. The only possibility is that it could have been said by Traveller that it might have needed to call evidence to address the issue raised by Med in paragraph 2 of its Notice of Appeal. That issue was as to whether or not the causes of action respectively were sufficiently connected so as to be an equitable set off. In the event Mr Warwick who appears for Traveller (and who appeared below) decided that there was no need for fresh evidence and that therefore the matter was simply a question of responding to a new argument. 23. Similarly the Master determined that he did not have enough material before him to decide whether or not he should exercise his discretion under Article 28 (paragraph 20 of his judgment). During the course of argument it seemed to me to be clear that there was sufficient material for that discretion in my judgment to be exercised, contrary to the learned Master s indication. 24. Traveller had not sought permission to appeal that determination nor had it served a Respondent s Notice seeking to affirm the Master s judgment on Article 28 grounds in the event that the appeal by Med was successful in respect of the Article 27 determination. The observations of the Master were strictly obiter because he decided the hearing on Article 27. Thus he had no need to consider Article In those circumstances it was appropriate in my view despite the lack of permission to appeal and Respondent s Notice to allow Traveller to maintain a fall back argument under Article 28. Once again no prejudice was identified and Med did not seek to call any evidence as to whether or not there were any other factors that might be available to put before the court in considering an exercise of a discretion under Article Thus in my view all arguments were fully ventilated on the appeal before me despite the technical failings on both sides. THE JUDGMENT REGULATIONS 27. The relevant regulations are Articles 27 and 28 which provide as follows:- Lis pendens - related actions Article 27
5 1. Where proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties are brought in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seised shall of its own motion stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established. 2. Where the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established, any court other than the court first seised shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court. Article Where related actions are pending in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seised may stay its proceedings. 2. Where these actions are pending at first instance, any court other than the court first seised may also, on the application of one of the parties, decline jurisdiction if the court first seised has jurisdiction over the actions in question and its law permits the consolidation thereof. 3. For the purposes of this Article, actions are deemed to be related where they are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. 28. It seems to me also that parts of the preamble to the regulations are relevant to the issues before me and I set those out:- Whereas: (1) The Community has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons is ensured. In order to establish progressively such an area, the Community should adopt, amongst other things, the measures relating to judicial cooperation in civil matters which are necessary for the sound operation of the internal market. (2) Certain differences between national rules governing jurisdiction and recognition of judgments hamper the sound operation of the internal market. Provisions to unify the rules of conflict of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters and to simplify the formalities with a view to rapid and simple recognition and enforcement of judgments from Member States bound by this Regulation are essential. (15) In the interests of the harmonious administration of justice it is necessary to minimise the possibility of concurrent
6 proceedings and to ensure that irreconcilable judgments will not be given in two Member States. There must be a clear and effective mechanism for resolving cases of lis pendens and related actions and for obviating problems flowing from national differences as to the determination of the time when a case is regarded as pending. For the purposes of this Regulation that time should be defined autonomously. 29. It will be seen that a major purpose behind the regulations was to unify the rules of conflict of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters to simplify the formalities with a view to rapid and simple recognition and enforcement of judgments from member states bound by the regulations. Recital (15) is particularly significant because a fundamental principle behind the regulations was to minimise the possibility of concurrent proceedings and to ensure that irreconcilable judgments would not be given in two member states. The purpose of the regulations was to provide clear and effective mechanisms for resolving cases of lis pendens and related actions and for obviating problems from national differences as to the determination of the time when a case is regarded as pending. 30. The difficulties created by international regulations like this is well exemplified by the case of Phillips v Symes [2008] UKHL 1 a case under the Lugano Convention where similar problems arose. DUPLICATION OF PROCEEDINGS 31. Miss Edge acknowledged that if the appeal was successful there will be two parallel sets of proceedings in Cyprus and the United Kingdom. She submitted that the proceedings in Cyprus would be dealt with by that court adjudicating on Traveller s claim for damages against Med whereas the UK court would simply address the question of the account of sums found due to Med from Traveller. 32. This seems to me to be unreal. As Miss Edge acknowledged in argument I have no control over the Cyprus proceedings and nothing in this jurisdiction can stop those proceedings continuing. It may be possible of course for Med to make an application for a stay in the Cyprus proceedings but that was most unlikely to be made and even more unlikely to be successful (it would involve Med standing on its head the arguments they maintain before me). 33. Similarly, if not stayed, the English proceedings for an account will also continue. Even if (which for reasons I set out below I do not accept) Miss Edge is correct in submitting that Traveller has no right of set off against the account it could nevertheless maintain a counter claim for any damages due to it as against the claim for an account. Equally in the Cypriot proceedings Med (assuming it adopts the same stance as before me of no set off) could maintain a counter claim in those proceedings as against the claim for damages. It seems to me inevitable that both parties will have to raise their respective claims in response to the claims brought against them. It would take a brave party not to raise matters in diminution of the liabilities to which it is exposed. If for example Traveller did not raise its damages claim (assuming it is a good one) against the account then the taking of the account and (significantly) the order for payment of the sums found due on that account will lead to a judgment against it not reduced by its damages claim. That judgment could then be enforced in
7 Cyprus as against it. An attempt to raise the claim at the enforcement stage might well be resisted by Med on the grounds that by failing to raise it in the English proceedings and the judgment it is too late to raise it in a separate action. The converse could equally apply as regards Med not raising the account in Cyprus. 34. Miss Edge sought to address that by suggesting that one or other of the judgments could be stayed until the other claim is fully determined. That to my mind demonstrates the difficulty of Med s resistance to Traveller s application. 35. Even if neither party chooses to raise defensively its claim in the proceedings brought against it there nevertheless will be the need to address the fact that proceedings are taking place in parallel in different jurisdictions. Miss Edge submitted that the proceedings will be different and the evidence will be different. With respect to Miss Edge I think that submission is premature on the basis of the information currently available to me. Further if both parties choose to use their respective claims defensively both sets of proceedings will be determining both claims. That will necessarily lead to the potential for conflicts which recital (15) of the Judgment Regulations says the regulations were designed to avoid. It would lead to both courts adjudicating the identical issues. 36. Even if that is not correct and that the English proceedings determine the account and the Cyprus proceedings determine the damages claim it does not follow that there might not be differences in evidence that might lead to differing and contradictory conclusions on the evidence. It is impossible at this stage to say what evidence will be led in both claims. 37. Finally in respect of these complicating factors the parties will be forced to instruct lawyers in two jurisdictions arising out of the disputes under the 2007 Agreement. This seems to me to be precisely the type of duplication once again that the regulations were designed to avoid. 38. I accept Miss Edge s submission that as the 2007 Agreement is governed by English law there will be a greater effort in Cyprus because expert evidence will have to be given in Cyprus as to the English law applicable to the 2007 Agreement. However that will not go away if the stay is lifted. All that will happen is that the English courts will adjudicate on the account with its knowledge of English law but the Cyprus action will still carry on and if there are English law issues expert evidence will have to be adduced. However given the historical background of Cyprus and its affinity to UK law rather than continental law I suspect this is a problem that is more theoretical than actual. However once again lifting the stay exacerbates the problem. 39. By way of contrast as a matter of practicality if the stay remains in place all the issues arising under the 2007 Agreement will be litigated and determined in one court only. This appears to be what the courts considered was a significant point to conventions like this see for example The Tatry [1999] QB 515 at 534 C. CLOSE CONNECTION 40. It is submitted by Med that the two different causes of action are not closely connected for the purposes of an equitable set off within the well known decision of
8 Hanak v Green [1958] 2 QB 9. There is no question of a legal set off nor any question of mutual set off of debts. 41. For an equitable set off to be maintained there must be a sufficiently close connection between the two demands. It involves a consideration of the circumstances of the particular case and a close connection may not suffice to impeach the title if there are other discretionary factors which mitigate against equitable relief see generally Derham, The Law of Set Of (3rd edition) paragraphs and It seems to me that if one looks at Med s claim for an account that involves an enquiry as to what sums are due to it and the payment of the sums found due to it on taking such enquiry. The claim therefore necessarily involves drawing an account between the parties dealings. If Med has committed a breach of contract when that account is taken any losses that flow from that will necessarily be forming part of the account which is designed to settle the ultimate balance. Hence the prayer for relief for payment of the sums found due on the taking of such account. 43. Similarly in the Cyprus proceedings the statement of claim when addressing the loss and damage sustained by reason of the alleged breaches and the quantification of that will necessarily have to take into account and give credit for monies which it holds on account for Med. 44. Thus both claims in my view are sufficiently connected as they both have to be determined in the respective primary claim so that each claim is available as a set off against the other claim. Both proceedings therefore in my view (unless one or other of the partners is sufficiently bold not to put its set off in issue) involve precisely the same issues. THE DECISION OF MASTER MONCASTER 45. I have already observed that the Master in paragraph 5 recited that the parties acknowledged that each would have a set off against the other s claim. That has been challenged in this appeal but the challenge is unsuccessful for the reasons set out above. 46. He has referred to the key decision of Gantner Electronic v Basch KC 111/01 which determined that in that case defences must be disregarded in the application of Article 27 so that admitted set off is irrelevant. He accepted Mr Warwick s submissions that the Gantner case did not apply to an equitable set off under English law. That was Mr Warwick s stance repeated before me in response to Med s appeal (see paragraph 10 of the judgment). He pointed to difficulties when a set off is required to be disregarded as outlined in paragraphs of the opinion of the Advocate General in the Gantner case and concluded (paragraph 17) that the decision ought to be confined to cases where the set off only arises by acts of the party rather than by operation of law. He concluded that the Gantner decision addressed matters that have to be raised subsequently in defence. Thus he concluded that it did not apply to claims which arise by operation of law. Accordingly he did not accept the Gantner decision applied. 47. He then concluded as I have said that he did not have sufficient evidence to consider an exercise of discretion under Article 28.
9 ARTICLE 27 A DISCUSSION 48. I have set out the recital to the regulation and Article 27 above. It is useful to contrast the wording in Article 27 from that in Article 28. Article 27 applies where proceedings involve the same cause of action and between the same parties. Where such proceedings are brought in the different courts of the Member States any court other than the court first seized shall of its own motion stay the proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seized is established. 49. Pausing there it is accepted that the Cyprus court was the first seized. Thus if the two sets of proceedings involve the same cause of action then the English proceedings must be stayed. That follows from paragraph 2 of Article 27. THE GANTNER CASE 50. It is interesting to see first what the Advocate General said. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Advocate s opinion the following is set out:- 6. In order to understand the case, it is appropriate to set out the principles of the Austrian law on set-off. As regards the concept of set-off, suffice it to note that it is a form of extinguishment of obligations. It has the effect of simultaneously extinguishing different obligations between two persons who are debtors of each other, to the extent of the lower debt. 7. According to Austrian law, set-off occurs by the unilateral declaration of one of the parties to the other. (4) Further types of set-off found in other European national laws, such as legal set-off (by operation of law) and judicial set-off (by order of a court), do not exist. The declaration may be made either extrajudicially or in proceedings. The declaration of set-off has the same effect whether it was made in an extrajudicial declaration or in proceedings. It is always retroactive - both debts are deemed to be extinguished on the date on which the requirements for set-off are satisfied, not on the date of the declaration of set-off, and the court merely makes a finding that the set-off has occurred. 51. Mr Warwick submits that those paragraphs show that the only matter being considered are statutory set offs under Austrian law. Express reference is made to other types of set off by operation of law or judicial set off. It is pointed out that such rights do not exist in Austria. 52. In the Gantner decision itself this is referred to again in paragraph 7:- Under Netherlands and Austrian law set-off always requires a unilateral declaration by one party to the other. Statutory set-off, characterised by the extinction of mutual claims by operation of law, which is well known in other European national laws, does not exist in Netherlands and Austrian law.
10 The declaration may be made either extra-judicially or in the course of proceedings. It has retroactive effect: the two claims are considered to be extinguished on the day on which the conditions for set-off are met and not on the day on which setoff is declared, and the court confines itself to making a declaration that set-off has been effected. 53. Once again the difference between the statutory nature of the set off in Netherlands and Austrian law is set out. Both require a unilateral declaration by one party to the other. The other form of European set offs (including the English right of equitable set off) are referred to. 54. The relevant parts of the decision are in paragraphs 25 and 26 where the following is said :- In that regard it must be observed, first of all, that according to its wording Article 21 of the Convention applies where two actions are between the same parties and involve the same subject-matter (see Gubisch Maschinenfabrik, cited above, paragraph 14). Furthermore, the subject-matter of the dispute for the purpose of that provision means the end the action has in view (The Tatry, cited above, paragraph 41). It thus appears from the wording of Article 21 of the Convention that it refers only to the applicants' respective claims in each of the sets of proceedings, and not to the defence which may be raised by a defendant. 55. It seems to me that is reflected in the different wording in Article 27 and Article 28. Article 27 refers to the same cause of action whereas Article 28 refers to merely related actions. 56. The conclusions are somewhat brief and somewhat bereft of reasoning: see paragraphs as follows:- Finally, the objective and automatic character of the lis pendens mechanism should be stressed. As the United Kingdom Government correctly points out, Article 21 of the Convention adopts a simple method to determine, at the outset of proceedings, which of the courts seised will ultimately hear and determine the dispute. The court second seised is required, of its own motion, to stay its proceedings until the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established. Once that has been established, it must decline jurisdiction in favour of the court first seised. The purpose of Article 21 of the Convention would be frustrated if the content and nature of the claims could be modified by arguments necessarily submitted at a later date by the defendant. Apart from delays and expense, such a solution could have the result that a
11 court initially designated as having jurisdiction under that article would subsequently have to decline to hear the case. It follows that, in order to determine whether there is lis pendens in relation to two disputes, account cannot be taken of the defence submissions, whatever their nature, and in particular of defence submissions alleging set-off, on which a defendant might subsequently rely when the court is definitively seised in accordance with its national law. In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first two questions is that Article 21 of the Convention must be construed as meaning that, in order to determine whether two claims brought between the same parties before the courts of different Contracting States have the same subject-matter, account should be taken only of the claims of the respective applicants, to the exclusion of the defence submissions raised by a defendant. 57. The simple question to be answered is whether those paragraphs are to be applied to all forms of set offs and not merely those actually before the court. Master Moncaster accepted the latter submission which Mr Warwick repeats before me. 58. In my view the Master was correct to accept that submission. In the Med claims in the English proceedings the claim is for an account. The account is to establish the net sum due to it on taking that account. That involves assessing any cross liability due from it to Traveller. Nevertheless it is part of the Claimant s action which seeks an enquiry as to the amount of monies due to it which necessarily involves (as the prayer for relief demonstrates) determining the net sum and an order for payment for that net sum. Thus Med will have to deal in its own claim for an account with any claims Traveller raises against it. 59. The same is true as regards Traveller s proceedings in Cyprus. Although it is a claim for damages Traveller holds monies on behalf of Med. In order to establish its loss in net terms it will have to give credit for the sums that it is holding. Thus it is an integral part of its claim that it will have to give credit for the account due from it to Med. 60. Thus when one looks at it both claims are identical because both claims as part of establishing their entitlement necessarily require them to give effect to sums that would be due from the other side. Both of those requirements form part of their respective cause of action. The only difference between the two of course is that the procedure in Cyprus starts with a Traveller claim which needs to deal with a Med account whereas the English action starts with a claim for an account which needs to take into account any liability to Traveller. Apart from that reversal of procedures they are both the same cause of action in my view. The cause of action is to determine what is due to each under the contract.
12 61. In my view this is not the kind of set off contemplated by the Gantner decision. I am reinforced in that view by the preamble to the regulations. The purposes of the regulations are as far as possible to ensure efficient and just disposal within the Member States and an avoidance of identical actions proceeding in differing jurisdictions with the potential difficulties. To allow the appeal would create precisely the difficulties the regulations are designed to avoid. If Gantner is to be interpreted to have that effect in my view it is wrongly decided and I will decline to follow it for that reason. However I have determined in my view the Gantner case is confined solely to the unilateral form of set off identified in Austria and the Netherlands. It is not in my view intended to have any application to the forms of set off in English law identified in this judgment. 62. For all of those reasons I will dismiss the appeal. ARTICLE As I have said Master Moncaster felt unable to come to a decision on Article 28 although it is clear if he had had further material he would have exercised a discretion to stay the English proceedings. 64. Article 28 is in my view drawn to address precisely the difficulties that would be caused by allowing the English action to continue. The difference of course is that the actions have to be related but they do not have to be identical. Further paragraph 3 shows that the actions are deemed to be related where they are so closely connected and it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. 65. It seems to me that the present situation falls precisely within Article 28. I have already set out earlier the consequences of allowing the appeal. In my view it is inevitable that parallel proceedings will exist in both jurisdictions with all the risks that that might cause. Even if Traveller s action proceeds in Cyprus and Med do not raise their account and the converse occurs there is still a duplication of effort because both parties would have to address the same basic material i.e. the contractual relationships how the contract is developed and how the contract relationship of either ended and upon what basis. Thus a large part of the material will be duplicated in both jurisdictions. 66. In any event it is difficult to see how that will in practice occur. I cannot accept that either party would take the risk of finding itself non suited by failing to raise its relevant set off. In any event as I have said I cannot stop the Cyprus proceedings and I cannot stop Traveller raising a set off in the English proceedings. 67. The only difference which was highlighted by Miss Edge is that the English court might be slightly advantaged because the Agreement is covered by English law. However that is not in my view a significant justification for allowing the two actions to carry on. I have already observed that English law experts will still be required in Cyprus to evaluate Traveller s claim there and that will carry on irrespective of any order I make. What will happen however is that English law will be applied according to expert evidence there to the contract and English law will be applied by English judges in relation to the accounts. It is in my view another classic example of duplication which the regulations are designed to avoid. It goes without saying that
13 the actions are related because they spring from the same contract and in view of the clear set offs which I have determined either party has it is difficult to see that they are not related and it is equally difficult to see that they are not closely connected. It is expedient for all the reasons that I have set out above to hear and determine them together as set out in Article Therefore if I am wrong on Article 27 I would unhesitatingly exercise the discretion under Article 28 to stay the English proceedings.
[340] COUNCIL REGULATION 44/2001/EC ( BRUSSELS II )
[340] COUNCIL REGULATION 44/2001/EC ( BRUSSELS II ) 4. Council Regulation 44/2001/EC of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
More informationThis document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
2001R0044 EN 09.07.2013 010.001 1 This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents B COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December
More informationCONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS
CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS CONV/JUD/en 1 PREAMBLE THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES TO THIS CONVENTION, DETERMINED to strengthen
More informationSEARS TOOTH SOLICITORS
B v B (Maintenance Regulation -Stay) [20171 EWHC 1029 (Earn) (09 May 2017) This judgment was delivered in private. The Judge has given permission for this anonymised version of the judgment (and any of
More informationREGULATIONS. to justice. Since a number of amendments are to be made to that Regulation it should, in the interests of clarity, be recast.
REGULATIONS 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
More informationThe Brussels/Lugano Lis Pendens Rule and the Italian Torpedo
The Brussels/Lugano Lis Pendens Rule and the Italian Torpedo Michael Bogdan 1 The Brussels/Lugano System... 90 2 The Rule on Lis Pendens..... 91 3 The Principle of Mutual Trust and the Italian Torpedo..
More informationProposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
EN EN EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 14.12.2010 COM(2010) 748 final 2010/0383 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement
More informationBrexit Paper 4: Civil Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments
1 Brexit Paper 4: Civil Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments Summary The ability to enforce judgments of the courts from one state in another is of vital importance for the functioning of society
More informationEUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 30 November 2012 (OR. en) 2010/0383 (COD) PE-CONS 56/12 JUSTCIV 294 CODEC 2277 OC 536
EUROPEAN UNION THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT THE COUNCIL Brussels, 30 November 2012 (OR. en) 2010/0383 (COD) PE-CONS 56/12 JUSTCIV 294 CODEC 2277 OC 536 LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMTS Subject: REGULATION
More information14652/15 AVI/abs 1 DG D 2A
Council of the European Union Brussels, 26 November 2015 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2011/0060 (CNS) 14652/15 JUSTCIV 277 NOTE From: To: Presidency Council No. prev. doc.: 14125/15 No. Cion doc.:
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 6 December 1994
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 6 December 1994 In Case C-406/92, REFERENCE to the Court under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
More information8118/16 SH/NC/ra DGD 2
Council of the European Union Brussels, 30 May 2016 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2016/0060 (CNS) 8118/16 JUSTCIV 71 LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMTS Subject: COUNCIL REGULATION implementing enhanced
More informationRESOLUTION. Resolution No. 1/2000 INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
RESOLUTION Resolution No. 1/2000 INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION The 69 th Conference of the International Law Association, held in London, United Kingdom, 25 th 29 th July 2000: HAVING CONSIDERED
More information39. PROTOCOL ON THE LAW APPLICABLE TO MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS 1. (Concluded 23 November 2007)
39. PROTOCOL ON THE LAW APPLICABLE TO MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS 1 (Concluded 23 November 2007) The States signatory to this Protocol, Desiring to establish common provisions concerning the law applicable
More informationTHE PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - and - THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
Page 1 of 15 Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWCA Civ 327 Case No: 2002/0972 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CHANCERY DIVISION)
More informationPractice Guide for the application of the new Brussels II Regulation.
EN Practice Guide for the application of the new Brussels II Regulation www.europa.eu.int/civiljustice Introduc tion The European Union s area of freedom, security and justice helps people in their daily
More informationBefore : MR JUSTICE KNOWLES CBE Between : (1) C1 (2) C2 (3) C3. - and
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 1893 (Comm) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION COMMERCIAL COURT Case No: CL-2015-000762 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 29/07/2016
More informationBefore : MR JUSTICE DAVID RICHARDS Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 270 (Ch) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION Case No: HC-2014-000704 Royal Courts of Justice Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 13 February
More informationCLIFFORD CHANCE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
CLIFFORD CHANCE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP SCXP/C1458/04790/HNM 16 February 2000 The Bond Market Association 40 Broad Street New York NY 10004-2373 USA Dear Sirs Cross-Product Master Agreement 1. INTRODUCTION
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM 21 December 2010 Before Registered at the Court of Justice under No. ~ 6b 5.21:. Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Collins (1)JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2) J.P.Morgan
More informationBrexit Essentials: Dispute resolution clauses
Brexit Essentials: Dispute resolution clauses In this briefing, we consider the potential impact of Brexit on contractual dispute resolution clauses. EU law underpins these clauses. When that law ceases
More informationSpecial Commission on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (13-17 November 2017)
Special Commission on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (13-17 November 2017) NOVEMBER 2017 DRAFT CONVENTION* *This document reproduces the text set out in Working Document No 236 E
More information(company number 2065) - and - (company number SC )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE NO: OF 2011 CHANCERY DIVISION COMPANIES COURT LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC (company number 2065) - and - BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC (company number SC 327000) SCHEME for the transfer of part
More informationGOVERNMENT GAZETTE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA
GOVERNMENT GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA N$15.20 WINDHOEK - 7 November 2014 No. 5608 CONTENTS Page GOVERNMENT NOTICES No. 227 Amendment of Rules of High Court of Namibia: High Court Act, 1990... 1
More informationFRENCH CONNECTION LTD & OTHERS. - and - FRESH IDEAS FASHION LTD & ANOTHER
Page 1 of 5 Neutral Citation Number: [2005] EWHC 3476 (Ch) Case No: HC04C04036 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 3rd November 2005 B e f o
More informationJurisdictional clauses: Exclusive or not? The example of the English Courts jurisdiction under the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement
149 Jurisdictional clauses: Exclusive or not? The example of the English Courts jurisdiction under the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement Dr Christian Oetiker and Dr Jana Essebier* Introduction In the aftermath
More informationRotary Watches Ltd. v Rotary Watches (USA) Inc [2004] APP.L.R. 12/17
JUDGMENT : Master Rogers : Costs Court, 17 th December 2004 ABBREVIATIONS 1. For the purposes of this judgment the Claimant will hereafter be referred to as "RWL" and the Defendant as "USA". THE ISSUE
More informationBRITAIN S BARGAINING STRENGTH REGARDING POST-BREXIT JURISDICTION ARRANGEMENTS. David Wolfson Q.C. Society of Conservative Lawyers
BRITAIN S BARGAINING STRENGTH REGARDING POST-BREXIT JURISDICTION ARRANGEMENTS David Wolfson Q.C. Society of Conservative Lawyers FOREWORD In August 2017 the UK Government proposed an agreement with the
More informationTHE SMALL CLAIMS COURT BILL, 2007
Small Claims Courts Bill, 2007 Section THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT BILL, 2007 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES PART 1 - PRELIMINARY 1 - Short title and commencement 2 - Purpose 3 - Interpretation PART II ESTABLISHMENT
More informationArbitration Act 1996
Arbitration Act 1996 An Act to restate and improve the law relating to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement; to make other provision relating to arbitration and arbitration awards; and for
More information2018 ISDA Choice of Court and Governing Law Guide
2018 ISDA Choice of Court and Governing Law Guide International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. Copyright 2018 by International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. 10 E 53 rd Street 9th Floor
More informationMott MacDonald Ltd v London & Regional Properties Ltd [2007] Adj.L.R. 05/23
JUDGMENT : HHJ Anthony Thornton QC. TCC. 23 rd May 2007 1. Introduction 1. The claimant, Mott MacDonald Ltd ( MM ) is a specialist engineering multi-disciplinary consultancy providing services to the construction
More informationPRACTICAL LAW DISPUTE RESOLUTION VOLUME 1 MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL GUIDE 2012/13. The law and leading lawyers worldwide
PRACTICAL LAW MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL GUIDE 2012/13 VOLUME 1 The law and leading lawyers worldwide Essential legal questions answered in 32 key jurisdictions Rankings and recommended lawyers in 90 jurisdictions
More informationGoods Mortgages Bill
CONTENTS PART 1 INTRODUCTORY 1 Overview PART 2 CREATION OF GOODS MORTGAGES Goods mortgages 2 Goods mortgages 3 Goods mortgages: co-owners 4 Qualifying goods Requirements to be met in relation to instrument
More informationMaking a cross border claim in the EU
EX725 Making a cross border claim in the EU Using the European Order for Payment Procedure or European Small Claims Procedure Where should I issue my claim? Before considering suing another person or body
More informationSpecial Commission on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (24-29 May 2018)
Special Commission on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (24-29 May 2018) 2018 DRAFT CONVENTION* *This document reproduces the text set out in Working Document No 262 REV 2 CHAPTER I
More informationThe European Small Claims procedure in Luxembourg
The European Small Claims procedure in Luxembourg Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European small claims procedure. Summary of the
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 11 October 2007 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 11 October 2007 * In Case C-98/06, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Articles 68 EC and 234 EC from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden), made by decision of 8 February
More informationREVISION TO BRUSSELS I CONFERENCE CONTRACT AND TORT INTRODUCTION
REVISION TO BRUSSELS I CONFERENCE CONTRACT AND TORT Paper by Brian Murray SC 14 th May 2011 INTRODUCTION 1. Obviously, for most practitioners, most of the time, the most important jurisdictional rules
More informationArbitration Act CHAPTER Part I. Arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement. Introductory
Arbitration Act 1996 1996 CHAPTER 23 1 Part I Arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement Introductory 1. General principles. 2. Scope of application of provisions. 3. The seat of the arbitration.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, Solely in its capacity as Second Indenture Lien Trustee, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. Nos. 602 and 603, 2005 Consolidated CALPINE
More informationCLIFFORD CHANCE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
CLIFFORD CHANCE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP SCXP/C1458/04790/HNM 16 February 2000 The Bond Market Association 40 Broad Street New York NY 10004-2373 USA Dear Sirs Cross-Product Master Agreement 1. INTRODUCTION
More informationB e f o r e: MR JUSTICE BLAIR Between: THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ABDULLAH Claimant
Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 1771 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Case No. CO/11937/2008 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Date:
More informationATHANASIOS KORONIADIS Appellant. BANK OF NEW ZEALAND Respondent. Cooper, Venning and Williams JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA522/2013 [2015] NZCA 337 BETWEEN AND ATHANASIOS KORONIADIS Appellant BANK OF NEW ZEALAND Respondent Hearing: 18 June 2015 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Cooper, Venning
More informationPART 8 ARBITRATION REGULATIONS CONTENTS
PART 8 ARBITRATION REGULATIONS * CONTENTS Section Page 1 Definitions and Interpretations 8-1 2 Commencement 8-2 3 Appointment of Tribunal 8-3 4 Procedure 8-5 5 Notices and Communications 8-5 6 Submission
More informationLEGAL SCHEME REGULATIONS. These Regulations came into force on 1 October 2017
LEGAL SCHEME REGULATIONS These Regulations came into force on 1 October 2017 1 Introduction 1.1 These Regulations govern the Union s Legal Scheme. The Rules of the Union set out your other rights and entitlements.
More informationPRESCRIPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL
PRESCRIPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL EXPLANATORY NOTES INTRODUCTION 1. As required under Rule 9.3.2A of the Parliament s Standing Orders, these Explanatory Notes are published to accompany the Prescription (Scotland)
More informationRules of Procedure ( Rules ) of the Unified Patent Court
18 th draft of 19 October 2015 Rules of Procedure ( Rules ) of the Unified Patent Court Preliminary set of provisions for the Status 1. First draft dated 29 May 2009 Discussed in expert meetings on 5 June
More information38. CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY OF CHILD SUPPORT AND OTHER FORMS OF FAMILY MAINTENANCE 1. (Concluded 23 November 2007)
(Dieses Übereinkommen wurde nur in englisch und französisch erstellt; bitte hier klicken für die deutsche Übersetzung.) 38. CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY OF CHILD SUPPORT AND OTHER FORMS OF
More informationARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE SIAC RULES (5 TH EDITION, 1 APRIL 2013)
ARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE SIAC RULES (5 TH EDITION, 1 APRIL 2013) 1. Scope of Application and Interpretation 1.1 Where parties have agreed to refer their disputes
More informationREGULATION (EU) No 650/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
REGULATION (EU) No 650/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic
More informationCase Document 763 Filed in TXSB on 11/06/18 Page 1 of 18
Case 18-30197 Document 763 Filed in TXSB on 11/06/18 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION In re: Chapter 11 LOCKWOOD HOLDINGS, INC., et
More informationTHE SINGAPORE APPROACH TO THE ADJOURNMENT OF PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE A FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARD
Published on 6 September 2018 THE SINGAPORE APPROACH TO THE ADJOURNMENT OF PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE A FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARD Margaret Joan LING LLB (National University of Singapore); Partner, Litigation
More informationDirective 98/26/EC on Settlement Finality in Payment and Securities Settlement Systems
Directive 9826EC on Settlement Finality in Payment and Securities Settlement Systems 1 Directive 9826EC The Financial Markets and Insolvency (Settlement Finality) Regulations 1999 1 Text Applicability
More informationApplicant Seal PENAL NOTICE ]1 DISOBEY THIS ORDER YOU MAY BE HELD TO BE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND MAY BE IMPRISONED, FINED OR HAVE YOUR ASSETS SEIZED.
FREEZING INJUNCTION Before The Honourable Mr Justice IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [ ] DIVISION [ ] Claim No. Dated Applicant Seal Respondent Name, address and reference of Respondent PENAL NOTICE IF YOU
More informationSource: BOOK: International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration, J. Paulsson (ed.), Suppl. 30 (January/2000)
Source: BOOK: International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration, J. Paulsson (ed.), Suppl. 30 (January/2000) The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (No. 26 of 1996), [16th August 1996] India An Act
More informationBefore: MR RECORDER BERKLEY MISS EASHA MAGON. and ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE PLC
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CENTRAL LONDON Case No: B53Y J995 Court No. 60 Thomas More Building Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Friday, 26 th February 2016 Before: MR RECORDER BERKLEY B E T W
More informationVIANINI LAVORI S.P.A. v THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY - [1992] HKCU 0463
1 VIANINI LAVORI S.P.A. v THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY - [1992] HKCU 0463 High Court (in Chambers) Kaplan, J. Construction List No. 4 of 1992 6 March 1992, 27 May 1992 Kaplan, J. This matter raises
More informationTRUST LAW DIFC LAW NO.6 OF Annex A
DIFC LAW NO.6 OF 2017 Annex A CONTENTS PART 1: GENERAL... 6 1. Title and repeal... 6 2. Legislative authority... 6 3. Application of the Law... 6 4. Scope of the Law... 6 5. Date of Enactment... 6 6. Commencement...
More informationGoods Mortgages Bill [HL]
Goods Mortgages Bill [HL] CONTENTS PART 1 INTRODUCTORY 1 Overview PART 2 CREATION OF GOODS MORTGAGES Goods mortgages 2 Goods mortgages 3 Goods mortgages: co-owners 4 Qualifying goods Requirements to be
More informationPART I ARBITRATION - CHAPTER I
INDIAN BARE ACTS THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 No.26 of 1996 [16th August, 1996] An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration
More informationIf this Judgment has been ed to you it is to be treated as read-only. You should send any suggested amendments as a separate Word document.
Neutral Citation Number: [2005] EWHC 664 (Ch) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION Case No: Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: Friday 22 April 2005 Before : MR JUSTICE LADDIE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL WHITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED. and DCG PROPERTIES LIMITED. 2011: July 25, 26; September 26.
SAINT LUCIA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HCVAP 2010/022 BETWEEN: WHITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED and DCG PROPERTIES LIMITED Before: The Hon. Mr. Hugh A. Rawlins The Hon. Mde. Ola Mae Edwards The Hon. Mde.
More informationThe European Small Claims procedure in Belgium
The European Small Claims procedure in Belgium Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European small claims procedure. Summary of the objectives
More informationCross Border Contracts and Dispute Settlement
Cross Border Contracts and Dispute Settlement Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Helmut Rüßmann Former Judge at the Saarland Court of Appeals Cross Border Contract of Sale Buyer France Claim for Payment Germany
More informationArbitration Act of United Kingdom United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Arbitration Act of United Kingdom United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Royaume-Uni - Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'irlande du Nord) ARBITRATION ACT 1996 1996 CHAPTER 23 An Act to
More informationGuarantee. THIS DEED is dated. 1. Definitions and Interpretation. 1.1 Definitions. In this Deed:
Guarantee THIS DEED is dated 1. Definitions and Interpretation 1.1 Definitions In this Deed: We / us / our / the Lender Bank of Cyprus UK Limited, trading as Bank of Cyprus UK, incorporated in England
More informationAvoiding jurisdictional disasters: How will the updated EU Jurisdiction Rules impact your dispute resolution strategy?
Dispute resolution October 2015 Update Avoiding jurisdictional disasters: How will the updated EU Jurisdiction Rules impact your dispute resolution strategy? The UK continues to retain its position as
More informationElements of a Civil Claim
Elements of a Civil Claim This presentation provides an overview of the elements of a civil claim, with particular reference to construction claims, and looks at each dispute resolution option in the context
More informationIMPROVING PAYMENT PRACTICES IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
IMPROVING PAYMENT PRACTICES IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY Report of the DTI s post-consultation event held in London on 14th February 2006 On Valentine s Day 2006, the Right Honourable Alun Michael MP compared
More informationDATED 20 HSBC BANK PLC. and [FUNDER] and [COMPANY] DEED OF PRIORITY
Funder Priority specified assets. DATED 20 HSBC BANK PLC and [FUNDER] and [COMPANY] DEED OF PRIORITY CONTENTS PAGE 1 DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION... 1 2 CONSENTS... 2 3 PRIORITIES... 2 4 CONTINUING SECURITY...
More informationProposed Amendment in Section 28 of The Contract Act, 1872
Introduction Proposed Amendment in Section 28 of The Contract Act, 1872 Any undertaking between two individuals or groups of individuals results in a contract. From morning till evening, day in and day
More informationThe European Small Claims procedure in the Netherlands
The European Small Claims procedure in the Netherlands Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European small claims procedure. Summary
More informationARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE THIRD AGE TRUST
The Companies Act 1985 Company Limited by Guarantee and not having a Share Capital ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE THIRD AGE TRUST As amended by Resolutions to date and the Special Resolutions of May 2008
More informationSECTION 1 INTRODUCTORY RULES...
Preamble This Arbitration Procedure has been prepared by Engineers Ireland principally for use in disputes arising out of engineering work, and in particular construction Contracts. However its use is
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ST. KITTS NEVIS ANGUILLA NATIONAL BANK LIMITED. and CARIBBEAN 6/49 LIMITED
SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS CIVIL APPEAL NO.6 OF 2002 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ST. KITTS NEVIS ANGUILLA NATIONAL BANK LIMITED and CARIBBEAN 6/49 LIMITED Appellant Respondent Before: The Hon. Mr.
More informationBefore : LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE LORD JUSTICE BEATSON and LORD JUSTICE DAVID RICHARDS Between:
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWCA Civ 1131 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION COMMERCIAL COURT MR JUSTICE ANDREW BAKER Case No: A3/2017/0190
More informationNumber 10 of Valuation (Amendment) Act 2015
Number 10 of 2015 Valuation (Amendment) Act 2015 Number 10 of 2015 VALUATION (AMENDMENT) ACT 2015 Section 1. Definition CONTENTS 2. Amendment of section 3 of Principal Act 3. Amendment of section 4 of
More informationENGLISH SPEAKING BOARD (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED
COMPANY NUMBER 01269980 COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE AND NOT HAVING A SHARE CAPITAL MEMORANDUM & ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF: ENGLISH SPEAKING BOARD (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED Originally incorporated the 22nd
More informationPractice Guideline 9: Guideline for Arbitrators on Making Orders Relating to the Costs of the Arbitration
Practice Guideline 9: Guideline for Arbitrators on Making Orders Relating to the Costs of the Arbitration 1. Introduction 1.1 One of the most difficult and important functions which an arbitrator has to
More informationRegulation 4/2009 and rules of jurisdiction
Prof. (em.) Dr. Dieter Martiny Frankfurt (Oder)/Hamburg Regulation 4/2009 and rules of jurisdiction EJTN - Seminar on Maintenance Obligations in Europe 5 th - 6 th December 2013 Sofia, Bulgaria A. Introduction
More informationCyprus. Prepared by Chrysanthos CHRISTOFOROU Andreas Neocleous & Co LLC
Cyprus Prepared by Chrysanthos CHRISTOFOROU Andreas Neocleous & Co LLC Address: Neocleous House 195 Archbishop Makarios III Avenue P O Box 50613 Limassol CY 3608 Cyprus Tel.: +357 25 110000 Fax: +357 25
More informationCONVENTION ON CHOICE OF COURT AGREEMENTS. (Concluded 30 June 2005)
CONVENTION ON CHOICE OF COURT AGREEMENTS (Concluded 30 June 2005) The States Parties to the present Convention, Desiring to promote international trade and investment through enhanced judicial co-operation,
More informationBefore : LORD JUSTICE LAWS LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS and LORD JUSTICE LAWRENCE COLLINS Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWCA Civ 1283 Case No: B2/2008/0489 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM CENTRAL LONDON CIVIL JUSTICE CENTRE HIS HONOUR JUDGE
More informationBefore: JUSTICE ANDREW BAKER (In Private) - and - ANONYMISATION APPLIES
If this Transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual
More informationSINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE (SIAC)
GUIDE TO INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE (SIAC) Written By S. Ravi Shankar Advocate on Record - Supreme Court of India National President of Arbitration Bar of India
More informationBULGARIA COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RESIDUAL JURISDICTION PREPARED BY: SVELTIN PENKOV, MARKOV & PARTNERS
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RESIDUAL JURISDICTION IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL DISPUTES IN THE EU NATIONAL REPORT FOR: BULGARIA PREPARED BY: SVELTIN PENKOV, MARKOV & PARTNERS 1 (A) General Structure of National Jurisdictional
More informationARBITRATION RULES. Arbitration Rules Archive. 1. Agreement of Parties
ARBITRATION RULES 1. Agreement of Parties The parties shall be deemed to have made these rules a part of their arbitration agreement whenever they have provided for arbitration by ADR Services, Inc. (hereinafter
More informationLAW OF 16 JULY 2004 HOLDING THE CODE OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW CHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS. SECTION 1. Preliminary provision
LAW OF 16 JULY 2004 HOLDING THE CODE OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW English translation by: Caroline Clijmans (LLM, NYU), Lawyer, Belgium and Prof. Dr. Paul Torremans, School of Law, University of Nottingham,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Ireland v Trilby Misso Lawyers [2011] QSC 127 PARTIES: COLIN LEO IRELAND Applicant V TRILBY MISSO LAWYERS Respondent FILE NO/S: SC 24 of 2011 DIVISION: PROCEEDING:
More informationINTERNATIONAL PERFORMER MANDATE APPOINTMENT. This Appointment is made the day of the month of in the year of. PPL ID: (the Performer ); and
INTERNATIONAL PERFORMER MANDATE APPOINTMENT This Appointment is made the day of the month of in the year of Between: A. Performer Name : PPL ID: (the Performer ); and B. PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED
More informationCLASS ACTION DEVELOPMENTS IN EUROPE (April 2015) Stefaan Voet. Recommendation on Common Principles for Collective Redress Mechanisms
CLASS ACTION DEVELOPMENTS IN EUROPE (April 2015) Stefaan Voet Recommendation on Common Principles for Collective Redress Mechanisms In June 2013, the European Commission published its long-awaited Recommendation
More informationEnforcement of Arbitral Awards
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards The Practical Lawyer Enforcement of Arbitral Awards By M. Dhyan Chinnappa* Cite as : (2002) 8 SCC (Jour) 39 Introduction "An arbitrator is a private extraordinary judge between
More information1. THE CHANNEL TUNNEL GROUP LTD. 2. FRANCE-MANCHE S.A. and 1. UNITED KINGDOM 2. FRANCE DISSENTING OPINION OF LORD MILLETT
1. THE CHANNEL TUNNEL GROUP LTD. 2. FRANCE-MANCHE S.A. and 1. UNITED KINGDOM 2. FRANCE DISSENTING OPINION OF LORD MILLETT 1. I am in entire agreement with the present Award save on one point only, on which
More informationOMBUDSMAN BILL, 2017
Arrangement of Sections Section PART I - PRELIMINARY 3 1. Short title...3 2. Interpretation...3 3. Application of Act...4 PART II OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN 5 ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN
More informationThe ABTA Arbitration Scheme Rules
23 rd May 2016 The ABTA Arbitration Scheme Rules 1. Introduction 1.1 This Scheme is supplied exclusively by CEDR, Europe s leading independent dispute resolution service. 1.2 The Scheme has been designed
More informationRULES OF COURT (1978) ADOPTED ON 14 APRIL 1978 AND ENTERED INTO FORCE ON 1 JULY
Rules of Court Article 30 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice provides that "the Court shall frame rules for carrying out its functions". These Rules are intended to supplement the general
More informationFAST RESERVE TENDER RULES AND STANDARD CONTRACT TERMS
FAST RESERVE TENDER RULES AND STANDARD CONTRACT TERMS ISSUE #2 DATED 1 APRIL 2013 DRAFT DOCUMENT Network Operations National Grid Electricity Transmission plc National Grid House Warwick Technology Park
More informationIN THE MATTER OF LEHMAN BROTHERS INTERNATIONAL (EUROPE) (IN ADMINISTRATION) ( LBIE ) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Case No.: A2/2016/4109 ON APPEAL FROM No.: 7942 of 2008 THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION COMPANIES COURT Before the Honourable Mr Justice Hildyard IN THE MATTER OF LEHMAN
More informationDUBAI INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE RULES 2007 AS OF 22 ND FEBRUARY Introductory Provisions. Article (1) Definitions
DUBAI INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE RULES 2007 AS OF 22 ND FEBRUARY 2011 Introductory Provisions Article (1) Definitions 1.1 The following words and phrases shall have the meaning assigned thereto unless
More information