Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T05:00:36.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The English Court of Appeal in Re Harrods: An Unwelcome Interpretation of the Brussels Convention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

H. Duintjer Tebbens
H. Duintjer Tebbens
Affiliation:
Dr. Jur.; Principal Administrator, Court of Justice of the European Communities, Luxembourg; fanner Head of the Department of Private International Law, T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague.
Get access

Extract

Some twenty-five years have passed since the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments was first drafted and it seems to be doing rather well. It is in force in all twelve Member States of the European Community and has become a familiar part of the work of numerous courts in Europe handling commercial disputes. Its success is borne out by the conclusion of the Lugano Convention of 16 September 1988, extending the scheme of the Brussels Convention to the Member States of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), which obtained in only three years after signature the necessary ratifications for its initial entry into force on 1 January 1992. In addition, there is much support among scholars from Eastern Europe for the accession of their countries to the Lugano Convention (which, unlike the Brussels Convention, provides for accession independently of membership of the European Community or EFTA).

Type
Research Article
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 39 , Special Issue S1: Law and Reality , October 1992 , pp. 47 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Upon Portugal's ratification of the San Sebastian Accession Convention of 26 May 1989 which took effect on 1 July 1992.

2. See the contributions to a symposium in Heidelberg, 27 February to 1 March 1991, published in Jayme, E., ed., Ein Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht für Gesamteuropa (1992) passim.Google Scholar

3. Kropholler, J., Europäisches Zivilprozeβrecttt, 3rd edn. (1991) p. 24Google Scholar; cf., already Struycken, A.V.M., Naar eenheid van rechtsbedeling in Europa [Towards a uniform administration of justice in Europe], Inaugural Lecture Nijmegen, 1971 (1971) p. 9Google Scholar; Spellenberg, U., ‘Das Europäische Gerichtsstands- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen als Kern eines europäischen Zivilprozeßrechts’, Europarecht (1980) p. 329.Google Scholar

4. HR 1 February 1985, Transocean Towage Co Ltd v. Hyundai Construction Co Ltd (The ‘Piscator’), NJ 1985 no. 698, with a note by Schultsz, J.C.; NILR (1989) p. 59Google Scholar, with a note by Verheul, J.P.; Eur. Transp. Law (1985) p. 485Google Scholar; see for another example of inspiration derived from the Brussels Convention HR 16 November 1990, TSM Compagnie d'Assurance Transports v. Geisseler Transport AG.S&S 1991 no. 54; NJ 1992 no. 107, with a note by Schultsz, J.C.; NILR (1991) p. 413Google Scholar, with a note by K.F. Haak.

5. Voskuil, C.C.A., ‘Party Autonomy in Matters of International Judicial Jurisdiction in the Netherlands — Farewell to the Principle of Sovereignty’Google Scholar, in Bos, A. and Siblesz, H., eds., Realism in Law-Making. Essays on International Law in Honour of Willem Riphagen (1986) p. 261.Google Scholar

6. Bundesgerichtshof 2 07 1991Google Scholar, XIZR 206/90, NJW (1991) p. 3092, with a note by Geimer, R., ‘Rechtsschutz in Deutschland künftig nur bei Inlandsbezug?’Google Scholar, ibid. p. 3072; IPRax (1992) p. 160, with a note by Schlosser, P., ‘Einschränkung des VermögensgerichtsstandesGoogle Scholar, ibid. p. 140, restrictive interpretation of para. 23 of the German CCP.

7. In Re Harrods (Buenos Aires)Ltd, judgment of 19 December 1990, [1991] 3 WLR 397; [1991] 4 All ER 334; [1991] I.L.Pr. 331; with a note by Briggs, A., 107 LQR (1991) p. 180Google Scholar; and by Schwartz, A.R., IS Foidham Int.L.J. (1991) p. 174Google Scholar; see also Gaudemet-Tallon, H., ‘Le “forum non conveniens”, une menace pour la convention de Bruxelles? (A propos de trois arrêts anglais récents)’, Rev.crit.dr.int.priv. (1991) p. 491Google Scholar; Kaye, P., ‘The EEC Judgments Convention and the Outer World: Goodbye to Forum Non Conveniens?’, JBusL (1992) p. 47Google Scholar; North, P.M., ‘The Brussels Convention and Forum Non Conveniens, IPRax (1992) p. 183.Google Scholar

8. Companies Act 1985, ss. 459(1), 461(1).

9. [1991] 3 WLR 397, at 409 (Harman J.).

10. Spiliada Maritime Corporation v. Cansulex Ltd, [1987] A.C. 460; [1986] 3 WLR 972; [1986] 3 All ER 843.

11. S. 49 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982: ‘Nothing in this Act shall prevent any court in the United Kingdom from staying… or dismissing any proceedings before it, on the ground of forum non convenient or otherwise, where to do so is not inconsistent with the 1968 Convention.’

12. [1991] 3 WLR 397, at 417, 422.

13. S. 42(3): A corporation or association has its seat [to be treated as its domicile] in the U.K. if and only if — (a) it was incorporated or formed under the law of a part of the U.K. and has its registered office or some other official address in the U.K., or — (b) its central control and management is exercised in the U.K.

14. S. 42(6): Subject to subsection (7), a corporation or association has its seat in a state other than the U.K. if and only if — (a) it was incorporated or formed under the law of mat state and has its registered office or some other official address there: or — (b) its central management and control is exercised in mat state.

S. 42(7): A corporation or association shall not be regarded as having its seat in a Contracting State other than the U.K. if it is shown that the courts of that state would not regard it as having its seat there.

15. S & W Berisford plc v.New Hampshire Insurance Co, [1990] 2Q.B.631; [1990] 3 WLR 688; [1990] 2 All ER 321 (Hobhouse J.); Arkwright Mutual Insurance Co v. Bryanston Insurance Co Ltd, [1990] 2 Q.B. 649; [1990] 3 WLR 705; [1990] 2 All ER 335 (Potter J.); see Collins, L., ‘Forum Non Conveniens and the Brussels Convention’, 106 LQR (1990) p. 535Google Scholar; Kaye, P., loc. cit. n. 7Google Scholar; Briggs, A., ‘Spiliada and the Brussels Convention’, LMCLQ (1991) p. 10.Google Scholar

16. Gone are the days when no English court would deign to cite an author who was still alive.

17. [1991] 3 WLR 397 at 422 (emphasis in the original quotation from Collins).

18. [1991] 3 WLR 423; [1991] 4 All ER 348 (judgment of 13 March 1991).

19. Supra, n. 10.

20. [1991] 3 WLR at 415, 417.

21. [1991] 3 WLR at 418, 422.

22. Judgment of 6 October 1982, Case no. 283/81, [1982] ECR 3415 concerning preliminary references under Art. 177 EEC Treaty.

23. Judgment of 27 June 1991, Case no. C-351/89, Overseas Union Insurance Ltd v. New Hampshire Insurance Comp., [1991] ECR I-3317.

24. OJ No. C 59/7 of 5.3.1979, and cf., Schlosser Report, ibid. p. 81. But note that the Evrigenis/Kerameus Report, OJ No. C 298/8 of 24.11.1986, para. 24, does not contain similar language.

25. See in this sense Geimer, R., “The Right of Access to the Courts under the Brussels Convention’, in Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments in EuropeGoogle Scholar (Proceedings of the Colloquium on the Interpretation of the Brussels Convention by the Court of Justice considered in the context of the European Judicial Area, Luxembourg, 11 and 12 03 1991) (1992) (under press).Google Scholar

26. The universalist model has been propounded forcefully by Struycken, A.V.M., ‘De bevoegdheidsregeling van bet EEG-executieverdrag getoetst aan een universalistisch model’Google Scholar [Jurisdiction According to the EEC Judgments Convention Examined in Light of a Universal Model], in Mededelingen van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht [Reports of the Netherlands International Law Association], No.77 (1978) p. 1 at pp. 19–20, 47–55Google Scholar, English summary ‘Jurisdiction According to the EEC Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments’, NILR (1978) p. 354 at pp. 358, 361– 362.Google Scholar

27. Report de Almeida Cruz, Desantes Real and Jenard, OJ No. C 189/38 of 28.7.1990.

28. Judgment of 4 February 1988, Case no. 145/86, [1988] ECR 645.

29. Judgment of 15 May 1990, Case no. C-365/88, [1990] ECR 1-1845.

30. See Kropholler, , op. cit. n. 3, p. 35.Google Scholar

31. In this sense, in addition to Collins, loc. cit. n. 15, Kaye, P., Civil Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (1987) p. 1244Google Scholar; contra O'Malley, S. & Layton, A., European Civil Practice (1989) p. 31Google Scholar, and Mennie, A., ‘The Brussels Convention and the Scottish Courts’ Discretion to Decline Jurisdiction', Juridical Review (1989) p. 150 at 162.Google Scholar

32. Art.5(2): ‘They [i.e. the Member States] shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Treaty’.

33. Cf., the Schlosser Report, OJ No. C 59/96 of 5.3.1979, para. 75, who considers it ‘desirable’ that the United Kingdom and Ireland adopt a concept of seat that is closer to the continental notion.

34. See on the notion of domicile of companies under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Kaye, P., ‘The Meaning of Domicile under United Kingdom Law for the Purposes of the 1968 Brussels Convention…’, NILR (1988) p. 181 at pp. 188–194.Google Scholar

35. Mathers, LK., ‘The Brussels Convention of 1968: Its Implementation in the United Kingdom’, Yearbook of European Law (1983) p. 51 at p. 55.Google Scholar

36. Gill, A. V., ‘The “Seat” of a Company and the E.E.C. Judgments Convention’, Irish Low Times (1988) p. 30.Google Scholar

37. Verheul, J.P., ‘The Forum (Non) Convenient in English and Dutch Law and under Some International Conventions’, ICLQ (1986) p. 413 at p. 422.Google Scholar

38. Critical to Art 10(2) as Dutch implementing rule for the Brussels Convention Struycken, A.V.M., ‘Het Europees Executieverdrag en de woonplaats van de rechtspersoon’Google Scholar [The European Judgments Convention and the domicile of the legal person], De Naamlooze Vennootschap (1978) p. 45 at pp. 48–50.Google Scholar

39. [1991] 3 WLR 397 at 416–417.

40. See Schlosser Report, para. 75, p. 97.

41. See for an early case where a reflex effect of Arts. 16 and 17 was considered District Court Amsterdam 13 May 1975, Eurotex v. Rensel, NJ 1976 no. 323, with a note by J.C. Schultsz; NILR (1975) p. 206, with a note by J.P. Verheul, a judgment in which Dr. Voskuil participated as deputy judge; cf., as to Art. 16(1) Droz, G.A.L., “La Convention de San Sebastian alignant la Convention de Bruxelles sur la Convention de Lugano’, Rev.crit.dr.int.priv. (1990) p. 1Google Scholar at p. 14.

42. [1991] 3 WLR 397 at 416.

43. MacShannon, v. Rockware Glass Ltd, [1978] A.C. 795Google Scholar; [1978] 2 WLR 362; [1978] 1 All ER 625 (H.L), with a note by Schuz, R., ICLQ (1986) p. 374.Google Scholar

44. The Abidin Daver [1984] A.C. 398; [1984] 2 WLR 196; [1984] All ER 470 (H.L), per Lord Diplock.

45. The Spiliada, supra n. 10, per Lord Goff of Chieveley, decided on 19th November 1986, six weeks before the entry into force of the Convention in the United Kingdom.

46. The point made in the Schlosser Report, para. 78 at p. 97 that ‘[a plaintiff] should not have to waste his time and money risking that the court concerned may consider itself less competent than another’ is valid regardless of whether or not the other court is located in a Contracting State.

47. The present author disagrees with MrsGaudemet-Tallon, , loc. cit n. 7Google Scholar, who ‘after many hesitations’ would accept forum non conveniens in a Harrods-type situation (at pp. 513, 517).

48. As has been done by the San Sebastian Accession Convention (OJ No. L 285/1 of 3.10.1989) in regard to the application of Art. 16(1) of the Brussels Convention to lettings of holiday homes.

49. Supra, n. 18.

50. [1986] 3 All ER 843 at 854.

51. Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Comp. Inc. v. Fay, 165 Commonwealth L. Rep. (1988) p. 197 (at p. 238); with a note by A. Briggs, 105 LQR (1989) p. 200, and by L. Collins, ibid. p. 364.

52. See for example The Po, [1991] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 206 (C.A.): application of the forum non convenient test in a ship collision case between American plaintiffs and Italian defendants in which die English court had jurisdiction under a special convention, viz., the 1952 Brussels Collision Convention.