This post is by Aliyah Akram of 12 King’s Bench Walk.
The case involved 42,500 residents of the Niger Delta, from two different communities, who sought to bring a claim in the High Court for damages arising from environmental pollution caused by, they alleged, oil spills from the Defendants’ pipelines.
The claim was brought against two defendants. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (“SPDC”), the Shell company responsible for the oil operations and Royal Dutch Shell (“RDS”) its ultimate parent company. Continue reading His Royal Highness Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Lucky Alame v Royal Dutch Shell Plc  EWHC 89 (TCC); Jurisdiction and international environmental group actions
This blog is by Max Archer of 12 King’s Bench Walk.
The claimant in this case was French company engaged in importing tobacco products to Guadeloupe and Martinique. The defendant was Panamanian company within the wider BAT corporate group.
The claimant had a five-year distribution agreement with the defendant. The agreement provided for English law and exclusive jurisdiction. This agreement came to an end without any further agreement to renew it.
The claimant commenced English proceedings in pursuit of what it claimed was a ‘margin pay-out’ of €6.5 million. It was claimed that it was entitled to this pay-out pursuant to the agreement as a result of the failure to renew. The defendant denied any entitlement to a pay-out and counterclaimed for numerous unpaid invoices and for €8.5 million of VAT recovered from the French VAT authorities. The Defendant argued that it was to be paid these VAT monies pursuant to an oral agreement.
The claimant denied these allegations and alleged that there was no enforceable agreement. The claimant argued that the agreement in respect of the VAT monies did not lie with itself but with the other group companies (the proposed third and fourth defendants). These companies had been subcontracted to carry out distribution in the relevant territories and had recovered the VAT monies themselves. Continue reading PHP v Tobacco Carib Sarl v BAT Caribbean SA  EWHC 3377 (Comm): Brussels Recast & third party claims
This blog post is by James Beeton of 12 King’s Bench Walk.
This important case considered in detail a number of issues arising under the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”): the scope of the Convention’s extra-territorial effect, investigative obligations under articles 3 and 5, and the impact of the UN Convention Against Torture (“UNCAT”) on investigative obligations under articles 2 and 3. The first part of this article will provide a brief outline of the facts and issues along with a commentary on the judgment; the second will consider the Court of Appeal’s approach to the specific issues in greater detail. Continue reading Al-Saadoon & Others v Secretary of State for Defence  EWCA Civ 811 – ECHR, Jurisdiction, art. 3, art. 5, UNCAT
In the final part of this series I look at how English law’s approach to the choice of applicable law may change post Brexit. For historical and political reasons the change may be radical. I conclude this series of blogs by making tentative predictions as to how English law’s approach to the conflict of laws may change following Brexit. Continue reading Brexit & Conflict of Laws: Part 3
This case comment is by Kate Boakes of 12 King’s Bench Walk.
Haddon-Cave J’s judgment sets out practical guidance on issues of jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, contract formation, and alternative service in the context of service out of the jurisdiction. Continue reading Bill Kenwright Limited v Flash Entertainment FZ LLC  EWHC 1951 (QB) – Service, Gateways and Forum Non Conveniens
To understand how the situation might change post Brexit, one first has to consider the status quo. Council Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012, aka Brussels Recast, aka Judgment Regulation Recast, aka Brussels II, determines matters of jurisdiction for EU members apart from Denmark who opted out of the Regulation. As an EU regulation, Brussels II has direct effect in the UK. However, Brussels II is not universal in that “if the defendant is not domiciled in a Member State [jurisdiction shall be] determined by the law of the Member State” (article 6.1). Accordingly, Brussels II only forms part of the patchwork of English Law on jurisdiction, along with the Brussels Convention of 1968, the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act of 1982, and the common law. Continue reading Brexit & Conflict of Laws: Part 2