Posts Tagged  EWCA Civ 191
Update 24 July 2019 the Supreme Court have granted to leave to appeal to it. Watch this space.
Update 7 March For a great supplement simply refer to Penelope Bergkamp’s post in which she discusses the wider issues of parent liablity v veil piercing etc.
The Court of Appeal, referring powerfully ia to VTB, has confirmed (albeit with dissenting opinion) lack of the English courts jurisdiction in  EWCA Civ 191 Okpabi et al v Shell. I reviewed the High Court’s decision in same here. Plenty of the High Court’s considerations. e.g. (pro inspiratio) joinder under Brussels I Recast, and the optionally distributive lex causae rule under Article 7 Rome II, do not feature in the Court of Appeal’s approach.
The crucial take-away from the judgment is that the English courts do not believe that headquarter instructed mandatory compliance, equates control. This runs along the lines of Scheindlin USDJ’s approach in Apartheid.
(Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 8, Heading 8.3.
2017 EWHC 89 (TCC), abuse, abuse of process, abuse of rights, Anchor defendant, article 7, case management, Corporate social responsibility, CSR, environmental damage, FNC, Forum non conveniens, High Court, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/191.html, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2017/89.html, Locus damni, Locus delicti commissi, Nigeria, Ogale, Okpabi v Shell, Owusu, Rome II, Shell,  EWCA Civ 191
- Hiscox v Weyerhaeuser. The High Court is not easily impressed by pending foreign proceedings in anti-suit application (pro arbitration). 19/11/2019
- Air transport. The CJEU in Adriano Guaitoli v Easyjet. The not always clear delineation between the jurisdictional rules of the Brussels and Montreal regimes. 18/11/2019
- NMBS v Mbutuku Kanyeba et al. A very relaxed CJEU on the notion of ‘contract’ (in EU transport law). 14/11/2019
- PrivatBank v Kolomoisky and Boholiubov. The Court of Appeal reverses the High Court ia on abuse of the anchor mechanism. Further consideration, too, of the reflexive effect of Article 28’s lis alibi pendens, and of Article 34. 12/11/2019
- Saugmandsgaard ØE in Libuše Králová v Primera Air Scandinavia: the Feniks ‘contractual relation’ train thunders on, yet restraint is shown on the consumer section, even for package travel. 11/11/2019
Also of noteMy Tweets