Tag: Rome II

Posted on

FGTI v Victoria Seguros. The CJEU verbosely on subrogration and statutes of limitation under Rome II.

Gilles Cuniberti reviewed the CJEU’s judgment in C‑264/22 FGTI v Victoria Seguros here, and I agree the judgment in convoluted terms replies to a fairly obvious question. Obvious, for with Giles, I would suggest the

‘result of the subrogation is clearly to transfer to the Fund the rights of the victims. Subrogation does not establish new rights. It merely transfers existing rights from one person (the victim) to another (here the Fund).’ (The Fund is the French public body compensating the victims of certain torts, whereupon it is subrogated in the victim’s rights).

The CJEU much more verbosely comes to the same conclusion, without making reference to the potential complication signalled by Giles, with respect to a likely or at the least potential French judgment eg confirming a relevant settlement, which could lead to novatio arguments.

Geert.

Posted on

Boettcher v Xio. (Wrongly?) identifying under Rome II the direct damage of misrepresentations leading to a contract of employment.

In Boettcher v Xio (UK) LLP & Ors [2023] EWHC 801 (Comm)  Eggers DJ ultimately rejected ia a forum non conveniens challenge viz a claim for damages for misrepresentations allegedly made to induce claimant to enter into a contract of employment with the First Defendant. In his decision he considered ia the role to play for the application of the (retained) Rome II Regulation.

[109] There was substantial dispute between the parties as to whether the applicable law was English law in accordance with A12(1) Rome II (culpa in contrahendo), alternatively A4(1) Rome II  (on claimant’s case), or German law in accordance with A(1) (on defendants’ case).

[110] The judge holds there is a good arguable case (with final judgment on lex causae to be discussed at trial [110](4)) that English law is the applicable law, however I do not find his arguments very convincing. [110](1)

the damages claimed by Dr Boettcher for the alleged misrepresentations arose as a result of his entering into the contract of employment with Xio UK, in particular his claims for loss of earnings and damages for mental distress and/or disappointment and/or reputational damage. It was therefore his entry into the contract of employment with Xio UK, and his subsequent employment with Xio UK, in reliance on the alleged misrepresentations which constituted the relevant damage.

This, I would suggest, is plainly wrong. The alleged misrepresentations are the delictus committi; the formation of the contract (held with reference to Dicey 35-026 to have taken place in England) is the fallout of the delict. Yet it does not constitute its ‘direct damage’. The damage, as also seemingly formulated in the claim, are loss of earnings and damages for mental distress and/or disappointment and/or reputational damage. Seeing as claimant’s earlier employment for which he left currently litigated one, was overwhelmingly connected to Germany, where he also seems to have the core of his financial interests (the location of claimant’s bank account is too readily dismissed [110](2) as not being relevant), Germany would seem to have a lot going for it in terms of the lex causae, or at the very least a Mozaik of German (for loss of earnings) and English law (for mental distress), which I do not see readily displaced by English law as one applicable law under Article 4(3) Rome II.

Article 12’s culpa in contrahendo rule is correctly held [110](3) not to apply to relevant parties.

There are other factors that led to the forum non challenge not succeeding, however I do indeed think that the applicable law issue requires further consideration at trial.

Geert.

Posted on

Nicholls v Mapfre. Yet again, and divergently so, on Spanish interest rates and Rome II’s evidence and procedure carve-out.

Nicholls & Anor v Mapfre Espana Compania de Seguros y Reaseguros SA [2023] EWHC 1031 (KB) yet again discusses the evidence and procedure carve-out in Rome II and its relationship with A15 Rome II ‘scope of the law applicable’. In the absence of a possibility to refer to the CJEU, a Court of Appeal intervention might be useful.

Pandya v Intersalonika [2020] EWHC 273 (QB) held that proceedings were time-barred per Greek law (lex causae), where the claim form was issued in the E&W courts before expiry of Greek limitation period, but was not served until after that expiry. A narrow reading of the A1.3 carve-out was confirmed in Johnson v Berentzen [2021] EWHC 1042 (QB)) and in Bravo & Ors v Amerisur Resources Ltd (Re The Amerisur plc Putumayo Group Litigation) [2023] EWHC 122 (KB).

In Duffy v Achmea [2020] EWHC 3341 (QB) it was held that interim payments are within the evidence & procedure exception; in Troke v Amgen [2020] EWHC 2976 (QB) interest payments, ‘because they are discretionary under Spanish law (the lex causae)’, were held to fall under the A1.3 exclusion. Sedgwick v Mapfre concluded the same (albeit on better reasoning IMHO) That seems to also have been the approach in Woodward -v- Mapfre, unreported but referenced in current judgment by Spencer J.

Eventually however the judge does not follow Troke or Sedgwick, holding [30] that  the recovery of interest provided for by Spanish law under Article 20 of the Spanish Insurance Act is, pursuant to Rome II and as a matter of European law, substantive, not procedural. In essence, the relevant foreign law rate of interest is said to be a matter of clear relevance to the remedy (financial compensation) to which the claimant is entitled, being intrinsically connected or linked to the award of financial compensation.

His reference [30](1) to the suggestion that A15′ applicable law provisions needs to be construed widely and A1’s carve outs narrowly, is wrong in my opinion. [31] He clearly suggests he might have referred to the CJEU had that been possible (although I do not necessarily agree that the CJEU would then have looked for a ius commune approach across the EU).

Even though he finds fault with the application of the rules by the lower courts, his calculation of awards are the same and the appeal fails.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 4.8.

Posted on

Autostore v Ocado. The High Court holds not entirely convincingly on applicable law to obligations of confidence in relation to high-stake patent infringement suit.

In Autostore Technology AS v Ocado Group Plc & Ors [2023] EWHC 716 (Pat), Claimant AutoStore is a Norwegian company, pioneer in automated warehouse technology. First defendant develops automated systems for use in large scale grocery businesses.  The second defendant is a joint venture between the first defendant and Marks & Spencer. Ocado is a former customer of AutoStore’s.

Ocado’s defences include that the patents were invalid due to prior non-confidential disclosures to two parties based in Russia, including EVS, a company based in St Petersburg, and Russia’s central bank.

‘Matter made available to the public’ is part of the ‘state of the art’ condition for patents (in the UK: s.2(2) of the 1977 Act). It may affect the novelty or obviousness of a patent: Subsections 2(1) and (2) of the Patents Act 1977 (“the 1977 Act”) provide:

“2. (1) An invention shall be taken to be new if it does not form part of the state of the art.

(2) The state of the art in the case of an invention shall be taken to comprise all matter (whether a product, a process, information about either, or anything else) which has at any time before the priority date of that invention been made available to the public (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) by written or oral description, by use or in any other way.”

In support of their case of lack of novelty and inventive step Ocado rely on alleged prior disclosures to the Russian entities which Autostore say were made in confidence and could not therefore be part of the state of the art.

The section of the judgment that is of relevance to the blog (other than the brief reference to the TRIPS agreement [256]), is the qualification of the obligation not to disclose matter to the public, as (non)contractual, and the subsequent application of Rome II.  Hacon J summarises the issues [263] ff

Where a party relies on an express contractual restriction on the foreign disclosure of information, the effect of the alleged contract will be assessed according to the applicable law.  The party asserting the contractual restriction is obliged to plead the existence, the circumstances of formation and the relevant terms of the contract.  An English court seised will apply Rome I to determine which foreign law governs the contract.  The court will then decide whether, according to that law, there was an express term of confidentiality as alleged and whether its effect was to restrict the use of the information in issue.

The position is not so straightforward where it is said that a party in a foreign context was restrained from using information under an obligation that was not contractual – what an English court would recognise as an equitable obligation.

Rome II does not expressly recognise equitable obligations as a separate category. Clearly however they may still qualify as ‘non-contractual’.

[270 ff] Hacon J justifiably rejects Ocado’s assertion that Rome I and II dovetail. It is beyond doubt that not all obligations that are not contractual, must necessarily be covered by Rome II and vice versa.  Likewise, the overall application of Rome II clearly may imply non-contractual obligations that are putative. Meaning for the purposes of the application of Rome II, one may have to pretend for the time being that there are non-contractual obligations at play and that these are covered by Rome II, only for the so identified substantive lex causae to decide that there are not, after all, any non-contractual obligations at play.

Re the alleged disclosures made by the Bank, [276 ff] AutoStore’s primary contention is that the hypothetical breach of the alleged equitable obligation of confidence is correctly categorised as a culpa in contrahendo within the meaning of A12 Rome II, seeking support ia in CJEU Ergo. [286] It argues the respective obligations of confidentiality arose in the context of negotiations (with the Russian companies) which ultimately led to the conclusion of the Distribution Agreement governed by Norwegian law.  Consequently, the same law applies to the obligations of confidentiality.

However upon consideration the judge holds [298] – with much support found in prof Dickinson’s Rome II volume and his contribution on Rome II in Dicey’s 16th ed – that A12 does not apply to the alleged disclosures by the Bank, seeing as in his view A12 does not apply to third parties to the contractual negotiations, even agents of the contracting parties. There were no negotiations between AutoStore and the Bank and AutoStore for its own reasons wanted to ensure that any agreement reached would be with EVS and not the Bank.

Instead, [324] ff, the lex causae is held to have arisen out of an act of unfair competition within the meaning of A6 of Rome II. That is important, for Article 6 does not have an escape clause like Article 4(3).

Here, the judge’s reasoning is under par.

Oddly for instance he holds A6(2) is not engaged ia [335] ‘because the Bank is not a competitor of AutoStore’s’ yet he nevertheless applies A6(1): ‘the law applicable to a putative obligation of confidence on the Bank was the law of the country where competitive relations or the collective interests of consumers are, or are likely to be, affected.’: this is not convincing.

Reference is then made by the judge to CJEU Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Amazon EU Sàrl , CJEU Volkswagen and to Celgard, and to the Mozaikbetrachtung present in particular in the latter case. However he then [351] holds that ‘attention must be paid to the hypothesis posited in this case. It is that the Bank was about to make Bank Bot Designs public or had already done so’, subsequently linking that [353] to the procedural relief Autosore would have hypothetically sought for the potential breach, in, the judge holds, Russia. Conclusion [354]: ‘Of the laws made applicable under art.6(1) of Rome II to apply to the question of confidentiality, the one that would have mattered on the hypothesis raised would have been Russian law.’ That link to procedural relief to me comes out of nowhere.

As for the relationship with EVS, [301] the question arises as to whether AutoStore and EVS contemplated a contractual relationship at the relevant times. The judge [302] holds that a theoretical possibility of the purchase of goods or services or of some other contractual relationship does not suffice to trigger A12: commercial parties are almost constantly on the look-out for such relationships. [322] after having considered the various arguments the judge holds that A12 is engaged vis-a-vis EVS, yet that the putative law of the contract cannot be determined by A12(1), hence requiring the application of A12(2)(a). The applicable law is the law of the country in which damage would hypothetically have occurred, here, it is held, Russia.

Applicable law for both claims having been held to be Russian law, the remainder of the judgment then deals with evidence of that law and the conclusion [396] that the information was disclosed without imposing any obligation of confidence on either EVS or the Bank.

As noted the A6 analysis in my view is appealable. For both the A6 and the A12 analysis it is also a pity and concern to see, once again, the English courts (chicken and egg-wise led of course by counsels’ probable absence of presentation of same) lack of engagement on issues of both acquired and retained EU conflict of laws, with scholarship outside of the UK and /or other than written in English.

Geert.

Posted on

Jalla v Shell – continued. A further judgment in the Bonga Spill litigation considers Article 7 Rome II, and the Nigerian EEZ as a ‘country’ under Article 25 of the Regulation.

Update 10 May 2023 In Jalla and another v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company and another [2023] UKSC 16, the Supreme Court has now held that the spill was a one-off event, not a continuing nuisance, and therefore time-barred under applicable Nigerian law.

Jalla & Anor v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 424 (TCC) is a follow-up of earlier, procedural (including jurisdictional) issues which I discuss here.

[1]-[2] The 2011 Bonga Spill emanated from an offshore floating production, storage and off-loading facility (“the Bonga FPSO”), located approximately 120 kilometres off the Nigerian coastline of Bayelsa State and Delta State within the Nigerian Exclusive Economic Zone. The Spill was caused by a rupture of one of the pipelines connecting the Bonga FPSO to a single point mooring system (“SPM”), both of which were operated and controlled by one of the defendants, Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Ltd (“SNEPCo”), a Nigerian company regulated by the Nigerian governmental authorities. The technical manager of the vessel, the MV Northia, that was loading from the Bonga FPSO at the time of the spill was another defendant, Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Ltd, (“STASCO”), a company domiciled and registered in the UK.

Anchor defendant is STASCO. SNEPCo is co-defendant.

The High Court had determined that the claims for damage caused by the Spill  could not constitute a continuing nuisance until any pollution was remedied, so as to extend the limitation period and defeat the defendants’ limitation defence; it held claimants each had a single claim in nuisance in respect of any damage caused by the Bonga Spill, such cause of action accruing when their land and/or water supplies were first impacted by the oil. Claimants’ appeal against that part of the judgment as I reported earlier was dismissed by the Court of Appeal [2021] EWCA Civ 63  and this “Continuing Nuisance Appeal” is now being appealed to the Supreme Court.

[4] Current case is to determine the date on which actionable damage, if any, was suffered by the claimants as a result of the Bonga Spill, for the purpose of deciding whether any of the claims against the anchor defendant, STASCO, are statute-barred for limitation and, therefore, whether E&W courts have jurisdiction to determine the substantive claims. 

[39] Stuart-Smith J (as the then was), alongside the jurisdictional challenges, had further held that the High Court had no discretion to allow, or would refuse, amendment of the claim form to join STASCO and the amendment to add allegations against STASCO, if and to the extent that the applications were made after the expiry of the relevant limitation period. The allegations against STASCO in respect of its responsibility for the  were deemed by the court not to have been made until 2 March 2020.

[40] ff

The issue of jurisdiction as against SNEPCo, a Nigerian corporation, is dependent on there being a valid claim against STASCO, a UK corporation. The court rejected other jurisdictional challenges made by the defendants but was unable to finally dispose of the challenge to jurisdiction because it was subject to the outstanding issue as to whether the claims against STASCO were statute-barred. If the claims against STASCO, the anchor defendant, were statute-barred, there would be no basis on which service out of the jurisdiction against SNEPCo could be permitted and the court would have no jurisdiction to determine any of the claims.

Given the significance of the limitation issue, the court ordered that there should be a trial of preliminary issues to determine in respect of all claimants the date on which they suffered damage, the appropriate limitation period and limitation as a defence to the claims.

Parties agree that Nigerian Law applies to the claims relating to the spill, including the limitation period applicable to the claims (the case therefore does not engage with the outstanding issue of the treatment of limitation under Rome II, discussed most recently in Bravo v Amerisur Resources (Putumayo Group Litigation). The issue between the parties is whether the applicable limitation period is six years, as submitted by the claimants, or five years, as submitted by the defendants.

O’Farrell J holds that given the date of damage, none of the claims in these proceedings was made against STASCO within any applicable limitation period. Obiter, she holds on the limitation issue anyway.

The relevant law that applies in Nigeria is the (English) Limitation of Actions Act 1623 which provides for a limitation period of six years for claims that would amount to tortious claims. The National Assembly for the Nigerian Federation has not enacted any general limitation statute and no such provision is made in the Constitution. The State legislature for Delta State however has enacted a general limitation statute. Section 18 of the Limitation Law of Delta State 2006 (“the Delta State Limitation Law”) provides for a limitation period of five years for claims in tort. 

[306] Claimants’ position is that the limitation period applicable to their claims is the six-year period provided for by the 1623 Act. In the absence of specific federal legislation on this issue, they argue this residual provision is the limitation law generally applicable in Nigeria, including at a federal level, by virtue of section 32(1) of the Interpretation Act 1964; further, that the Delta State Limitation Law is inapplicable in the Federal High Court; only federal legislation can apply, irrespective of where the Federal High Court sits.

Further, [307], claimants argue they are entitled by Article 7 Rome II  to choose the law applicable in the Nigerian Exclusive Economic Zone (“EEZ”) as the lex causae governing their claims for environmental damage, as the country where the event giving rise to the damage occurred, the locus delicti commissi, Handlungsort. The EEZ falls within the control of the Federal Government of Nigeria; as such, it would be subject to the Nigerian Federal law of torts and the residual 1623 Act limitation period.

[308] Defendants’ position is that the limitation period applicable to the claims is the five-year period provided for by the Delta State Limitation Law. The relevant Federal High Court for the claims would be the Federal High Court in Delta State, as the place where the alleged damage occurred. They suggest Nigerian authorities on limitation confirm that if a local limitation law exists in the relevant state, that law applies to the claim; and the limitation statute of each state is territorial in scope. On that basis, the Delta State Limitation Law applies to any action brought in the territorial area of Delta State, including the Federal High Court in Delta State.

[309] viz A7 Rome II they argue the Nigerian EEZ is not a “country” for the purpose of Article 25(1) Rome II [‘“Where a State comprises several territorial units, each of which has its own rules of law in respect of non-contractual obligations, each territorial unit shall be considered as a country for the purposes of identifying the law applicable under this Regulation”], that it has no applicable limitation law and that it would not override the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to determine the claims in these proceedings.

The judge [336] ff holds the country in which the alleged damage occurred is Delta State, making the law of Delta State the default choice of law under Article 4(1) Rome II; that although the claims are for environmental damage, and the event giving rise to the alleged damage occurred at the FPSO within the Nigerian EEZ, the EEZ is not a country within the meaning or A25(1): Nigeria is a Federation with 36 states plus the FCT of Abuja. The EEZ is not a territorial unit and does not comprise one of those states; and the EEZ does not have its own rules of law in respect of non-contractual obligations.

The remainder of the judgment deals with issues of proof of foreign customary law.

Interesting!

Geert.

Posted on

Transworld Payment Solutions: consideration of applicable law under Rome II for deceit, conspiracy, equitable wrongs

I last updated the draft for this post in November….I am hoping somewhat to catch up with posts this week.

In Transworld Payment Solutions U.K. Ltd, Re [2022] EWHC 2742 (Ch) Freedman J refused an application to set aside an order to serve out of jurisdiction. Claimants’ case is that the E&W proceedings arise out of an alleged “VAT carousel fraud”, carried out in England and Wales, by English and Welsh companies. There are concurrent Curaçao proceedings.

Defendants raise a forum non conveniens jurisdictional defence. They submit that the Curaçao court is presently seised as to the issue as to whether the companies were effectively parties to a number of settlement agreements, and the effect of the same.  These Settlement Agreements are subject to Curaçao law and contain a Curaçao jurisdiction clause (which is not exclusive).  They also submit that the fraud claims will be determined as part of the applications for negative declarations in the Curaçao Proceedings.  The Claimants dispute that the fraud claims or the full scope of the fraud claims will be determined in the Curaçao Proceedings.

There are significant areas of dispute between the parties as regards what is in issue in the Curaçao Proceedings. The issue that is of most interest to the blog, is the consideration of applicable law under Rome II. [79] Freedman J notes “VTB [VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5] ,was a case where English law (used as a shorthand to refer to the law of England and Wales) was the proper law of the tort, but where the majority of the court nonetheless stayed the action in favour of the matter being more appropriately litigated in Russia.”

A first issue is the catchment area of Rome II’s ‘non-contractual obligations’, to typically common law equitable wrongs including dishonestly assisting breach of trust/fiduciary duty. [83] the judge holds with reference to Dicey, Morris and Collins 16th Ed. that they likely do. [84] The most likely lex causae following Rome II is English law and  ‘(I)t seems unlikely that Article 4(3) would apply given the closer connection of any tort or delict with England and Wales rather than with Curaçao or any other country. ‘

The issues will be further discussed at trial and one imagines both Rome I and Rome II will return there. But for now, jurisdiction is going ahead.

Geert.

Posted on

Bravo v Amerisur Resources (Putumayo Group Litigation). Claimants survive time-bar challenge despite questionable finding on Rome II’s evidence and procedure carve-out.

In Bravo & Ors v Amerisur Resources Ltd (Re The Amerisur plc Putumayo Group Litigation) [2023] EWHC 122 (KB) claimants, who live in remote rural communities in the Putumayo region of Colombia, seek damages from the defendant pursuant to the Colombian Civil Code, and in reliance on Colombia Decree 321/1999, in respect of environmental pollution caused by a spill (or spills) of crude oil on 11 June 2015. The claimants’ two causes of action are pleaded under the headings (i) guardianship of a dangerous activity and (ii) negligence. It is common ground between the parties that the oil spillage was the result of deliberate acts by terrorist organisation, FARC.

Steyn J yesterday held on preliminary issues, including statute of limitation. Defendant contends that the two year limitation period provided by relevant Colombian law re Colombian group actions (‘Law 472’), applies to the claim. Parties agree that in substance, Colombian law is lex causae per A4 and A7 Rome II.

Claimants rely on two points of English law and one of Colombian law. First, they contend that the relevant Article of Law 472 is a procedural provision within the meaning of A1(3) Rome II, and therefore it falls outside the scope of Rome II. I believe they are right but the judge did not. Secondly, they refute the defendant’s contention that this action should be treated as a group action under Law 472. Thirdly, even if they are wrong on both those points, they submit that application of the time limit of Law 472 would be inconsistent with English public policy, and so the court should refuse to apply it pursuant to A26 Rome II.

All but one links to case-law in this post refer to my discussion of same on the blog, with pieces of course further linking to the judgment. Apologies for the pat on my own back but it is nice to see that all but one (Vilca, where parties essentially agreed on the Rome II issue) of the cases referred to in the judgment all feature on the blog.

For claimants, Alexander Layton KC referred to Wall v Mutuelle de Poitiers Assurances and Actavis UK Ltd & ors v Eli Lilly and Co (where the issues were discussed obiter). Defendants rely on Vilca v Xstrata Ltd [2018] EWHC 27 (QB), KMG International NV v Chen [2019] EWHC 2389 (Comm), Pandya v Intersalonika General Insurance Co SA [2020] EWHC 273 (QB), [2020] ILPr 44 and Johnson v Berentzen [2021] EWHC 1042 (QB).

My reception of the High Court’s conclusions in KMG, Pandya, and Johnson was not enthusiastic, and in my review of Pandya in particular I also suggest that the same scholarship relied on in this case, did not actually lend support to the  defendant’s arguments, and I stand by that, too.

Hence Steyn J’s conclusion [102] that Article 15 Rome II

contains a list of matters which are ‘in particular’ to fall under the designated law, irrespective of whether they would be classified as matters of substance or procedure

and [106]

that the provisions of article 15 of Rome II should be construed widely

in my view is wrong. (Note the linguistic analysis in [110] will be of interest to readers interested in authentic interpretation of multi-lingual statutes).

 

[109] The key question then is which Colombian limitation period applies to these English proceedings, which brings the judge to discuss [115] ff ia Iraqi Civilians v Ministry of Defence (No.2). Here the judge, after discussing Colombian law evidence, holds [137]

that this action has not been brought under Law 472, and it does not fall to be treated as if it had been brought as a Colombian group action. Therefore, this action is not time-barred pursuant to article 47 of Law 472.

Hence claimants lost the argument on Rome II’s procedural exception but won the argument on application of Colombian law.

[139] ff whether the limitation rule should be disapplied pursuant to A26 Rome II is discussed obiter and summarily, with reference of course to Begum v Maran which I discuss here. The judge holds A26’s high threshold would not be met.

Both parties have reason to appeal, and one wonders on which parts of Rome II, permission to appeal will be sought.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, ia para 4.80.

 

Posted on

Sedgwick v Mapfre Espana. On subrogation in Rome II, and yet again on its procedural carve-out (re: interest rates).

Sedgwick v Mapfre Espana Compania De Seguros Y Reaseguros Sa [2022] EWHC 2704 (KB) discusses the application of Article 19 Rome II on direct actions against insurers, and the procedural carve-out of the Regulation.

Claimant lives in Wales. At the time of the accident she was on her honeymoon, staying at the Hotel Blue Sea Callao Garden in Santa Cruz which was owned and operated by a company registered and incorporated in Spain. She was descending an inadequately lit concrete staircase when she fell and sustained severe fracture injuries to her left knee and to her right heel.

Spanish law is the governing law of the insurance contract/policy which provides the tortfeasor with the right of indemnity within the terms of the policy and that the claimant has, under Spanish law, a direct right of action against the insurer. Parties also agree that Spanish law applies per A4(1) Rome II.

The scope of the law applicable is set out in A15 Rome II, which reads in relevant part: “…the law applicable to non-contractual obligations under this Regulation shall govern in particular: (a) the basis and extent of liability including the determination of persons who may be held liable for acts performed by them; (b) the grounds for exemption from liability, any limitation of liability and any division of liability; (c) the existence, the nature and the assessment of damage or the remedy claimed;…”

A1(3) Rome II carves out all matters of procedure and evidence to the law of the forum court: “This Regulation shall not apply to evidence and procedure “. I have reported on the carve-out frequently (see eg here and linked postings there, or use search tag ‘evidence and procedure’).

On a technical side-note, Matthew Hoyle here (he also has a general excellent note on proving foreign law here) correctly notes a confusion with the judge [11] on the issue of proving foreign law, seeing as she conflates assumption of English law as the lex causae when the content of a suggested foreign law is not proven and pleaded (it was so in the case at issue), and assumption in certain circumstances, of the foreign law as being identical to English law.

Issues for determination, are:

i) the resolution of a series of questions relevant to the award of general damages (for non-pecuniary loss) under Spanish law; these are purely issues of Spanish law and of no interest to the blog.

ii) whether the claimant is able to pursue a claim for subrogated losses on behalf of her travel insurer. The contentious issue is whether the claimant herself is able to bring a claim for subrogated losses or whether the claim must be brought in a separate action by the insurer.

[60] if the claim is to be brought separately, it can no longer so be brought because it is now time-barred.

Defendant submits that the claim for those losses incurred by the travel insurer must be brought in accordance with Spanish law and that the proper person entitled to bring a claim against the defendant insurer under A43 Spanish Insurance Contract Act 50/1980 is the third party insurer, not the claimant, as those subrogated losses are losses of the third party payer.

Claimant submits that Spanish law is relevant only to the extent that, as the applicable law of the tort, it provides for recovery of expenses. Spanish law does not govern the relationship between the claimant and the travel insurer, nor the travel insurer’s rights of subrogation by means of the claimant’s claim under those policies. Those matters are regulated, it is argued, by the law governing the insurance policy, in this case, English law, consequential to A19 Rome II (“where a person (the creditor) has a non-contractual claim upon another (the debtor) and a third person has a duty to satisfy the creditor, or has in fact satisfied the creditor in discharge of that duty, the law which governs the third person’s duty to satisfy the creditor shall determine whether and the extent to which the third person is entitled to exercise against the debtor the rights which the creditor had against the debtor under the law governing their relationship.”)

The issue therefore is whether the question of whether the insurer may bring a claim in the name of the insured (rather than by other means) a question of “whether, and the extent to which” the insurer is entitled to exercise the rights of the insured against the third party? Lambert J [73] says it is, as a matter of language and construction, and she also expresses it (less immediately convincing to my mind) as an issue of common sense:

‘Putting the matter another way, it would be distinctly odd if English law determined the right of subrogation and limits upon that right (e.g. the legal principle that there must be full indemnity before subrogated rights attach) but an important aspect of the English law of subrogation (namely that the claim may and must be brought in the name of the insured) may not apply depending on where loss is caused which is to be indemnified.’

Finally, iii) the appropriate rate of interest to apply to the damages award, whether the Spanish (penalty) rate of interest applies or a rate applied under s 35A [E&W] Senior Courts Act 1981. Clearly the issue is whether penalty interest rules are substantive rather than procedural: in the latter case, they are carved out from Rome II, and English law as the lex causae applies.

Troke v Amgen is referred to, and the judge in Swedgwick decides [101]

Whether the decision in Troke is binding upon me or not, I agree with its conclusion and the underlying reasoning which I endorse and follow.

and [102]

the penalty interest provisions are discretionary; they may be excluded if there is a good reason to do so and they are procedural in character.

In my review of Troke I noted its reasoning was unconvincing. Lambert J [101] adds more arguments here, and I find these more convincing, if not conclusive.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 4.8.

Posted on

The Dutch MH17 judgment and the conflict of laws. On civil claims anchored to criminal suits, and the application of Article 4(3) Rome II’s escape clause.

Their relevance is of course insignificant in light of the dreadful events that  triggered the judgments, however I thought I would flag the private international law elements in this week’s four Dutch judgments following the criminal prosecution of the suspects (now culprits) in the downing of MH17.

The judgment against Mr Pulatov was the  only one to respond to defence arguments actually made: he was the only one to have been represented (the other judgments were held in absentia). The judges extrapolate his arguments to the  other defendants to ensure some kind of proper representation, however they also explore further elements not raised by Mr Pulatov in the other judgments. This includes precisely the private international law elements for, it seems, no private claim was attached to the prosecution of Mr Pulatov while it was against the other defendants.

In this post I take the judgment against Mr Dubinskiy as the relevant text (structure and content of the other 2 judgments are essentially the same).

[12.4.1] discusses the possibility of judging the civil leg of a criminal suit. That the crimes could be prosecuted in The Netherlands is established on the basis of international criminal law of course, which is not the area of this blog. Jurisdiction for the civil leg is justified by reference to this being accepted international practice. Support (not: legal basis per se) is found by the court in Article 7(3) Brussels Ia:

A person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State:

as regards a civil claim for damages or restitution which is based on an act giving rise to criminal proceedings, in the court seised of those proceedings, to the extent that that court has jurisdiction under its own law to entertain civil proceedings;

and in the similar regime under the Lugano Convention. The court rejects a potential (this judgment as noted was issued in absentia) lis pendens argument vis-a-vis proceedings  in the United States. The court remarks that these judgments had already been issued before the Dutch criminal prosecution was initiated; that therefore there are no concurrent proceedings unto which a lis pendens argument could be raised; and that the US judgments reached the same conclusion.

Res judicata of the US judgments is dismissed as an element which would impact the Dutch judgments at this stage. The court does point out that res judicata may return at the enforcement stage of the damages part of the judgments, in that the victims will not be entitled to double compensation. Note that the US judgments included punitive damages which as readers will know is also a complicating factor for enforcement in the EU.

At 12.14.2 the court then turns to applicable law, for which it of course applies Rome II. With reference to CJEU C-350/14 Lazar, it dismisses the ‘extraordinary suffering’ of the relatives of the victims as ‘indirect damage’ under Rome II, instead exclusively taking the direct damage (the passing away) of the victims on Ukrainian territory as determinant for locus damni.

Dutch law is held not to be ‘manifestly more closely connected’ per A4(3) Rome II, despite the majority of the victims being Dutch. The court in this respect refers firstly to the link with Ukraine not being accidental (such as might be the case in ‘ordinary’ mass claims) but rather directly linked to the hostilities in Ukraine), moreover to the need to guard what it calls the ‘internal harmony’ of the judgment seeing as there are also non-Dutch relatives involved. This I find a touch unconvincing, particularly seeing as the court itself in the same para, with reference to Jan von Hein in Callies’ 2nd ed. of the Rome Regulations commentary, refers to the need to consider A4(3)’s escape clause individually, not collectively.

Geert.

Links to all 4 judgments:

https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:12219

https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:12218

https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:12217

https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:12216

Posted on

Sweden v Serwin. (Inter alia) on lex causae for (alleged) fiduciary duty and Rome II.

Kingdom of Sweden v Serwin & Ors [2022] EWHC 2706 (Comm) concerns an attempt by Sweden to gain compensation of a number of defendants whom it alleges were parties to a substantial fraud.  The fraud resulted in the misappropriation of in excess of €115m from the pension saving accounts of some 46,222 Swedish pension savers.

I may have to think one or two things through however I wanted to collect my initial thoughts at any rate.

Of note is that the application was one for summary judgment and that quite a few of the respondents did not file an acknowledgment of service or a defence. However, Sweden obtained permission from the court to obtain summary judgment on the merits even against them, rather than entering judgment in default (ia because that makes enforcement more straightforward). Other defendants are serving prison sentences in Sweden and they did enter a defence.

I do not want to turn this post into a banking and finance one however some background is required: [20] ff

The Swedish pension system has various types of pension provision, including a compulsory premium pension (PPM), in which a percentage of a pension saver’s earnings is put into an account, which is invested in investment funds selected by the pension saver from an online platform that the Swedish Pension Authority (SPA) maintains. Each pension saver has a PPM account. Among the investments which might be made were investments in so-called UCITS funds where these had been approved by the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (SFSA). UCITS funds are those meeting the requirements of the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities Directive 209/65/EC.

A company that wished to participate in the PPM was required to
enter into a cooperation agreement with the SPA. This case arises from two UCITS funds which were listed on the PPM online platform:

i)            the Optimus High Yield Fund (Optimus), managed by Optimus Fonder which entered into a co-operation agreement with the SPA on 26 March 2012; and

ii)          the Falcon Funds SICA V plc (Falcon) which entered into a co-operation agreement with the SPA in relation to three funders under its management.

The events concerning these two separate funds have been described in the evidence as the Optimus phase and the Falcon phase..

There was consensus ([38]) that the law applicable to the Swedish claims so far as they concerned the Optimus phase was Swedish law, whether by virtue of Article 4(1) or (3) Rome II. That Sweden’s claims relating to the Optimus phase were barred by the doctrine of res judicata, merger, cause of action estoppel or the allied doctrine in Henderson v Henderson, was dismissed by Foxton J [44].

Falcon then was incorporated and authorised by the Maltese Financial Services Authority as a UCITS fund on 22 November 2013. Sweden’s summary judgment claim in relation to the Falcon phase argued that its claims in delict and for breach of fiduciary duty relating to that phase are governed by Maltese law and not Swedish law.

As far as the delict issue is concerned (misappropriation), application of A4(2)  to some of the defendants was clear, and Sweden argued application of A4(1) for the remainder, seemingly arguing (judgment is a bit unclear on this point) that the damage was suffered in Malta when funds held in Falcon were applied to the various classes of loss-making investments.  Reference was made by counsel and judge to Dicey 16th ed. 35-027: “in misappropriation cases … it seems appropriate to locate damage at the place where an asset … is taken from the control of the claimant or another person with whom the claimant has a relationship” – the judge held that it is strongly arguable that this happened when Sweden’s funds became subject to the control of Falcon and the powers of its directors or those operating behind the scenes; the judge seems to locate this in Sweden, not Malta, and to some degree it does not matter for with reference ia to Avonwick and reasons listed [81] it is held that A4(3) arguably is engaged to make the lex causae Swedish law.

[86] reference is again made to Dicey for the applicable law issue as far as breach of fiduciary duties is concerned: Dicey, Morris & Collins [36-069]-[36-070]:

i)                 If equitable obligations of a fiduciary character arise in the context of a contractual relationship, there is a strong argument that the law applicable to the parties’ contractual relationship under Rome I determines whether a fiduciary relationship exists and the nature and content of the duties imposed.

ii)               If, however, the equitable obligations are characterised as incidents of a company law relationship rather than as “contractual”, common law principles determine the applicable law ( company law matters are excluded from Rome I and Rome II).

iii)             If a fiduciary duty arises where the parties were not in a prior relationship, such as in the case of a recipient of trust property, then the “better view” is that the obligation is non- contractual in nature and falls within the ambit of Rome II.

Unlike Sweden, the judge holds there are strong arguments that Swedish law applies, by reference it seems to Dicey, above, i) and with the ‘anchor’ agreement being the one by which Falcon becomes eligible to received PPM funds. Rule ii) seems to be moved aside by the judge here, and at any rate the extent of that rule is not clear-cut (see the CJEU itself recently). It is clear and it was correct to hold that the discussion is not one for summary judgment material.

An interesting final, obiter point comes [91] ff re the ‘reflective loss’ rule (a shareholder (and some others) cannot claim for a fall in the value of their holdings due to loss suffered by the company, if and when the company has a cause of action against the same wrongdoer) under Maltese law. Falcon itself is currently asserting claims against some of the alleged wrongdoers in relation to those same misappropriations, however Sweden argues an exception to that rule on the basis of Maltese expert evidence that was not considered to be robust enough for the summary judgment stage.

I wonder though whether the suggested relevance of the reflective loss rule, does not serve as ammunition for the suggestion that Rome I and II’s corporate carve-out is engaged viz the breach of fiduciary duties claim. For is the DNA of the rule not one of clear lex incorporationis?

To be further pondered.

Geert.

%d bloggers like this: