Posts Tagged Domicile

Bestolov v Povarenkin. On the determination of domicile (and yes, Owusu strikes again).

Many thanks to Andrew Savage and Nick Payne for flagging [2017] EWHC 1968 (Comm) Bestolov v Povarenkin a little while ago, and for sending me copy of the judgment at the time. Apologies for late reporting: frustratingly even at gavclaw we cannot always devote the amount of time to the blog we would wish. Dr Maganaris in the meantime also has summary here.

As readers no doubt are aware, the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Article 62) does not define ‘domicile’: it defers to national private international law on the issue. The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Order 2001 establishes that a person is domiciled in England for the purpose of the Brussels Regulation (recast) if: the person is “resident” in England; and (cumulatively) the person has a “substantial connection” to England. Bryan DJ takes us through the relevant (and often colourful) precedent and notes, importantly, at 28 that the consequence of the English rules is that the same person can be resident in two different jurisdictions at the same time. At 44, he summarises with a list of criteria, and decides on the facts of the case that Mr Povarenkin is indeed domiciled in England (the substantial connection test having been more easy to determine than that of residence).

Subsequently the High Court reviews at length whether there was a valid choice of court agreement under Article 25 of the Regulation – which at this jurisdictional stage of the proceedings Bryan DJ decides there was not (choice of law for the relevant contracts being English law, was justifiably not considered definitive in this respect), at least not clearly. Obiter, the judge reviews forum non conveniens, at lenght in fact (and in a very clear way with a keen eye on relevant precedent as well as court practice in England) however he holds both before and after the obiter that evidently given Owusu, forum non conveniens has no calling.

A well written judgment, the approach of which on domicile evidently goes beyond having relevance merely for the English courts: for under the Regulation, courts in other Member States, too, may have to consider whether parties are domiciled in an EU Member State other than their own including, for the time being, the United Kingdom.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.3, Heading 2.2.14.5.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Aspen Underwriting: When the domicile ship has sailed, litigation splinters. And distinguishing between contract and tort.

Aspen Underwriting v Kairos Shipping et al [2017] EWHC 1904 illustrates the splintering of claims which may well occur when plaintiff chooses to ignore Brussels I’s core jurisdictional rule of domicile of the defendant. Evidently such splintering often is the strategic intention of a plaintiff and even if it does inconvenience them, having part of the claims settled by one court rather than another may still be its overall preference. The case however also highlights important crossed wires between the common law and EU law on the qualification of ‘tort’, and the relation between Rome II and Brussels I (Recast).

The vessel ATLANTIK CONFIDENCE  sank in the Gulf of Aden in 2013. It had earlier been held in a limitation Action commenced by her Owners, the First Defendant, that the Vessel was deliberately sunk by the master and chief engineer at the request of Mr. Agaoglu, the alter ego of the Owners. In the current action the Hull Underwriters of the Vessel, who paid out on the hull and machinery policy (“the Policy”) in August 2013 but who now consider, on further investigation, that the Vessel was deliberately cast away by her Owners, claim recovery of the insurance proceeds which were paid to Owners and the Vessel’s mortgagees, Credit Europe Bank NV, the Third Defendant (“the Bank”).

The Bank is domiciled in the Netherlands. and maintains that under the Brussels Regulation the High Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim against the Bank. It must be sued in the courts of the Netherlands where it is domiciled. The Hull Underwriters maintain that the High Court does have such jurisdiction for three reasons. First, it is said that Bank is bound by a Settlement Agreement which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court. Second, it is said that the Bank is bound by the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Policy. Third, it is said that the claims brought against the Bank are matters which relate to tort, delict or quasi-delict and the harmful event occurred in England.

Teare J rejected the first and second argument on the basis of analysis of the settlement. He then looks into Article 7(2) Brussels I Recast. The insurance heading of the Regulation does not apply as the relations concern those between two professional parties (at 72 the High Court refers to C-347/08 Voralberger; the CJEU confirmed later in C-521/14 Sovag).

Whether the claim of misrepresentation leading to the settlement, is one in tort or one in contract depends on how closely one finds it to be connected to the contract at issue (the Settlement). Plaintiff suggests that where such misrepresentations induce a contract, in this case the Settlement Agreement, the resulting claims are not matters relating to tort within the autonomous meaning of Article 7(2) but are matters relating to a contract within Article 7(1).

Teare J settles on the basis of the following convincing argument, at 76: ‘The court is concerned with a claim between the Hull Underwriters and the Bank. The Hull Underwriters allege that misrepresentations made by the Bank induced the Hull Underwriters to enter into the Settlement Agreement with the Owners. They seek to recover damages suffered by the Hull Underwriters as a result of the Bank’s misrepresentations. Whilst there is a factual connection between the claim and the Settlement Agreement I do not consider that that is enough to make the claim a matter relating to a contract and so within Article 7(1). Where there is a claim against the contracting party and it is alleged that the contract should be rescinded on the grounds of misrepresentations made by that party because such misrepresentations induced the contract it can sensibly be said that the subject-matter of the claim is the contract. But in the case of the claim against the Bank I do not consider that it can be fairly said that the subject-matter of the claim is the Settlement Agreement.

Oddly no reference here is made to relevant CJEU precedent including recently Granarolo and Kareda.

Now, the claim for damages based upon misrepresentation can be brought in England so long as the “harmful event” occurred in England (at 79; with reference to Bier /Mines de Potasse split into locus delicti commissi and locus damni). Jurisdiction for the claim based on misrepresentation can be brought fully in England because (at 79) ‘either the damage occurred in England (where Norton Rose Fulbright signed the Settlement Agreement and/or where the $22m. was paid to Willis’ bank account in London) or the event giving rise to the damage occurred in London (being the place where the misrepresentations were made and/or the place where the Hull Underwriters were induced).’

At 78 the High Court highlights the difficulty of the qualification viz conflict of laws of restitution based on unjust enrichment. The common law has the precedent of the House of Lords in Kleinwort Benson v Glasgow [1999] 1 AC 153.  Teare J summarises ‘In that case Lord Goff, with whom the other members of the court agreed on this point, said that a claim in restitution based upon unjust enrichment does not, save in exceptional circumstance, presuppose a harmful event and so is impossible to reconcile with the words of Article 7(2). He was not deterred from reaching this conclusion by the decision in Kalfelis. The claim for restitution in this case is based upon a mistake; it does not require a harmful event, though there might in fact be one as suggested by [plaintiff]. I consider that I am bound to follow the decision of the House of Lords and to hold that the claim in restitution based upon mistake is not within Article 7(2). It must follow that this court has no jurisdiction over that claim and that if it is to be pursued it must be pursued in the Netherlands where the Bank is domiciled.

The claim for unjust enrichment cannot be brought in England. Teare J observes the consequence of the Brussels I Regulation (at 80): ‘On case management grounds it is unsatisfactory to reach the conclusion that the tort claim may be brought in England but that the restitution claim may not be brought in England. However, this is the consequence of the Brussels Regulation as was accepted in Kalfelis. Of course, the entirety of the Hull Underwriters’ case against the Bank could be brought in the Netherlands but in circumstances where the Hull Underwriters’ case against the Owners and Managers is being brought in England that also is not satisfactory. The court cannot however base its jurisdictional decisions when applying the Brussels Regulation on considerations of forum conveniens.’

Of note finally is that Kleinwort Benson was issued post Kalfelis but prior to Rome II, which contains a specific heading on unjust enrichment. Notwithstanding its clear non-contractual nature (‘non-contractual’ being the generic title of Rome II which therefore encompasses more than just torts), it is not generally considered a tort: this continues to create issues in the application of Rome II.

A good case to illustrate the lasting challenges in distinguishing contracts from torts.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.1, Heading 2.2.11.2.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Anglo American: The Court of Appeal on ‘Central Administration’ in Brussels-I

In Anglo-American South Africa, the Court of Appeal held mid July on the application of the definition of corporate ‘domicile’ in the Brussels I-Regulation. Specific context was the use of the English courts under the Brussels I Regulation, by a Botswana-born plaintiff, against a South Africa incorporated company, part of the Anglo-American PLC group of companies. Anglo-American itself are incorporated in England, hence a case against them would have been straightforward (under Article 2 of the Regulation) however would not have had any merit: there was no suggestion that Anglo-American were in any way at fault for the behaviour of one of the employees of one of their corporate affiliates.

For a company, legal person or association of natural persons, Article 60 of the Regulation (in contrast with the provision for natural persons, which refers to national conflicts law to determine the concept) aims to encourage harmonisation by listing three possible locations only, for the determination of corporate domicile: statutory seat (a term not known in English or Irish law: hence Article 60(2) refers to registered office or place of incorporation; central administration; and principal place of business.

Evidently this troika of criteria does not rule out positive jurisdiction conflicts – it does help address negative ones (ie where no court claims jurisdiction).

It was for the Court of Appeal to decide whether under the rules of the Brussels I-Regulation, AASA could be found to have their central administration in England (place of incorporation and principal place of business not having any calling). Justifiable reference was made to the fact that the concept needs to be given an EU (‘autonomous’) meaning. ECJ case-law on the exact issue is however, non-existent (reference in the judgment was made to Daily Mail, ECJ case-law on the freedom of establishment, and to relevant German case-law).

Aikens LJ essentially agreed with the analysis in first instance by Smith J, that ‘the correct interpretation of “central administration” in Article 60(1)(b), when applied to a company, is that it is the place where the company concerned, through its relevant organs according to its own constitutional provisions, takes the decisions that are essential for that company’s operations. That is, to my mind, the same thing as saying it is the place where the company, through its relevant organs, conducts its entrepreneurial management; for that management must involve making decisions that are essential for that company’s operation’. (at 45).

This is in contrast with (at 39) both place of incorporation, and principal place of business: ‘the first is the domicile for the purpose of the internal laws of the state where the company is incorporated. It will usually be identified in its Memorandum and Articles of Association or equivalent. The third is the place where the company does its principal “business”. Where that is must be a question of fact in each case.

The case is an interesting attempt at forum shopping, with a certain relevance for the corporate social responsibility debate: by suggesting that the place of central administration is the very head of the corporate spider web, plaintiffs can sue directly in Europe. This case shows however that such suggestion is not easily substantiated. Neither would it necessarily assist much at the applicable law stage.

Geert.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Where are all the dead pigeons? Proposed amendment to the Brussels I-Regulation prepares the ground for the Unified Patent Court

Pre-script posted 6 June: the amending Regulation was adopted in April (and published as Regulation 542/2014). The assets rule which it includes prima facie only applies for damage taking place outside the EU resulting from non-doms’ infringement. How and whether the assets rule applies vis-a-vis damage inside the EU caused by non-doms is still not clear. You may want to read the ‘comments’ section under this posting for clarification.

 

The proposal to amend Regulation 1215/2012 is due to be adopted by the European Parliament before its election recess. It forms part of the rather complex set of arrangements to introduce the Unified Patents Court – an oxymoron indeed. Leaving aside the complex set of arrangements at the substantive law level, I just wanted to highlight one or two interesting charachteristics at the pure conflicts /jurisdiction level.

The proposed amendment has a twofold objective. Firstly, to ensure compliance between the UPC Agreement and the recast Brussels I Regulation. So far so uncontested. These revisions concern in particular the clear inclusion of the UPC (as well as the Benelux Court) within the Regulation’s definition of a ‘court’; and the revision of the (rather complex)  regime of Article 71 with respect to international agreements and their relationship with the Brussels I Regulation.

The second objective however is misleadingly represented as necessarily forming part of the UPC package: the issue of jurisdiction vis-a-vis defendants not domiciled in the EU (see inter alia here for earlier postings on non-EU domiciled defendants). The newly inserted Article 71b essentially and as a rule lets the ‘common courts’ (i.e. the UPC and the Benelux Court) usurp national jurisdiction (for those States that have subscribed to the common court – remember this is an instrument of enhanced co-operation):

1. The common court shall have jurisdiction where, under this Regulation, the courts of a Member State party to an agreement establishing a common court have jurisdiction in a matter governed by that agreement.

It then prima facie at least suggests that all jurisdictional rules of the Regulation apply regardless of third State domicile:

2. Where the defendant is not domiciled in a Member State, and this Regulation does not otherwise confer jurisdiction over him, the provisions of Chapter II shall apply as if the defendant was domiciled in a Member State. Article 35 shall apply even if the courts of non-Member States have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter.

Chapter II includes all jurisdictional rules: including the basic rule of domicile of the defendant (the new Article 4, previously Article 2).

This prima facie conclusion is supported by the (proposed) newly inserted sentence in recital 14:

“Uniform jurisdiction rules should also apply regardless of the defendant’s domicile in cases where courts common to several Member States exercise jurisdiction in matters coming within the scope of application of this Regulation”

The newly proposed Article 71b (3) however then would seem to contradict this by stating

3. Where the defendant is not domiciled in a Member State and no court of a Member State has jurisdiction under this Regulation, the defendant may be sued in the common court if:
a) property belonging to the defendant is located in a Member State party to the agreement establishing the common court;
b) the value of the property is not insignificant compared to the value of the claim;
c) the dispute has a sufficient connection with any Member State party to the agreement establishing the common court.

Now I am getting very confused: if, per Article 71b (2), jurisdiction shall be determined ‘as if the defendant was domiciled in a Member State’, how then can there still be a calling for Article 71b (3)? Is it because the proposal aims to introduce a reflexive application (meaning one which also works where the exclusive jurisdictional ground points away from the EU) of Article 22(4) [Article 24(4) in the new Regulation] – i.e. the exclusive jurisdictional ground for registration or validity of intellectual property rights?

Interestingly, Article 71b(3) (proposed) reinstates, for the common courts and whence for patent disputes only, the ‘assets’ rule vis-a-vis third State defendants which the European Commission had failed to introduce as a general rule in the recast Regulation (these are the dead pigeons of the title of current posting).

It is also noteworthy that the proposal acknowledges that courts in third States may have jurisdiction, and that in that case EU (common) courts may still issue provisional measures.

No doubt there may be some kind of explanation for my confusion. I should be glad to hear it.

Geert.

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Comments

Place of habitual employment and the alternative findings of corporate ‘domicile’- The Employment Appeal Tribunal in Powell

In David Powell v OMV Exploration and production limited, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled on the (absence of) jurisdiction for UK courts in the case of a UK domiciled employee, employed originally to work from Yemen but in reality working from Dubai, hired by a Manx incorporated company run from Austria. The employment contract was subject to Manx law and to a choice of court agreement in favour of the courts of the Isle of Man. The Tribunal however ruled that the case was within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation – albeit like the tribunal itself, the Appeal tribunal does not systematically review the three alternative grounds for domicile of Article 60 of the Jurisdiction Regulation.

Domicile was found to be in Austria, for this is the place where the company was effectively managed from. The UK could claim jurisdiction on the basis of Article 19, were the employee found to habitually work in the UK – quod non.

A classic example of the employment chapter of the JR, with a bit of exotic flavouring (Manx) and, even if not altogether tidy, a correct conclusion on Austrian domicile.

Geert.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Of Vikings, airlines and trade unions – The High Court in British Airways leaves a treasure trove of questions on ‘civil and commercial’

In  British Airways v Sindicato Espanol de Pilotos de Lineas Aereas – SEPLA, crucial consideration was whether the court had jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation to determine the claim brought by BA against SEPLA, a Spanish trade union, for damages and declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that strikes of Spanish airline pilots organised by SEPLA were unlawful under Spanish law in that they were in breach of the Claimants’ right to freedom of establishment and to provide cross border services under Articles 49 and 56 TFEU. The international federation of airline pilots association acted as anchor defendant (being domiciled in the UK at the time the action was introduced (it had since moved to Canada) and the case against both arguably being closely linked within the meaning of Article 6 of the Jurisdiction Regulation).

The High Court accepted the ‘knock-out point’ of defendant: that the matter was not ‘civil and commercial’ and therefore not within the scope of application of the Regulation. Field J argued with reference to the ECJ’s judgment in Viking (or more specifically, the AG’s Opinion in same) that ‘it remains the case that the source of the fundamental freedoms are treaty provisions imposing obligations on states‘, and that ‘a court having to decide whether SEPLA was in breach of Articles 49 and/or 56 TFEU will have to conduct a sensitive balancing exercise in which it weighs SEPLA’s constitutional right to strike and the fundamental right to strike which forms part of the general principles of Community Law against the fundamental freedoms enshrined in Articles 49 and 56. In my judgment, such an exercise will involve a resort to notions of public law rather than to private law.

I am not so sure. Firstly, the horizontal (i.e. between individuals) direct effect of the Treaty Articles concerned is quite established. Moreover, under the Eurocontrol and subsequent case-law formula, the public authority (here: merely a private organisation, a trade union, perhaps carrying out duties of a quasi-public law nature (the right to strike)) involved needs to have acted iure imperii. It is only if the legal relationship (not: the underlying applicable law) between the parties to the action is of a public law nature, giving one of them extraordinary authority which the other lacks, that the Regulation may not apply. There was no indication that the trade union in the specific case acted in some kind of iure imperii matter. This was not acte claire I would have thought, but the High Court evidently thought otherwise.

Geert.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

%d bloggers like this: