Jurisdiction and conflict of laws Flashcards
What is the difference between jurisdiction to determine claim and which country’s laws will determine it?
- Jurisdiction = whether E+W will decide dispute
- Which country’s laws = assuming E+W will decide dispute, which laws they will use
E.g. E+W may have jurisdiction but have to use French law
What is the effect on CPR application if E+W law is not the law used to determine a dispute?
Nothing - procedural law remains even if substantive law changes
How is it decided whether E+W has jurisdiction to hear a claim?
- By reference to the Hague Convention
- (Otherwise) by applying common law rules
I.e. Go to common law rules if HC not applicable
What is the general rule re jurisdiction for disputes over matters occurring in E+W?
Courts of E+W will determine disputes (and not over matters taking place outside E+W/invoving nationals of other countries)
But from here additional criteria must be satisfied to establish E+W has jurisdiction
What does the Hague Convention do and when will it apply?
- Allows parties to control which court hears dispute (regardless of where parties are based)
- Applies to court agreements concluded on or after 1 October 2015 and proceedings commenced on or after 1 Jan 2021
Choice will be made in agreement/contract between parties
Must the parties be from a contracting state of Hague Convention to enter into a court agreement under it?
No
But the chosen court must be!
What is the only situation in which the Hague Convention will apply?
- The matter is a civil or commercial matter
- It is not a type of dispute excluded from the Hague Convention
- A clause in the contrat grants jurisdiction to a contracting state
- …and exclusively that state
- The agreement is (evidenced) in writing
What types of disputes are excluded from the Hague Convention?
Consumers and employment matters
Public and criminal not included too
Must jurisdiction be granted to a contracting state of the Hague Convention?
Yes
Even though neither party must be based there
What are the contracting states of the Hague Convention?
UK, all EU MS, Mexico, Singapore, Montenegro
What happens if a clause indicates jurisdiction will be had by a non-contracting state?
Convention does not apply - but agreement not necessarily ineffective as can operate through common law rules
See later card
What is meant by the requirement that jurisdiction must be granted exclusively to that state?
Hague Convention only applies if clause means that country and no other country will have jurisdiction
E.g.
“The Courts of E+Ws will have exclusive jurisdiction to determine any dispute arising out of this contract” = HC applies
“The Courts of E+Ws will have non-exclusive jurisdiction to determine any dispute arising out of this contract” = HC does not apply
Must the clause say ‘exclusive jurisdiction’?
But only says one place of jurisdiction
No - will be assumed to mean exclusive jurisdiction
E.g. “The Courts of E+Ws will have jurisdiction to determine any dispute arising out of this contract”
Would an asymmetric agreement fall within the Hague Convention?
Asymmetric agreement = one that provides that one party can commence proceedings only in a specific named country, but the other party can commence proceedings in that country or any other which would have jurisdiction under any other relevant rules
Unclear to say
What are the two main consequences of a valid Hague Convention?
- Court indicated as having jurisdiction will have jurisdiction and cannot decline it
- Any other court must refuse to hear proceedings (with limited exceptions)
How can the court have jurisdiction if there is no Hague Convention?
By applying the common law rules (on service of proceedings)
What are the 3 ways the court can have jurisdiction (and service of proceedings can be carried out) under common law?
(Where jurisdiction is disputed obvs)
- The D is present in the jurisdiction and it is possible to serve proceedings on them
- The court gives permission to serve proceedings on D outside jurisdiction
- Courts of E+W are given jurisdiction by a clause in a contract
When can proceedings be served on D whilst they are in the jurisdiction?
- Where D is foreign (and based in another jurisdiction)
- The subject matter of the proceedings took place in another jurisdiction
What are the methods of serving proceedings on the D whilst they are in jurisdiction?
- Personal service - on individual even if briefly in E+W
- Place of business of company in E+W if not incorporated in E+W
- Solicitor in jurisdiction if D has appointed solicitor in E+W to accept service on behalf
What three matters must be established to obtain permission from the court to serve proceedings on D outside of jurisdiction?
Used if party cannot/does not want to serve proceedings on D in jurisdic
- One of the grounds (jurisdictional gateways)
- Reasonable prospects of success
- E+W must be the proper place in which to bring a claim
What are the jurisdictional gateways?
Requirement 1
Claim made:
- For remedy against person domiciled in jurisdiction
- In respect of a contract made within jurisdiction, governed by English law or contains a term to effect court shall have jurisdiction
- In respect of breach of contract committed within jurisdiction
- In tort where damage (will be) sustained in jurisdiction (from an act committed within jurisdiction)
What is the threshold for reasonable prospect of success in obtaining permission?
Requirement 2
Low - equated to prospect of success needed to resist application for summary judgement
What does it mean for the jurisdiction to be the ‘proper place’ to bring proceedings?
Requirement 3
If it is the natural place to bring proceedings e.g. witness based there, D normally resides there
Can jurisdiction still be the proper place if not the natural place?
Yes - if justice nonetheless requires claim be tried in E+W e.g. risk of improper GOV interference in different jurisdiction
What is the difference between the Hague Convention and the common law rule that E+W can be given jurisdiction by clause in contract?
Both are without court’s permission
Common law rule applies:
- To exclusive choice of court agreements made before 1 Oct 2015
- If jurisdiction is not given to E+W exclusively
I.e. an alternative, backup route