Search Results for: Refcomp

Posted on

Subrogation of choice of court clauses: The ECJ (succinctly) in Refcomp

The ECJ has issued its ruling in Refcomp, Case C-543/10. I reported on Jaaskinen AG’s Opinion here. The Court effectively confirmed the Opinion, albeit within the boundaries of its customary judicial economy. Like the AG, the Court first of all limits precedent value to a ‘chain of contracts under Community law’: i.e. a succession of …

Continue reading “Subrogation of choice of court clauses: The ECJ (succinctly) in Refcomp”

Posted on

Subrogation of Choice of court clauses: Opinion AG in Refcomp to intensify debate on harmonisation of European contract law

There are one or two issues in the application of the jurisdiction Regulation where ECJ intervention is eagerly awaited. One of those is the subrogation of choice of court clauses in contracts. Is the party subrogated into the contractual rights and obligations of another, bound by the choice of court clause in the original contract? …

Continue reading “Subrogation of Choice of court clauses: Opinion AG in Refcomp to intensify debate on harmonisation of European contract law”

Posted on

Trappit v American Express Europe. On choice of court in NDAs, privity, and lis pendens viz provisionally closed Spanish proceedings.

Trappit SA & Ors v American Express Europe LLC & Anor [2021] EWHC 1344 (Ch) confirms an application to strike out or stay proceedings claiming infringement of intellectual property rights in a computer programme called ARPO (relevant to fare re-booking), and breach of non-contractual obligations of confidence that are said to have arisen when ARPO …

Continue reading “Trappit v American Express Europe. On choice of court in NDAs, privity, and lis pendens viz provisionally closed Spanish proceedings.”

Posted on

PIS v Al Rajaan. An intensive Brussels Ia and Lugano choice of court (by incorporation) and anchor defendant discussion.

The Public Institution for Social Security v Al Rajaan & Ors [2020] EWHC 2979 (Comm) engages in lengthy discussion anchor jurisdiction (A6) and choice of court (A23) under the Lugano Convention which of course, albeit with some important mutatis mutandis, echoes Brussels I and Brussels Ia. Henshaw J summarises the key issues at 74: i)                    whether …

Continue reading “PIS v Al Rajaan. An intensive Brussels Ia and Lugano choice of court (by incorporation) and anchor defendant discussion.”

Posted on

ING v Banco Santander. Deferring to extensive discussion of national law on the insolvency exception, and a bit too rich a pudding on privity of choice of court.

The critical point in Monday’s judgment in  ING Bank N.V. & Anor v Banco Santander S.A. [2020] EWHC 3561 (Comm), an application for lack of jurisdiction, is whether this is a case about claims which a syndicate of eight lenders, including ING, had against Marme Inversiones 2007 S.L.U (“Marme”) under a loan agreement and related …

Continue reading “ING v Banco Santander. Deferring to extensive discussion of national law on the insolvency exception, and a bit too rich a pudding on privity of choice of court.”

Posted on

Ryanair v DelayFix. The CJEU dots some i’s on choice of court and unfair terms in consumer contracts; defers to national law on the assignment issue; and keeps schtum on renvoi in Article 25 Brussels Ia.

Update 18 November 2022 see application by Advocate-General Vlas to the Dutch Supreme Court, in ECLI:NL:PHR:2022:453 Netjets Management (UK) v [Pilot]. In C-519/19 Ryanair v DelayFix, the CJEU held yesterday. The case echoes the facts in Happy Flights v Ryanair at the Belgian Supreme Court. Following inter alia  CJEU Jana Petruchova, the (absence of) impact …

Continue reading “Ryanair v DelayFix. The CJEU dots some i’s on choice of court and unfair terms in consumer contracts; defers to national law on the assignment issue; and keeps schtum on renvoi in Article 25 Brussels Ia.”

Posted on

Feniks: CJEU holds, in my view incorrectly, that Actio Pauliana falls under forum contractus.

I called Bobek AG’s Opinion in C-337/17 ‘solid’ – by which I also implied: convincing.  Is the actio pauliana by a Polish company against a Spanish company, which had bought immovable property from the former’s contracting party, one relating to ‘contract’ within the meaning of Article 7(1) Brussels I Recast? Bobek AG Opined it is …

Continue reading “Feniks: CJEU holds, in my view incorrectly, that Actio Pauliana falls under forum contractus.”

Posted on

Kaifer Aislimientos: the limits of Brussels I’s rules on choice of court.

[2017] EWHC 2598 (Comm) Kaifer Aislimientos, is a good illustration of the limits of Article 25 juncto recital 20’s lex fori prorogati rule. Claimant argues that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 25 Brussels I Recast because the relevant contract contains an English exclusive jurisdiction clause and further contends that the relevant contract was concluded …

Continue reading “Kaifer Aislimientos: the limits of Brussels I’s rules on choice of court.”

Posted on

Team Y&R v Ghossoub. Choice of court and third parties.

In [2017] EWHC 2401 (Comm) Team Y&R v Ghossoub, Laurence Rabinowitz QC discussed a number of issues, most particularly anti-suit in the context of an exclusive jurisdictional clause (anti-suit not granted). He summarised the applications as follows: ‘The first application, brought by the claimants to the anti-suit claim, is for an interim injunction seeking to restrain …

Continue reading “Team Y&R v Ghossoub. Choice of court and third parties.”

Posted on

Leventis. CJEU confirms principle of privity of choice of court under Brussels I.

Yesterday in Case C-436/16 Leventis the Court of Justice summarily confirmed the principle of privity of choice of court under the Brussels I Recast. I have looked at this issue before e.g. when I discussed Refcomp and Profit Sim. The tos and fros between the various parties in the case meant they were acquainted with each other …

Continue reading “Leventis. CJEU confirms principle of privity of choice of court under Brussels I.”