Tag: Exorbitant jurisdiction

Posted on

The Agent Orange litigation in France. A reminder of France’s infamous Article 14.

A succinct post on yesterday’s reports that the French courts are now properly engaging with the action brought in France by more than a dozen US-based corporations (and one local, French defendant) on the continuing impact of the use of Agent Orange by the US Army in Vietnam. Thank you Taco van der Valk for pointing me to an earlier interlocutory judgment which identifies defendants.

Claimant is a dual French-Vietnamese citisen. Jurisdiction is based on Article 4 BIa against the one French defendant. Against the non-EU based other defendants, Brussels Ia does not apply. Anchor jurisdiction with the French defendant in play, reinforces the jurisdiction based on claimant’s French nationality (the infamous, often labelled ‘exorbitant’ jurisdictional rule of Article 14 of the Code Civil; on which see here). Claimant’s domicile in France presumably is an additional reinforcing factor.

Geert.

European Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.139.

Posted on

Tiger v Morris. The Australian courts on ‘exorbitant’ aka parochial jurisdiction.

A bit of a late note on an interesting case for the comparative binder. Thank you very much indeed Sarah McKibbin for flagging Tiger Yacht Management Ltd v Morris [2019] FCAFC 8.  See further review in the meantime by Michael Douglas here. The Court dismissed Tiger’s appeal from orders made providing for it to be served out of the jurisdiction: The case involves a shareholders’ dispute concerning individuals and companies incorporated outside Australia – where appellant is a shareholder in a foreign company which wholly owns Australian subsidiary. At 100 the relevant points are well summarised.

The discussion essentially concerns ‘exorbitant’ jurisdiction under English and Australian law in a modern context, considering principles of comity and forum non conveniens. At 89, reference is made to Lord Sumption in Abela v Baadarani [2013] 4 All ER 119, a quote worth reciting in full:

This characterisation of the jurisdiction to allow service out is traditional, and was originally based on the notion that the service of proceedings abroad was an assertion of sovereign power over the defendant and a corresponding interference with the sovereignty of the state in which process was served. This is no longer a realistic view of the situation. The adoption in English law of the doctrine of forum non conveniens and the accession by the United Kingdom to a number of conventions regulating the international jurisdiction of national courts, means that in the overwhelming majority of cases where service out is authorised there will have been either a contractual submission to the jurisdiction of the English court or else a substantial connection between the dispute and this country. Moreover, there is now a far greater measure of practical reciprocity than there once was. Litigation between residents of different states is a routine incident of modern commercial life. A jurisdiction similar to that exercised by the English court is now exercised by the courts of many other countries. The basic principles on which the jurisdiction is exercisable by the English courts are similar to those underlying a number of international jurisdictional conventions, notably the Brussels Convention … and the Lugano Convention…The characterisation of the service of process abroad as an assertion of sovereignty may have been superficially plausible under the old form of writ (We command you …). But it is, and probably always was, in reality no more than notice of the commencement of proceedings which was necessary to enable the defendant to decide whether and if so how to respond in his own interest. It should no longer be necessary to resort to the kind of muscular presumptions against service out which are implicit in adjectives like ‘exorbitant‘. The decision is generally a pragmatic one in the interests of the efficient conduct of litigation in an appropriate forum.

The High Court then notes a difference in the approach of forum non between the English and the Australian common law: at 90: ‘The test in the [UK] focuses upon a consideration of the ‘more appropriate forum’: Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd [1986] 3 All ER 843. Whereas, Voth (1990) 171 CLR 538 establishes the clearly inappropriate forum test as the test to be applied in Australia.’ Arguably the Australian test leads to a more ‘parochial’ outcome: it is more likely than the English test to lead to jurisdiction being established.

As Michael notes, the core business of the foreign parent, MC2, was to manage the affairs of its subsidiaries, including the Australian company, MA. That involved the management supervision of boatbuilding activities in Australia through Mr Morris, who was resident in Australia. Connections with Australia are strong, therefore. Michael also makes an important point on the current era of globalisation (and, I would add, special purpose vehicles): jurisdictions’ reach over corporations set up outside of the jurisdiction, often to avoid some of its laws (whether tax laws or otherwise) but with strong links to it, is likely to have to be entertained increasingly. That is the case for Australia. It is also the case for the EU and elsewhere, among others under the corporate social responsibility and human rights due diligence agenda.

Geert.

 

a

Posted on

Kaefer Aislamientos v AMS Drilling et al. Article 25’s new clothes exposed.

Update 6 June 2019 prof Andrew Dickinson reviews the case in L.Q.R. 2019, 135(Jul), 369-374. He concludes (references omitted) ‘the better argument is that the jurisdictional issue in Kaefer could and should have been disposed of straightforwardly on the basis that there was no evidence to demonstrate the existence of a consensus between the claimant, on the one hand, and the third and fourth defendants, on the other, that met the formal requirements set out in art.25. The written contractual documentation referred only to the first defendant as a party, and to the second defendant as a person to whom invoices were to be addressed, and did not refer to the third and fourth defendants at all. On this approach, English law, and its undisclosed principal rule in particular, had no role to play.’

[2019] EWCA Civ 10 Kaefer Aislamientos v AMS Drilling et al is a good illustration of the difficulty of privity of contract (here: privity of choice of court), and the limits to the harmonisation of the rules on choice of court under Article 25 Brussels I Recast.

Herbert Smith Freehills have analysis of the wider issues of the case (over and above Article 25) here. The appeal considers among others the approach that courts should adopt when, as will usually be the case at the interim stage when a jurisdiction challenge is launched, the evidence before the Court is incomplete. Goldman Sachs v Novo Banco as well as Brownlie were referenced.

Appellant contends that the Court has jurisdiction to determine the claim against defendants AT1 and Ezion under Article 25 Brussels I Recast. It is said that the relevant contract contains an English exclusive jurisdiction clause and the relevant contract was concluded by AMS Mexico and/or AMS on behalf of AT1 and/or Ezion as undisclosed principals and, it follows, the contract, including its jurisdiction agreement, bound AT1 and Ezion.

At 81 Lord Green refers to the Privy Council in Bols [2006] UKPC 45 which itself had referred to Colzani and Coreck Maritime (staple precedent at the CJEU; students of conflict of laws: time to worry if you read this around exam time and haven’t a clue). In Bols Lord Rodgers leading, held that CJEU precedent imposed on the court the duty of examining “whether the clause conferring jurisdiction upon it was in fact the subject of a consensus between the parties” and this had to be “clearly and precisely demonstrated“. The purpose of the provisions was, it was said, to ensure that the “consensus” between the parties was “in fact” established.

Lord Green (this is not part of the decision in Bols) adds that the Court of Justice has however recognised that the manner of this proof is essentially an issue for the national laws of the Member States, subject to an overriding duty to ensure that those laws are consistent with the aims and objectives of the Regulation. He does not cite CJEU precedent in support – but he is right: Article 25 contains essential, yet precious little bite in determining just how to establish such consensus. Prima facie complete, it leaves a vault of issues to be determined, starting with the element of ‘proof’ of consensus.

Of interest is that before deciding the issue, Lord Green notes at 85 Abela v Baardani [2013] UKSC 44 (“Abela“) at paragraphs [44] and [53] per Lord Clarke and Lord Sumption, that to view permission to service out of jurisdiction as more often than not exorbitant, is unrealistic in the modern era: routinely where service out is authorised the defendant will have submitted contractually to the jurisdiction of the domestic courts (or there would be an argument to that effect) and in any event litigation between residents of different states is a normal incident of modern global business. As such the decision to permit service out is, today, more generally viewed as a pragmatic decision predicated upon the efficiency of the conduct of litigation.

It was eventually held that the evidence pointed against AT1 and Exion being undisclosed principals and that therefore the Court of Appeal was right in rejecting jurisdiction.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.9, Heading 2.2.9.4.

Posted on

No VAR needed here. French Supreme Court on choice of court ex-EU in employment contracts. X v AS Monaco.

Update 30 January 2019 many thanks to François Mailhé who contacted me to point out that the reasoning re Article 1412-1 in fact was only made by claimant but not entertained by the Court, who only applied Brussels I Recast. An ‘attendu que’ which was however followed by ‘selon le moyen que’, in my haste overlooked by me. Apologies – and a first correction on any post on the blog since its launch in 2012. I have amended the post to correct this.

Thank you Hélène Péroz for flagging 17-19.935 X v AS Monaco at the French Supreme Court, held December 2018. Claimant is a former physiotherapist employed by AS Monaco. His contract included choice of court ex-EU (not further specified in the judgment but one assumes, Monaco. Monaco is one of those micro-States with a complex arrangement with the EU).

The Supreme court first of all could have addressed the application of France’s jurisdictional rule R. 1412-1 of the Code du Travail. This assigns territorial jurisdiction in principle to the employment courts of the area where the employee habitually carries out the employment, with fall-back options which are similar to yet not quite the same as the provisions of Brussels I Recast:

Art. R. 1412- 1 L’employeur et le salarié portent les différends et litiges devant le conseil de prud’hommes territorialement compétent. Ce conseil est :

1 Soit celui dans le ressort duquel est situé l’établissement où est accompli le travail ;

2 Soit, lorsque le travail est accompli à domicile ou en dehors de toute entreprise ou établissement, celui dans le ressort duquel est situé le domicile du salarié.

Le salarié peut également saisir les conseils de prud’hommes du lieu où l’engagement a été contracté ou celui du lieu où l’employeur est établi. — [ Anc. art. R. 517- 1, al. 1er à 3.]

These provisions cast a slightly wider jurisdictional net than Brussels I Recast. That gap was even wider before Brussels I Recast had extended its jurisdictional reach to parties (the employer, or the business in the case of the consumer title) domiciled ex-EU. It is particularly its existence pre Brussels I Recast for which the provision is ranked among France’s exorbitant jurisdictional rules.

Now, coming to the case at issue. Claimant had suggested the Supreme Court address the nature of the provision as lois de police, in particularly by severely curtailing same in the event of choice of court ex-EU. Claimant argued ‘ce n’est que si le contrat est exécuté dans un établissement situé en France ou en dehors de tout établissement que les dispositions d’ordre public de l’article R. 1412-1 font échec à l’application d’une telle clause.’ : it is argued that only if the contract is performed in an establishment of the employer in France, or entirely outside such establishment (from the employee’s home or ‘on the road’) does Article R.1412-1 trump choice of court ex-EU. The lower court’s judgment had failed to assess these circumstances and therefore, it was suggested, infringes the Article.

The Supreme Court unfortunately does not however dot the i’s and cross the t’s on this issue at all: it only (not unjustifiably, if an expression of judicial economy) looks at Brussels I Recast. Reportedly the application of Brussels I to the issue is not something the Court has properly done in the past.

Article 21 Brussels I Recast requires assessment of the place of habitual carrying out of the work. Claimant worked mostly from the club’s training ground, which is in Turbie, France, and accompanied the club at fixtures. These however by reason of the football calendar clearly took place in Monaco only one out of two games (see the Count of Luxembourg for similar identification of the relevant criteria). Core of the employment therefore is France, notably in the Nice judicial area and therefore the lower court was right to uphold its jurisdiction.

Addressing Article 1412-1 will have to be for future judgment, outside the Brussels I Recast context.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.8.3.

Posted on

Liu v Ma. NSW (Australian) PIL happy to enforce foreign judgments where jurisdiction is based simply on nationality.

Another case in my backlog for some time, and thank you Sarah McKibbing for flagging, some time back, [2017] VSC 810 Liu v Ma,

 

At 6 Mukhtar AJS notes ‘There is sufficient authority for the view that Australian Courts will enforce a foreign judgment where the defendant is a subject of the foreign country in which the judgment was obtained.  That view has its critics (footnote omitted, GAVC) and it may have its difficulties especially if the citizenship is inactive.  Nevertheless, it is founded on a line of English authority exemplified by the statement of Buckley LJ in Emanuel v Symon‘.

Many would argue that at the very jurisdictional level nationality as a ground is parochial /exorbitant. At the same time that at the level of recognition, one should show restraint in refusing to recognise judgments based on such flimsy jurisdictional grounds.

For those wanting to dig deeper, prof Andrew Dickinson has critical review of the relevant case-law in (2018) 134(July) LQR 426-449 (‘Schibsby v Westenholz and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in England’).

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.4. for a discussion of ‘parochial’ jurisdiction in the EU context).

 

Posted on

Yukos v Tomskneft: Ireland rejects ‘parochial’ jurisdiction in enforcement of arbitral awards

Postscript 26 April 2016: the PCIA Yukos Arbitral award which I refer to below, was later squashed for lack of jurisdiction – that judgment is currently under appeal.

When should a court being asked to apply the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958)  – the ‘New York Convention‘, look mercifully on forum shopping with a view to the smooth enforcement of such award? That, in essence, was the issue in Yukos v Tomskneft at the Irish High Court. Both Yukos Capital and Tomskneft were originally part of the Yukos group – of PCIA Yukos arbitral award fame. Tomskneft was later transferred to Rosneft. Arbitral proceedings had taken place in Switzerland, Yukos’ attempts at enforcement in Russia failed, as they did in France. Singapore attempts are underway.

The Irish courts involvement at first view looks odd. There are no Tomskneft assets in Ireland, neither corporate domicile of any Tomskneft affiliates. As Kelly J noted, the Irish proceedings effectively would serve as a jack for proceedings in other jurisdictions where Tomskneft does hold assets. Waving a successful enforcement order (even if it were in practice nugatory, given the lack of assets) obtained in a ‘respectable’ jurisdiction, would assist with enforcement proceedings elsewhere.

The New York Convention has a pro-enforcement bias however the Irish (and other, especially common law countries’) arbitration act in enforcement of the Convention, runs alongside the application of Irish civil procedure rules ‘out of the jurisdiction’, being against a foreign defendant: Kelly J (at 59): ‘In implementing the Convention as it did, the legislature did not attempt to dispense with the necessity to obtain leave to serve out of the jurisdiction in a case where the respondent is not normally resident within it.‘

US law, too, requires that preliminary to recognising and enforcing a foreign award, in personam jurisdiction must be established. Decision on such remains subject to lex fori. A jurisdiction which all too happily entertains such cases is then said to employ ‘parochial’ or ‘exorbitant’ jurisdictional rules.

In the case at issue, after referencing prior case-law both in Ireland and elsewhere, Kelly J rejected applicant’s request (at 141):  ‘It is a case with no connection with Ireland. There are no assets within this jurisdiction. There is no real likelihood of assets coming into this jurisdiction. This is the fourth attempt on the part of the applicant to enforce this award. There is little to demonstrate any “solid practical benefit” to be gained by the applicant. The desire or entitlement to obtain an award from a “respectable” court has already been exercised in the courts of France and is underway in the courts of Singapore.‘

Note therefore that the court is not unsympathetic to the attempt at employing successful (even if hollow) enforcement in one jurisdiction as a lever in the real target jurisdiction (the one with the assets). Except, in the case at issue, similar attempts had already been or still were underway elsewhere.

The case is a very good illustration of the attraction (and uncertainty) of forum shopping, in particular at the enforcement stage. As well as a powerful reminder of the in personam jurisdictional rules of the common law.

Geert.

%d bloggers like this: