Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

ipl > ROME 1 > Flashcards

ROME 1 Flashcards

1
Q

rules of juristiction

A 
scope of reg/ convention
def domiciled in eu country
Lugano convention country
def dom in UK = 1982 act sch 4
domiciled outside either of the Lugano or eu THEN 1982 sch4 (internal scot rules of jurisdiction apply)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

brussels 1 reg applies art1(1) and 1(2)

A 
commercial and civil matters ONLY not extend to revenue customs or admin matters.
1(2)
 will not apply to status or legal capacity
bankruptcy
social sec
arbitration
maintenance
wills
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

LTU GmBH v Eurocontrol

A

civil and commercial matters undefined by the reg. THE eCJ held this term must be given a meaning autonomous not tied with the understanding of one legal system BUT interpreted with the legal principals which emerge of the national legal systems

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

west tankers inc v allianz spa

A

brussels 1 art 1(2)(d) ARBITRATION.
HELD the decision of the ECJ in this case to the effect that the court proceedings incidentally related to arbitration did come WITHIN SCOPE of the reg and could therefore OUST, at least temporarlily, the courts seat of arbitration!. caused much controversy in UK.
INTRODUCES RECITAL 12

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

RECITAL 12

A

west tankers is overturned to the extent that it required a court of one member state to decline juris in defence to proceedings in another member state apparently in breach of an arbitration agreement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

s. 41 1982 act

civil jurisdiction and judgements order 2001

A

the most gen and fundamental rule is that a person dom in a reg state shall be sued in courts of that state
substantial connection eu = 3months or more

UK =Daniel v foster substantial connection test. can have more than one domicile under these provisions. as 3 month period of residence is not a pre req.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

brussels 1 art 63

art 4

A

63for domicile of companies, legal persons
and
4.individuals is left to national law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

art 62 brussels 1

A

in determining international jurisdiction thee def domicile is the primary connecting factor.
app law = member state

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

art 42/43

A

domicile of corp. corp domiciled where it is seat. seatis within the uk if the corp/ part of corp fromed within uk and reg address in uk.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

art45 brussels 1

A

domicile of trusts. A trust is domiciled in the state it has the closest and most real connection with.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

special jurisdiction

A

in certain circumstances a person dom in another reg state can be sued in another reg state art 7+8 BRUSSELS 1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

brussels 1 7(1)

A

in matters relating to contract, in the courts for the place of the performance in Q
CONTRACT European autonomous interpretation
klientwort benson v city of glasgow
Place of performance of the obl in q
de bloos v bouyer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

klientwort benson v city of glasgow

A

CONTRACT European autonomous interpretation
an action for restitutiton for sums paid under a contract sub declared void were claims based in unjustified enrichment rather than contract THUS did NOT fall within brussels 1 reg

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

DE BLOOS V BOUYER

A

the place of performance= gives jurisdiction to the courts and legal basis.
other performance places = irrelavant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Boss group ltd v boss france OLD LAW

A

CONTRACT European autonomous interpretation

relating to contract= autonomous includes cases where one party is denying contract exists

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

s. 7(1)b brussels 1

A

the place of oblis defined by two situations
1.sale of goods (place in reg state where under contract good were delivered/ should have been) colour drack GbmH v lexx international GbmH
2.Provision of services (place in reg state where under contract services provided/ should have)
WOOD FLOOR SOL ANDREAS DOMBERGER V SILVA TRADE SA

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

colour drack GbmH v lexx international GbmH

A

sale of goods. where several places of delvery all within the SAME member state. the principal place of delivery should be ID. if not pos. then the claimant could bring proceedings in the place of delivery of his choice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

WOOD FLOOR SOL ANDREAS DOMBERGER V SILVA TRADE SA

A

provision of services.
different member states prov of services. held that the place of performance should be construed as referring to the place where the main prov of services is performed . commercial agency case= added place of performance would be agents dom

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

rehdar v air baltic

A

passanger wished to claim compensation from airline ECJ held boh place of dep and arrival= closely connect to contract fro prov of services and THUS could both be used

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

7(1)c brussels 1

A

in relation to contracts other than contracts of services and sale this applies.
PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

7(2) brussels 1

A

in matters relating to tort/ delict/ quasi delict it is where the harmful event may occur/ did occur

A. the place the harmful event occurred
i the place where the damage occurred
ii. the place of the event giving rise to damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Bier v mines potasse d’alsace SA

A

the place the harmful event occurred 7(2)a brussels 1
the pollution of rhine in France harmed the plants of a market gardener in Netherlands and ec Held that the def could be sued in either the courts for where the damage occurred or for the courts of the place of the event giving rise to this damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

zuid- chemie BV v Philipppos Minerlenfabriek

A

the place where the damage occurred.
in a case where a defective product was produced in germany but used by the claimant in the netheralnds the ec HELD that the place where the damage occurred referred to the place where the damage occurred as a result of the normal usage (Netherlands)
giving rise to damage = where product is produced (Germany)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

shevill v presse alliance

A

aii Brussel 1 reg 7(2) the place of the event giving rise to damage.should be interpreted to give jurisdiction to both courts of the place where the defamatory article was produced and any country which the article was published.
courts did limit this by stating: only the courts of where the publisher is established can award damagesfor all harm suffered. in contrast if brought in a place where only distributed then could only award damages for harm suffered in jurisdiction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

art 7(5) brussels 1

A

as regards a dispute arsing out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment in the courts for the place in which the branch/ agency ect is established

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

def branch agency establishmentart 7(5) brussels 1

A

eu autonomous meaning: parent body, subject to direction/ control appearance of permance . mere sales agaency will not qual

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

courtaulds clothing brands ltd v knowles

A

art 7(5) brussels 1. German. one would supply. one was French sub. sub= branch/ agency establishment. q was how did they present themselves to 3rd parties the sub was an extension of company

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

SAR schotte Gmbh v Parfums Rothschilds SARL

A

art 7(5) brussels 1. other establishment clamaint (not sub) had residence of connecting factor NOT another jurisdiction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

article 8(1) brussels 1

A

where a def is a number of def in the courts where any one of them is donm provided the claims are SO CLOSELY CONNECTED that it is to hear and determine together to avaoid the RISK of irreconcible judgements resulting from separate proceedings

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Land berlin v SAPIR

A

article 8(1) brussels 1. this centralisation of jurisdiction does not to co-def who are into dom in EU cases where they sued in proceedings brought against several def some of whom are dom in the EU.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

macdonald v FIFA

A 
article 8(1) brussels 1 different nature of cause of action ie contract/ delict does not preclude the app of this connected jurisdiction basis
claimant went to watch Scotland match in Estonia. match rescheduled then Estonia did not show. claimant wanted to bring action  against SFA jurisdiction = scot and FIFA  jurisdiction = Swiss. JOINT ACTION. 
Jurisdiction established to be SCOT
THEN SFA case dropped.
FIFA wanted to change jurisdiction
held jurisdiction established at the beginning of the case.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

freeport v olle anoldsson

A 
article 8(1) brussels 1 specific point of jurisdiction.
 Proceedings may be consolidated in the domicile of the anchor def even if not the main one. once close connection is established there is no futher need to establish separately the claims were not bought solely for the purpose of removing the main def from the jursitiction of the courts of the member states in which he is dom.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

s.8(3) brussels 1

A

on a counter claim arising from the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based in the court in which the original claim is pending.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

s.8(4) brussels 1

A

in matters relating to a contract if the action may be combined with an action against the same def in matters relating IN REM in immovable property the court the reg state in which the property is situated.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

protective jurisdiction def

A

a key notion is that of factum actoris the possibility for the party regarded as the weaker party to bring a claim to his own country

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

art 10-16 brussels 1

A

PROTECTED INSURANCE CLAIMs
Where insurer is dom in a reg state. he may be sued in the courts where he is dom or in the courts where the policy holder is dom. in turn, the insurer must sue the policy- holder in the courts of the latters domicile if that dom is in a reg state

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

art 15 brussels 1

A

places restrictions on choice of court agreement departing from these rules.
GIE V reunion Europeene v Zurich espana

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

art 17-19 brussels 1

A

protecting consumer contracts- provide for similar set of rules set out in art 17

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

gruber v baywa AG

A

ART 17
Farmer domiciled in Austria tiles farmhouse roof
NOT a consumer! the use was for not outside their trade/ prof when concluding contract
CONSUMER= a person regarded as a consumer only if he or she concluded the contract for a purpose OUTSIDE his or her trade or prof.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

benicasa v defalkit

A

CONSUMER= a person regarded as a consumer only if he or she concluded the contract for a purpose OUTSIDE his or her trade or prof. ART 17

consumer is an individual in which a contract involved private consumption. never opened to franchise. CANNOT start off as commercial purpose then turn to consumer. IT IS AT THE TIME OF THE CONTRACT IT HAS TO BE CONSUMER PURPOSE ONLY!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

define consumer contract art 17

A

includes contract for SOG on instalment of credit terms, loan terms minance for credit

42
Q

art 17(1) c brussels 1

A

a person who pursues commercial or prof activities in the members state of the consumer dom. directs such activities to that memberstate and contract falls within the scope of such activities

43
Q

pammer v reederi karl Schluter GmbH and hotel alpenhof GmbH v Heller joined

A

directing activities. mere accessibility of the traders website in a member state does nto by itself constitute a directing of activities.

44
Q

emrek v sabranovic

A

doesn’t change that the proof……..

45
Q

18(1) brussels 1

A

member state where consumer dom

46
Q

art 18(2) brussels 1

A

member state where consumer not dom

47
Q

art 19 brussels 1

A

places restictions on choice of court agreements departing from these rules

48
Q

art 20-23 brussels 1

A

protective prov for contracts of employment

49
Q

art 24 brussels 1

A

exlusive jurisdiction courts have jurisdiction no matter the dom of def.

50
Q

art 24(1) brussels 1

A

in proceedings which have as their object right IN REM in immovable tenancies or immovable property the courts in which the property is situated webb v webb

51
Q

webb v webb

A

art 24(1) brussels 1. son owned apartment. put in trust for father, personal rights are NOT rights IN REM.

52
Q

rosler v rottwinkel

A 
art 24(1) brussels 1. tenancies - immovable object.
rent for max period of 6 consec months the def dom jursiticiton can also be considered  if the person is natural/ landlord and tenant dom in same reg state
53
Q

art 24(2) brussels 1

A

in proceedings which have as their object the validity of the constitution the nullity or dissolution of companies or other legal persons associations of natural or legal persons or the decisions of their organs the courts of the reg state in which the company/ legal person/ association has its seat.

54
Q

art 24(4) brussels 1

A

in proceedings with the reg or validity of patents trade marks designs or others the courts in which they are reg/ has been applied for

55
Q

art 24(5) brussels 1

A

in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgements, the courts of the reg state in which the the judgment has been or is to be enforced

56
Q

Art 25

A

PROROGATION of jurisdiction: choice of court agreements.
the jurisdiction of of the chosen court is exclusive unless the parties have chosen otherwise.
the law governing the substantive validity of the choice of court agreemen is the law of the chose forum
APPLIES REGARDLESS THE DOMICILE OF PARTIES

57
Q

coreck maritime gmbh v handelsveen

A

art. 25effective even if it does not directly state the reg state it is referring to as long as the reg state can be ID

58
Q

art 25 brussels 1 conditions for applying a choice of law agreement

A

a in writing/ evidence of writing
b.in a form that accords with parties practice that is established between themselves.
c. in international trade. in a way that accords with usage of which the parties are or ought to have been aware.
principle of sep and severability
APPLIES REGARDLESS THE DOMICILE OF PARTIES

59
Q

elefanten stan v jacqmain

A

s.25(1) rules for laying out choice of law rules ie the formal requirements are absolute and cannot be augmented by any national law.

60
Q

art 31 brussel 1

A

the reg attempts to limit pot. conflicts of jurisdiction by adopting a first come, first served.

s.31(1) where actions come within the exclusive juristicion of several courts , any court other than the court first seized shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court

61
Q

enrich gasser GmbH v Misat

A

will apply even if the court seized first in violation of an exclusive choice of court agreement art 31 reverses the effect of this csae

62
Q

art 32 brussels 1

A

lays down rules for determing when court is seized

63
Q

kolden holdings ltd v rodette commerce ltd

A

the same parties. immaterial whether or not either party is domiciled in a member state
what matters is the degree of identity between the interests of the entities in the sense that a judgment given against one of them would have the force of res judicata as against the other.
he first instance decision of Aikens J. The Court concluded that it is possible for an assignee to be “the same party” as the original claimant for the purposes of establishing which court was first seised in proceedings involving the same cause of action in different member states, under the “first come, first served” regime laid down under Article 27 of Council Regulation 44/2001. The court concluded that the test established by previous case law, that the parties had to be identical, did not rule out separate legal entities.

64
Q

the same cause of action

A

art32 European autonomous interpretation. drouot assurances SA v consolidated Metallurgical Industries
Where proceedings were brought in two member states, the second proceedings should not be automatically stayed where there was a difference in the actions such as an additional cause of action in the second claim. Lis alibi pendens is not appropriate in such a case. Cases which in fact involved different parties (ship owner and insurer) could be treated as the same for purposes of the convention only if the interests of the differing parties were genuinely identical

65
Q

related actions

A

art 32 discretionary/ expedient to hear and determine them together/ avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgements starlight shipping co v allianz marine & avatiopn versicherungs AG

66
Q

ARTICLES 33 and 34 brussels 1

A

the recast introduces 2 new provisions which grant the m/s courts a discretion to stay proceedings in circumstances where the court of a m/s has already been seized; whereas art 33 of the recast operates where the proceedings involve the same cause of action and the same parties. art 34 concerns conflicting proceedings involving related actions.

67
Q

1982 sch 4

A

applies where the subject matter is within the scope of brussels 1 and def dom in UK. sch 4 allocates jursitiction of the courts to the appropriate part.

basic rule that where person is domiciled in a part of the ulk action against that person must be raised in courts for that part unless sch 4 otherwise provides

68
Q

differences between brussels 1 and sch 4 1982

A

a. sch 4 rule 3(h) proceeings concering debt/ immovable the courts of the part of the UK where that property is situated has jursitiction
b. sch4 rule 4 proceedings which as their object a decision of an organ of a company or other legal person or of an association of natural perosns may be brought in the courts of the part of UK where the person has their seat
c. brussels 1 reg have prov for insurance which are not in sch 4 and sch4 consumer dontracts do not apply to insurance
d. no equivalent in sch 4 to brussels 24(4)
e. sch4 12 has no requirement for form and proof of agreement of prorogation of agreement
f. no equivalent in sch4 of reg lispendens

69
Q

art 29-34 brussels 1

A

concurrent jurisdiction the pos of parallel proceedings lis pendens.

70
Q

art 29 brussels 1

A

court first seized rule
without prejudice to art 31(2) proceedijngs involving same cause of action and between same action bought in different m/s the court first seized shall have its own motion stay until proceedings established .
if jursitiction established by court that first seized any other court shall decline in favour of court first seized.

71
Q

art 30 brussels 1

A

where actions are pending in the courts of different m/s any court other than the court first seized may stay its proceedings
actions deemed to be related when they are so closly connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid risk of irreconcivable judgements resulting from sepeate proceedings

72
Q

art 20 brussels 1

A

concurrent jursitiction again is close purpose of validity. choice of court more effective.

73
Q

sch 8 1982 act

A

applies where def is dom in scot or lugani convention or outwith scope of Lugano
rule 2(h) where the def is not dom in the UK jurisdiction is given to the courts for any place where any moable property belonging to him has been arrested OR any immovable property in which he has any beneficial interest is sit.
rule 2.i determine a property/ possessory right the place where property is situated has jurisdiction
rule 2j interdict for where an alleged wrong is committed.
rule 2k in proceedings concering a debt secured over immovable property, the property where its sit has juris.

74
Q

Forum non conveniens

A

is a plea raised by a def that a court which has jurisdiction in an action should decline its action because just determination of the dispute requires that the action should be tried else where.

75
Q

Owusu v Jackson

A

if a court assumes jurisdiction under the reg then it is precluded from utilising the doctrine of forum non convieniens
plea may not be made where the brussels 1/ Lugano convention result applicable.

76
Q

sim v robinrow

A

FORUM NON CONVIENS BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE DEF TO PROVE

the plea can never be sustained unless the court is satisfied that a another another tribunal , having competent tribunal which is preferable in which the case may be tried more suitably with the interests of justice

77
Q

societe du gaz de paris v les armateures francais

A

FORUM NON CONVIENIENS. the court has to consider how best the ends of justice in the case before it. non conviens means is to find the forum more suitable for the ends of justice. as litigation in that forum is more likely to secure the ends of justice

78
Q

ARTICLE 4(1)

A

applicable law in the absence of choice by the parties
4(1)(c) a contract relate to a right in rem in immovable property shall be governed by the law of the country where the property is situatd
NOTE THAT HABITUAL RESIDENCE IS DEFINED FOR CERTIAN PURPOSE IN ARTCILE 19

79
Q

4(2)

A

other types of mixed contracts
where not covered under 4(1) the contract shall be govered by the law of the country where the party required the characteristic performance of the contract HAS HABITUAL RESIDENCE

80
Q

how do you determine characteristic performance

A

reg 19 the characteristic of performance= having regard to its centre of gravity

81
Q

ark therapeutics v true north capital

A

issued letter of intent to engange enterprenerial activity. breach letter of intent unilateral obl. obligation to pay. ENGLISH LAW. applying obl to pay = characteristic not normally seen ascertainment of app

82
Q

ophthalmic innovations international v ophthalmic innovations

A

lenses are defective. indemnity clause implimentented. characteristic of performantce was in califonia law as it was a califonian company

83
Q

apple corps ltd v apple comp

A

both use the same logo. used law that was most closely connected = English article 4(3)(4)

84
Q

article 4(3)

A 
overrides 4(1) and(2) if it is clear from all other circumstances that the company is more closely connected with country other than that indicted then law of that country will apply 
recital 20 an escape clause should provide that the law of that state applies
85
Q

4(5)

A

societte novella des properties de l’a SA v BV machine fabririke BOA

86
Q

non applicability of art 4(1) and (2)

A

4(4)

cannot be determined will be governed by the state most closely connected

87
Q

art 5

A

specific contracts

contracts of carriage

88
Q

art 7

A

specific contracts

insurance

89
Q

art8

A

specific contracts

employment

90
Q

at6

A

specific contracts
consumer contracts
1.defines consumer and trader

2.this is app as long as brought in consumer residence

3.consumer can bring action in hab residence as long as trader has a base in habitual residence or directs activities to that country.
4. VERY IMPORTANT- when choosing law applicable parties decide but CANNOT deprive the consumer of protection afforded to him.
5. will not apply if contract of carriage/ contract relating to right in rem of immovable property
a contract to the supply of services where the services are to be supplied to the consumer exclusively in a country other than that in which his habitual residence

91
Q

article 3(3)

A

mandatory prov and freedom to choose app law

law applicable chosen and stated in agreement

92
Q

caterpillar financial services corp v snc passion

A

us company gave advance to frenche company then defected agaisnt the loan agreement. US company demand loan+interedt express clause infavour of ENGLISH LAW THUS FRENCH LAW VOID

93
Q

article 9

A

OVERRIDING MANDATORY PROV
SAFEGUARDING PUBLIC INTEREST
DO THE MANDATORY PROV = UNLAWFUL IN THAT CASE CAN BE OVERRIDDEN- NATURE AND PURPOSE AS TO APP OR NON APP

94
Q

article 9(2)

A

UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS S.27

95
Q

article 9(2)

A

UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS S.27 APPLIES UK RES ONLY

96
Q

Mcfeetridge v stewarts & Lloyds

A

individual has capacity either under the proper law of the contract or law of doimicile

97
Q

art 13

A

incapacity

company must have capacity both under proper law and the country of corp CARSE V COOPER

98
Q

dr lizardi v cheise

A

probably has suffiiant in the case of ordinary contracts
marriage settlements special rule for capacity require each parties dom
disp of land lex stitus for capacity

99
Q

article 10

A

consent and material validity
shall be determined by the law ehich gioverns it
can use habitualresidence if it would not be reasonable to determine his conduct specified by s,1

100
Q

egon oldendorff v libra corp

A

shipping bulk containers. GERMAN company agreed to charter. implied a choice of englsih law into contract. HELD JAPANESE COMPANY COULD HAVE CONSENTED

101
Q

art 11

A

FORMAL VALIDITY

102
Q

art 12

A 
INTERPREATATION
PERFORMANCE 
PRESCRIPTION
CONSEQUENSES OF NULLITY
IN regard to performance and steps taken in effect to defective performance regard shall be had to law of country that performance takes place

ipl (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions