Posts Tagged Brussels Ia
 EWHC 3568 (Comm) Enka Insaat ve Sanayi v OOO “Insurance Company Chubb” et al. is the very swift follow-up to  EWHC 2729 (Comm) which I review here. I flag the case mostly for:
- at 8, Baker J siding with Males J (and myself) per Nori Holding, that West Tankers is still good authority following Brussels Ia despite Wathelet AG’s suggestions in Gazprom;
- the brief reference at 9, as to whether under Rome I injunctive relief for threat of contractual breach is covered by lex fori or lex contractus. Baker J concludes that issue simply by reminding us that Rome I does not apply to arbitration agreements;
- At 47 ff the discussion of choice of law in spite of no express clause having been included to that effect. Specifically, with reference to Sulamerica, whether choice of seat may imply choice of law.
(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.1.
Ships classification and certification agencies: The immunity ship ain’t sailing according to Szpunar AG in Rina.
In C‑641/18 Szpunar AG opined on Tuesday and notes that the request of the referring court brings to mind the current debate about the influence of human rights on private international law. It seeks to ascertain whether and, if so, to what extent the scope of ‘civil and commercial’ in the Brussels Ia Regulation may be influenced by the interest in ensuring access to the courts, a right guaranteed by Article 47 Charter.
(The case itself is subject to Brussels I which did not yet include ‘acta iure imperii’. As the AG notes at 56, this is merely a clarification following CJEU interpretation of the previous concept.
Relatives of the victims, along with survivors of the sinking of the Al Salam Boccaccio ’98, a ship sailing under the flag of the Republic of Panama, which happened in 2006 on the Red Sea and caused the loss of more than a thousand lives, have brought an action before the District Court, Genoa against the companies Rina SpA et Ente Registro Italiano Navale. Claimants argue that the defendant’s certification and classification activities, the decisions they took and the instructions they gave, are to blame for the ship’s lack of stability and its lack of safety at sea, which are the causes of its sinking.
Defendants plead immunity from jurisdiction. They state that they are being sued in respect of certification and classification activities which they carried out as delegates of a foreign sovereign State, namely the Republic of Panama. They argue activities in question were a manifestation of the sovereign power of the foreign State and the defendants carried them out on behalf of and in the interests of that State.
The AG first of all reviews how the principle of customary international law concerning the jurisdictional immunity of States relates to the scope ratione materiae of Brussels Ia. He starts his analysis noting that in the absence of codification at international level (international conventions on the issue not having met with great success), the principle concerning the jurisdictional immunity of States remains to a large extent governed by customary international law.
There is little use in quoting large sections of the Opinion verbatim so please do refer to the actual text: the AG opines (referring ia to C-154/11 Mahamdia) that it is unnecessary to refer to the principle of customary international law concerning State immunity from jurisdiction when considering the scope ratione materiae of Brussels Ia. Those principles he suggests do play a role when it comes to enforcing any exercise of such jurisdiction against the will of the party concerned.
At 46: ‘the distinction between disputes which are civil or commercial matters and those which are not must be drawn by reference to the independent criteria of EU law identified by the Court in its case-law. Consequently, an act performed in the exercise of State authority (acta iure imperii) from the perspective of the law relating to immunity, is not necessarily the same as an act performed in the exercise of State authority according to the independent criteria of EU law.’ (The latter as readers of the blog will know, are not always clearly expressed; see ia my review of Buak).
In the second place, the AG then considers whether an action for damages brought against private-law entities concerning their classification and/or certification activities falls within the scope of BIa. At 83, following extensive review of the case-law (almost all of which I also reviewed on the blog and for earlier cases, in Chapter 2 of the Handbook), the AG opines that neither the fact that the acts in question were performed on behalf of and in the interests of the delegating State nor the possibility of the State’s incurring liability for harm caused by those acts, in itself conclusively characterises those acts as ones performed in the exercise of powers falling outside the scope of the ordinary legal rules applicable to relationships between private individuals. 814/79 Rüffer also makes a non-conclusive appearance.
At 95 then follows the core of the factual assessment: defendants’ role is limited to carrying out checks in accordance with a pre-defined regulatory framework. If, following the revocation of a certificate, a ship is no longer able to sail, that is because of the sanction which, as the defendants admitted at the hearing, is imposed by Panama law. Not acta iure imperii – the issue falls under Brussels Ia.
Finally, must as a result of a plea of immunity from jurisdiction a national court decline to exercise the jurisdiction which it ordinarily derives from the Regulation? In a section which will be interesting to public international lawyers, the AG reviews international and EU law (particularly Directive 2009/15) and concludes that there is no principle in international law which grants immunity to certification agencies in cases such as the one at hand.
To complete the analysis, the AG opines that should the Court disagree with his views on immunity, the national court’s views on jurisdiction would not be impacted by the right to court guarantees of the Charter, for there is no suggestion at all that the victims would not have proper access to Panamian courts for their action.
Note of course that the Opinion does not address lex causae.
(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 184.108.40.206.1.
Punjab National Bank. In a complex set of claims, Owusu is never easily applied and material non-disclosure severely punished by the High Court.
In  EWHC 3495 (Ch) Punjabi National Bank v Ravi Srnivasan et al three loan transactions lie at the core of the case. They were made between 29th March 2011 and 1st December 2014, and totaled some US$45 million. They were made for the purposes of oil re-refining and wind energy generating projects in the USA. Most defendants are all allegedly guarantors domiciled either in India or the USA. The borrowers themselves, with the exception of two defendants, both ex-EU, are not party to the proceedings because they are insolvent.
Proceedings concern both the enforcement of the loans but also allegations of fraud, and have also been started in the US and in India however these were not disclosed to the court at the time the original permission was sought to serve out of jurisdiction.
At first glimpse the case might be easily held, along the lines suggested by lead counsel for claimant: at 5 (iii). ‘A combination of the exclusive jurisdiction clauses and the strongly arguable claims in fraud pointed towards the need to try the whole matter in one jurisdiction. England was the only possible jurisdiction. The omission to disclose the US proceedings and the Chennai proceedings caused the defendants no prejudice as they knew from the loan documentation that PNB was at liberty to bring parallel enforcement proceedings in different jurisdictions. The Chief Master ought to have placed strong reliance on articles 3 and 5 of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (the “Hague Convention”), and article 25 of The Recast Brussels Regulation (“Brussels Recast”), which obliged the court to accept jurisdiction where there were such exclusive jurisdiction clauses.’
Owusu v Jackson would suggest no entertainment at all of forum non conveniens. However the fraud allegations initially opened the door to a point of entry for forum non seeing as none of the defendants are EU based. Sir Geoffrey Vos at 63 lists the relevant factors: ‘the most important being the choice of jurisdiction clauses in both loan agreements and guarantees, the effect of Brussels Recast and the Hague Convention, the fact that some parallel proceedings can be necessary where enforcement against real property is required, and the centre of gravity of the lending relationship which was indeed in London. In addition, the US and Chennai proceedings did not cover the Pesco loans at all, so that disallowing English jurisdiction for those contractual claims prevented PNB from bringing proceedings in its main chosen jurisdiction in respect of that lending and the guarantees given in respect of it.’
In the end however Vos agreed with the initial assessment of the High Court which emphasised non-disclosure (undoubtedly an example of procedural fraus): notwithstanding England being the most appropriate forum for those contractual claims without clear choice of court, and without a doubt the English jurisdiction guarantees of the other loans, but also for the fraud claims, had they been (which they were not) seriously arguable as presently pleaded, (at 72) jurisdiction must be dismissed in light of the need to protect the administration of justice and uphold the public interest in requiring full and fair disclosure.
That is a strict approach in light of the choice of court made and an awkward way around the forceful nature of Article 25 Brussels Ia. An outcome of my discussion with Andrew Dickinson and Alex Layton, is (per Alex’ suggestion) that the High Court seems to have applied an Elefteria approach to choice of court rather than Article 25 BIa.
 EWHC 3196 (Ch) Kinsella et al v Emasan et al is not quite as extensive an analysis on choice of court as Etihad Airways v Prof Dr Lucas Flöther which I review here. Nevertheless the required ‘good arguable case’ standard is again responsible for the extensive discussion of the issue.
Issues are similar as under A25 BIa – in the case at issue it is the Lugano Convention (Article 23) that is engaged. Teverson M’s analysis is very much a factual, contractual one: the basis of Emasan’s (defendant, domiciled at Switzerland) jurisdiction challenge is that: it is domiciled in Switzerland; an alleged 2002 Agreement was an oral agreement which was not subject to any jurisdiction agreement; that alleged 2002 Agreement was not varied by 2006 and 2007 Deeds in such a way as to bring claims for breaches of its alleged terms within the ambit of the jurisdiction clauses contained in those later Deeds, but was superseded by them; there is no other basis upon which the jurisdiction of the English Courts is established in relation to claims based on the 2002 Agreement.
Whether choice of court was made for the 2002 agreement depended on whether A23 Lugano’s conditions were fulfilled that the agreement be made in writing or evidenced in writing; or in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves (the lex mercatoria gateway was not relevant at issue).
Every one of the written agreements made to give effect to claimant’s entitlement under the original, oral 2002 Agreement included a jurisdiction clause recognising the jurisdiction of the English Courts. A great deal of emphasis was placed on witness statements. At 101 Master Teverson holds that the agreement on jurisdiction under the 2002 agreement can properly in the circumstances of this case be regarded as evidenced by the jurisdiction clauses in the 2006 and 2007 Deeds.
(Handbook of) European Private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Ch.2, Heading 2.2.9
Dinant Bar v maître JN. CJEU confirms Bar membership fees are in principle neither civil and commercial nor contractual.
The CJEU on Thursday last week largely confirmed Saugmansdgaard ØE’s Opinion which I reviewed here, in C-421/18 Dinant Bar v maître JN, however with different emphasis than the AG. The Court insists that in accordance with Belgian law, registration with the bar association constitutes a legal obligation to which practising as a professional lawyer is subject, and that individuals wishing to practise that profession must be a member of a bar association and must comply with decisions taken by that association, notably as regards the payment of fees.
Disputes concerning those fees then are not civil and commercial and therefore not covered by Brussels I a, unless,
‘in so far as those fees constitute consideration for services freely consented to, including insurance services, which that bar association may have negotiated with a third party with a view to obtaining more advantageous terms for its lawyer members, the obligation to pay those fees would be of a contractual nature and, therefore, an action initiated with a view to ensuring that that obligation is performed would come within the scope of Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 1215/2012. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether that is the case in the dispute in the main proceedings’.
The AG had emphasised the factual circumstances of the case, in which the Bar had lowered the fees for maître JN to the very insurance premium only. In most cases of course Bar fees disputes probably will be about more than that and the Court’s approach may lead to split (non)applicability of Brussels Ia, in which payments for services freely consented to will have to be distinguished from those due in return for public service obligations. (Bar councils may wish to split these sums in their yearly invoice).
Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 220.127.116.11
 EWHC 3128 (Comm) Lotus v Marcassus Sport Sarl concerns the application of Articles 29-30 Brussels Ia – the lis alibi pendens rules.
Lotus, an English company, is a well-known manufacturer of cars. By a series of four written contracts entered in 2016, Lotus appointed Marcassus, a French company in the business of distributing sports cars, as a non-exclusive dealer and authorised repairer of Lotus cars in Toulouse and Bordeaux. Each of these contracts was governed by English law and provided for the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.
In September 2018 Lotus gave notice terminating one of the four agreements. It is common ground that the parties’ overall relationship thereafter terminated. Marcassus then brought proceedings in the Toulouse Commercial Court, claiming loss of profits and bonuses and seeking to enforce contractual penalties. A summons was filed with the Hussier de Justice on 21 December 2018 for onward transmission to the Foreign Process Section of the High Court for service on Lotus, summoning Lotus to appear in Toulouse on 26 March 2019. Marcassus’ claim was filed at the Toulouse Commercial Court on 7 January 2019. Lotus did indeed appear at the hearing on 26 March 2019 and has served a defence disputing the claim, but not claiming in respect of or relying on Marcassus’ non-payment of the 2018 invoices. Lotus offered to undertake not to make such a claim in the Toulouse proceedings hereafter, provided of course that these proceedings were permitted to continue. Meanwhile, on 13 March 2019, Lotus issued these proceedings claiming the amounts due under the 2018 invoices. Marcassus was served with the claim form on 24 April 2019.
Phillips J first of all (at 15 ff ) deals with the issue of which course was ‘seized’ first (compare MB v TB). Lotus contended that Marcassus’ application should fall at the first hurdle because Marcassus has not demonstrated when, if at all, the summons in the Toulouse proceedings was received by the “authority responsible for service” of that summons for the purposes of A32 Brussels Ia, and so cannot establish that the Toulouse court was seised before the English court was seised by the issue of the claim form on 13 March 2019. Marcassus’ case is that the relevant authority is the Hussier de Justice, it being accepted that he received the summons on 21 December 2018. But, in the alternative, if the relevant authority is the Foreign Process Section of the High Court (as Lotus contends), Marcassus invites the inference that it was received by that authority shortly after that date, but in any event before 13 March 2019. Marcassus points to the fact that Lotus appeared before the Toulouse court on 26 March 2019 and has taken no point on service in those proceedings.
Phillips J decides not to hold on this point given that he rejects Article 29 lis alibi pendens anyway – however he indicates he does not find Lotus’ assertion very attractive.
On Article 29, Marcassus accepted that the proceedings, whilst between the same parties, do not presently involve the same “cause of action” however argued that the court could take into account the likely future shape of the proceedings, namely, that Marcassus would seek to set-off and counterclaim the very same claims it has brought in Toulouse. This approach however cannot fly per CJEU C-111/01 Gantner, at 31: 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” and the Article 29 route was duly dismissed.
On Article 30, the claims were found not to be ‘related’ on grounds of Lotus having secured an exclusion of set-off in the contract (Phillips J spent some time debating whether the contract did include such clear exclusion of set-off). This clause effectively keeps the claims on various invoices at arm’s length.
Even had Article 30’s conditions been met, the case would not have been stayed on grounds that the judge (unlike in A29 cases) has discretion whether to do so. Referring to The Alexandros T, at 44: ‘it is obvious that these proceedings should be permitted to continue so that the question of whether clause 29.2 is an effective no set-off clause is determined in this jurisdiction. That issue. (sic) which does not arise in the Toulouse proceedings (limiting the extent of “relatedness”), is an issue of the interpretation of an English law contract (establishing close proximity with this jurisdiction) and can be determined speedily in a summary judgment application (indicating that the stage proceedings have reached is not a factor against this jurisdiction). Further, the parties have expressly agreed to the jurisdiction of the English courts, albeit on a non-exclusive basis.
(Handbook of) European Private International Law – 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 18.104.22.168
Vestel v HEVC Advance (Delaware) and Philips (NL). High Court denies stand-alone competition law damage both on the basis of Article 7(2) BRU Ia and residual CPR rules.
In  EWHC 2766 (Ch) Vestel Elektronik v HEVC Advance and Koninklijke Philips NV, Hacon J found no jurisdiction in a stand-alone competition law damages case (no finding of infringement yet; claim is one of abuse of dominant position). He rejected the existence of jurisdiction against Philips NV (of The Netherlands) on the basis that no damage existing or potential could be shown grounding Article 7(2) Brussels Ia tortious Jurisdiction. Against the Delaware defendant, the relevant CPR rules applied per Four Seasons v Brownlie did not lead to jurisdiction either.
(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 22.214.171.124