Suchergebnisse

"When a foreign judgment is recognized, what exactly is it that is recognized? Here there seems to be a difference between the common law and the civil law. In the civil law, it is sometimes said that the final ruling or order (in German, the Tenor or Spruch; in French, the dispositif) is all that is recognized. In the common-law world, however, the doctrine known variously as issue estoppel,2 collateral estoppel or issue preclusion3 requires a court in certain circumstances to recognize rulings by the court of origin on preliminary issues.4 Estoppel is a doctrine peculiar to the common law. It is too complex to sum up in a few words, but the underlying idea may be explained by saying that a person should not be allowed to say one thing at one time and another thing at another 2 British and Commonwealth terminology. 3 These latter two expressions are both United States terminology. 4 This raises the question which law should decide whether issue estoppel applies: should it be the law of the State of origin or that of the State of recognition"--

"Taking a fresh and modern approach to the subject, this fully revised and restructured textbook provides everything necessary to gain a good understanding of international commercial litigation. Adopting a comparative stance, it provides extensive coverage of US and Commonwealth law, in addition to the core areas of English and EU law. Extracts from key cases and legislative acts are designed to meet the practical requirements of litigators as well as explaining the ideas behind legal provisions. Significant updates include new material on the recast of the Brussels I Regulation, the impact of EU law on choice-of-court agreements and arbitration agreements, and controversial decisions on antisuit injunctions. A companion website will feature important updates to the law"--

Includes bibliographical references and index

This is the first text to address all the instruments that will govern choice-of-court agreements in Europe and to engage in a practical discussion of their mutual relationship. The existing common law, which has dominated discussion of this subject for so long, will become less significant as European and international instruments become more widely applicable. The consequences of this, both for practitioners and business persons engaging in international transactions, are explained by thematic chapters covering all major issues affected.

This article consists of a comparative study of the basic principles underlying the rules of jurisdiction in private international law in commercial cases in the law of the European Union, the United States and England. It considers the objectives which these rules seek to achieve (protection of the rights of the parties and respect for the interests of foreign States) and the extent to which these objectives are attained. It takes tort claims, especially in the field of products-liability as an example and considers which system has the most exorbitant rules. It suggests explanations for the differences found.

AbstractThis article consists of a comparative study of the basic principles underlying the rules of jurisdiction in private international law in commercial cases in the law of the European Union, the United States and England. It considers the objectives which these rules seek to achieve (protection of the rights of the parties and respect for the interests of foreign States) and the extent to which these objectives are attained. It takes tort claims, especially in the field of products-liability, as an example and considers which system has the most exorbitant rules. It suggests explanations for the differences found.

This article deals with the effect of the Brussels I Regulation on arbitration. This Regulation no longer applies in the UK, but the British Government has applied to join the Lugano Convention, which contains similar provisions. So the article also discusses the position under Lugano, paying particular attention to the differences between the two instruments. The main focus is on the problems that arise when the same dispute is subject to both arbitration and litigation. Possible mechanisms to resolve these problems – such as antisuit injunctions – are considered. The article also discusses other questions, such as freezing orders in support of arbitration.

AbstractThis article considers recent CJEU case law on the Brussels I Regulation. Two aspects of Article 7(1) (which applies to matters relating to a contract) are considered: the first is whether the contract must be between the parties to the case; the second is whether membership of an association should be regarded as constituting implied consent to be bound by decisions of the association so that jurisdiction to enforce them may be taken under Article 7(1). The article also discusses recent case law on who counts as a 'consumer' in terms of Article 17.

AbstractArticle 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation, 2012 confers jurisdiction, in matters relating to tort, on the courts of the Member State in which the harmful event occurred. In Bier v Mines de Potasse d'Alsace, the CJEU held that this covers both the place where the event which caused the damage takes place and the place where the damage itself takes place. In later cases, however, it held that does not cover the place where the victim claims to have suffered financial damage following upon initial damage arising and suffered by the victim in another Member State. A problem arises if there is no physical harm but only financial loss or some other kind of non-physical harm. It is not always clear in such a situation where the damage occurs. This article considers this problem with special reference to pure financial loss but also two other torts in which no physical harm occurs: defamation and intellectual-property infringement.

AbstractIn its eagerly awaited judgment inGazprom, the CJEU declined to follow the Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet thatWest Tankersis no longer good law. TheWest Tankerscase decided that the courts of one Member State are precluded from granting antisuit injunctions directed at proceedings in the courts of another Member State, even if the proceedings in which the injunction is granted fall outside the scope of the Brussels Regulation by reason of the fact that they are concerned with arbitration. TheGazpromcase confirms thatWest Tankersis still good law.