International Litigation Overview

True (A)

International arbitration cases

<p>torts</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Regulation No. 1215/2012 (A), Recast Regulation No. 1215 (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Priority is given to Member State Courts with jurisdiction by exclusive jurisdiction clause.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>10 January 2015</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>England = TPF-friendly Australia = TPF-friendly Ireland = Unlawful China = Unlawful</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Only if the chosen court declines jurisdiction (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>True (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>There is no evidence regarding asymmetric choice of court agreements.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>October 2015</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>China, USA, and Ukraine (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Jurisdiction = The authority of a court to hear a case Contracting State = A state that is bound by the Hague Convention Trustee = An individual responsible for managing a trust Exclusive jurisdiction = Only one court has the authority over a particular case</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>False (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>dispute</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It is international unless the parties are resident in the same Contracting State. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>False (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgement is sought.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>asymmetric</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A choice of court agreement designating another member state. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>False (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>To deal with conflicts with other instruments.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>To avoid irreconcilable judgments (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>False (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Forum non conveniens and antisuit injunction.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>lis pendens</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Lis Pendens = Priority to the court first seised Forum Non Conveniens = Declining jurisdiction in favor of another court Antisuit Injunction = Insisting on hearing the case in the current court Brussels 2012 = Regulation governing jurisdiction and proceedings in EU</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It does not determine the most appropriate court for the case (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>False (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Brussels 2012 and Lugano 2007.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The claims must be identical. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>False (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>To avoid irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>object</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The rescission claim must have been decided first. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>False (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>closely</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The law of the Member State of the court in question applies. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>True (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It might give some courts an unfair advantage in the race for jurisdiction.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>forum non conveniens</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Brussels 2012 = Regulation pertaining to jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments within the EU CJEU = Court of Justice of the European Union Forum non conveniens = Acknowledgment of a more appropriate venue for a case Owusu v Jackson = A landmark case establishing jurisdiction rules in tort cases</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>English courts regarded themselves as seised when the claim form was issued. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>True (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Inform the latter court of the date when it was seised.</p> Signup and view all the answers

The practice of a third party funding a lawsuit in exchange for a share of the potential winnings, often referred to as 'third-party funding' (TPF).

Jurisdictions that allow third-party funding, typically with specific regulations and restrictions.

Countries like France and Germany where TPF is generally allowed, but with varying degrees of permissiveness and specific rules.

Regions where third-party funding is not permitted, due to legal or ethical concerns. These jurisdictions may have specific laws or legal precedents against this practice.

The right of a court to hear and decide a legal case, particularly relevant when dealing with cross-border cases (cases involving parties from multiple countries).

A set of rules that determine which country's courts have the authority to hear a specific case, especially when dealing with disputes between parties in different countries.

A legal agreement where the parties specify which court is to handle any future legal disputes between them, giving priority to this chosen court for jurisdiction.

A rule in EU law that prioritizes courts designated by an exclusive jurisdiction clause even if another court was initially selected.

An agreement between parties to have their disputes heard in a specific court, regardless of where the parties are located.

A type of choice of court agreement that designates a specific court as the only court with jurisdiction to hear disputes.

A convention that aims to ensure the effectiveness of exclusive choice of court agreements in international disputes. Signed by various countries, including the EU, UK, Singapore, and Montenegro.

A legally binding document that outlines the rights and obligations of the settlor (creator), trustee (manager), and beneficiary (receiver) of a trust.

The power of a court to hear and decide a case based on location, subject matter, or other factors.

The agreement between parties to have their disputes heard in a specific court.

The party starting a legal action against another party.

The party against whom a legal action is brought.

A case is considered international under the Hague Convention if the parties are residents of different Contracting States or if the relationship of the parties and all other elements relevant to the dispute are connected with more than one State.

A case is considered international under the Hague Convention when recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment is sought in a Contracting State.

This type of agreement allows parties to choose a specific court for their case, but only one party is bound by the agreement. The other party is free to take the proceeding in any other court.

The Rome I Regulation considers that a choice-of-court agreement does not make a case international even if the parties choose a court in a different EU member state.

The Jenard Report suggests that choosing a court in a different member state, even though parties are resident in the same member state, constitutes an international element.

The Hague Convention has limited scope and only applies to choice-of-court agreements when the designated court is in a State Party to the Hague Convention.

Conflicts between the Hague Convention and other instruments, such as the Brussels Regulation, may arise due to differing scopes of application.

The Hague Convention provides rules for resolving conflicts with other instruments in article 26.

A legal principle where the court that is first presented with a case has the primary right to hear it, regardless of other courts that might also have jurisdiction. It aims to prevent conflicts and ensure a single court handles the matter.

A legal doctrine that prevents multiple courts from hearing the same case simultaneously. This can be achieved through different methods, like declining jurisdiction or issuing an injunction.

A legal mechanism used under the Brussels I Regulation to address conflicts of jurisdiction, where the court first seized takes precedence over any subsequent courts.

A legal remedy that allows a court to decline jurisdiction in favor of another court when it is deemed more appropriate to hear the case.

A legal remedy where a court can issue an order to another court to stop proceedings in a case, ensuring the first court has exclusive jurisdiction.

A legal concept where two or more courts have jurisdiction to hear the same case, leading to potential conflicts and inefficiencies.

The Brussels I Regulation and Lugano Convention are designed to ensure consistent and equitable legal proceedings within the EU and participating countries. The doctrine of 'Lis Pendens' is a key mechanism within these legal frameworks to manage competing jurisdictions and avoid confusion.

The Brussels I Regulation specifically addresses conflicts of jurisdiction when the court first seized is outside the EU or Lugano State. This ensures proper coordination even when cases involve international entities.

Two legal actions are considered the same if they involve the same "cause of action." This means that the aim of both actions is to achieve the same outcome from the court, even if the specific details of the claims might differ.

The "object" of a legal action refers to the specific outcome or relief that the claimant seeks from the court. It's about what the claimant wants the court to do.

The "cause of action" in a legal case refers to the legal basis for the claim. It's the specific set of facts and legal arguments that support the plaintiff's request for relief from the court.

If two legal actions can lead to contradictory judgments, they are considered related. This situation arises when the outcome of one case could directly negate the outcome of the other.

When two related actions are pending in different courts, the second court seised (the court that was contacted later) may delay its proceedings to avoid conflicting judgments.

A court's decision on a related case can be a factor in the outcome of another case, even if the cases involve different parties or claims. This is because conflicting judgments could undermine the legal system's consistency and create confusion.

The Brussels I Regulation and the Lugano Convention aim to ensure consistent legal outcomes across different European countries. They have rules to help handle cases where related actions are pending in multiple jurisdictions, aiming to minimize conflicts between court decisions.

The article 30(1) of the Brussels Convention states that if related actions are pending in different EU courts, a court other than the first seised (the court that was contacted earlier) can choose to pause its proceedings. This provision aims to promote consistency and avoid conflicting rulings within the EU legal system.

A common law doctrine where a court transfers a case to another jurisdiction that might be more appropriate, like closer to the accident or where witnesses live. Think of transferring a party to a more convenient location.

The European Union's rule that a court seised of a dispute must, upon request from another court also seised, inform the other court of the date it was seised. Think of telling other party hosts about the party's date.

A court is considered seised when it has been officially notified of the lawsuit. Think of seizing the opportunity to hear a case.

The court of the Member State where the case is filed determines the applicable law. Think of the country hosting the party setting the rules.

This rule governs the initial court to hear a case involving international parties. Think of the first party host invited.