International Litigation Q&A PDF

INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1.Third Party Funding is not allowed in Ireland True 2.Legal aid is synonymous with third party funding False 3.What is Litigation Funding? Litigation Funding is the nancing of one party of litigation (generally the plainti ) brought by a funder (thir...

INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1.Third Party Funding is not allowed in Ireland True 2.Legal aid is synonymous with third party funding False 3.What is Litigation Funding? Litigation Funding is the nancing of one party of litigation (generally the plainti ) brought by a funder (third party) in return of a percentage of any bene ts received by the funded party 4.Rolf, a German driver domiciled in Berlin, goes to Paris on holiday. There, Rolf injuries Pedro, a Spanish tourist. As a consequence, Pedro su ers pain and incurs medical expenses in Paris. Pedro is planning to bring an action for damages against Rolf. Which courts will have jurisdiction over the case? The courts of Germany, as Rolf is domiciled there (general jurisdiction: Article 4 Brussels I Recast Regulation) and the court of Paris, as the harmful event happened there. 5.According to Article 4 Brussels I Recast Regulation: Persons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State. 6.According to Article 7 (1) Brussels 1 Recast Regulation Mario, domiciled in New York, can be sued before the court of Madrid for the performance of a contractual obbligation?Assume that Madrid is the agreed place of performance of the obligation in question No 7.Is the Brussels 1 Recast Regulation still applicable to the United Kingdom? No 8.According to Article 7 (1) Brussels 1 Recast Regulation Mario, domiciled in Paris, can be sued before the court of Madrid for the performance of a contractual obbligation? Yes 9.What questions can CJEU give a ruling upon? Interpretation of EU Law and validity and interpretation of acts of EU bodies 10.Which of the following is a power of the Court of Justice of the European Union? Ensure a uniform interpretation of EU law 11.The procedure for a preliminary reference is to be found under Article 267 TFUE 12.Preliminary Ruling. What is it about? Domestic courts inquiries on interpretation of EU law 13.What is meant by a court against whose decision there is no judicial guidance under national law? When there is no right for further appeal 14.When can the CJEU refuse to deal with a reference? Not genuine dispute and hypothetical question or national proceedings terminated 15.How the preliminary procedure di ers from an appeals procedure? The reference is decided by the national court before the nal judgement 16.Are there any circumstances where a reference is not necessary (CILFIT guidelines)?The answer to the question on EU Law is obvious (acte clair) and the question on EU Law has already been interpreted in another decision fi ff ff fi fi ff  17.What is the working language of the CJEU? French 18.Two of the main aims of the preliminary ruling is to ensure uniformity of EU Law and avoid fragmentation True 19.In which scenarios does the 2005 Hague Convention apply to exclusive choice of court agreements in civil or commercial matters? Only when the parties are not residents of the same country. 20.Under the 2005 Hague Convention, what is the applicable jurisdiction when parties involved in a case have concluded an exclusive choice of court agreement in civil or commercial matters? The jurisdiction is determined by the agreement, irrespective of the parties' residence. 21.Among the listed countries, which one has signed but not rati ed the 2005 Hague Convention according to the provided information? The Usa 22.A valid choice of forum agreement is particularly important and convenient in international scenarios because: A large number of courts is potentially competent and disputes at the jurisdiction stage cannot be excluded 23.Contracting States of the 2005 Hague Convention are (as of September 2020): The EU (including the UK), Mexico, Singapore, and Montenegro 24.A, domiciled in Luxembourg, sells good to the Company B, domiciled in Milan. According to the Clause No 3 of the Contract: "The Courts of the State of New York are to have jurisdiction to settle any disputes which may arise out of or in connection with this contract”. Does Article 25 Brussels I Recast apply? No 25.A, domiciled in Rome, sells good to the Company B, domiciled in Milan. According to the Clause No 3. of the sale contract: "The Courts of France are to have jurisdiction to settle any disputes which may arise out of or in connection with this contract” Does Article 25 Brussels I Recast apply? Yes 26.If the parties have agreed on an exclusive choice of court agreement, designating only the courts in Paris to have jurisdiction, this means that: All other courts that might be competent but recognize this choice of court agreement have been deprived of jurisdiction 27.Assume that Marcus (borrower, domiciled in Singapore) and Anna (lender, domiciled in Rome, Italy) conclude a contract which includes the following choice of court agreement: “Proceedings by the borrower against the lender may be brought exclusively in the courts of Singapore; proceedings by the lender against the borrower may be brought in the courts of England or in the courts of any other State having jurisdiction under its law”. Subsequently, Marcus sues Anna before the State court of Singapore. Anna argues the lacking of jurisdiction of the Singaporean court. She a rms that the signed choice of court agreement is not covered by the 2005 Hague convention. Do you agree with Anna? Yes 28.Assume that John and Mary conclude a contract with an exclusive choice of court clause in favour of the courts of Singapore. ffi fi Subsequently, John sues Mary before a court in Singapore for 10000 dollars, a sum which he claims is due under the contract. The parties then enter into a judicial settlement under which Mary agrees to pay A 800 dollars, Singapore being a State where this may be done. If Mary fails to pay, John may bring proceedings to enforce the settlement in Germany, another Contracting State where Mary has assets. Would be such enforcement covered by the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of court agreements? Yes 29.A, domiciled in Hamburg, sells good to B, a Brazilian. According to the clause No 3 of that Contract: "The Courts of Germany are to have jurisdiction to settle any disputes which may arise out of or in connection with this contract” Does Article 25 Brussels I Recast apply? Yes 30.Zara, a Spanish corporation, grants a patent licence to Italy s.p.a., an Italian Corporation (with statutory seat in Rome), for manufacturing and selling its shoes in Italy and Slovenia. Italy s.p.a. deliberately breaches the agreement manufacturing and selling the shoes not only in Italy and Slovenia but also in Austria and Luxembourg. The Italian company, to prevent Zara which is intentioned to ll a lawsuit for breach of the patent license agreement, brings a defensive action before the Tribunal of Rome asking for a declaration of patent non-infringement. A few days later, Zara brings a lawsuit against Italy s.p.a. for damages related to the breach of the patent license agreement in Vienna. Which court will decide the case on the merit? The Italian Court 31.Peter sues Beth before the Spanish court and Beth sues Peter in Roma The Italian proceedings include the claim raised by Peter in the Spanish proceedings. The Spanish court is the rst court seized. Which court will decide the case on the merit? The Spanish Court 32.John, who was a resident in Rome, held shares in a French company. The agreement of association of the company provided that all disputes between the company and its shareholders should be subject to the jurisdiction of the French courts and that service of process on each shareholder should be at a designated address in France. The company went into liquidation and a creditor of the company brought an action in France against John or moneys not paid up on John’s shares. John did not receive any notice of the proceedings. The French court gave a default judgment against John Is it the default judgment recognizable in Italy through the Brussels I Recast Regulation? No 33. Andreas, a Frenchman sues in France Xavier (domiciled in Berlin) for breach of contract. In the course of the proceedings, Xavier does not challenge the French jurisdiction. The French court assumes jurisdiction on the mistaken view that the contract was to be performed in France and Andreas obtain a judgement on the merit. Xavier argues that the judgment is not recognizable in Germany, where he has assets because the French court did not have jurisdiction over the claim. Is Xavier right? No fi fi