Special Jurisdiction in Matters Relating to Contract Under Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention

2018 ◽  
pp. 91-120
Author(s):  
Abla Mayss ◽  
Alan Reed
Keyword(s):  
Brussels Convention ◽  
Article 5

Service of Process in England on Overseas Companies and Article 5(5) of the Brussels Convention

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 921-936 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nelson E. Enonchong
Keyword(s):  
Great Britain ◽  
Common Law ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Brussels Convention ◽  
English Court ◽  
Natural Person ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Rules ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
A Company

It is generally accepted that, in actions in personam, the foundation of the court's jurisdiction at common law is the service of process.1 To this extent the rules as to service define the limits of the court's jurisdiction. So, for a claimant to establish the jurisdiction of the English court over an overseas company2 he must be able to serve process on the company in accordance with the rules of service. The general rule is that an overseas company, like an individual, may be served with process in England if present within the jurisdiction.3 However, since a company is only a legal (not natural) person, it cannot be present in the same way as an individual. It has therefore been necessary for special rules to be laid down by which it can be determined whether or not an overseas company is present in England and therefore may be served with process here. Before 1992 those rules were contained in sections 691 and 695 of the Companies Act 19854 (the pre-1992 regime). However, in 1992 the law was amended and a separate provision was laid down in section 694A of the Companies Act 1985 to regulate the service of process on any overseas company with a branch in Great Britain (the 1992 regime).

Performance of Obligations as the Basis of Jurisdiction and Choice of Law (Lugano and Brussels Conventions Article 5(1) and Rome Convention Article 4)

1999 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 379-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Brussels Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
Rome Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractWhen a dispute arises in connection with an international contract, it is necessary to clarify two matters: (i) the courts of which country are competent to decide on the dispute, and (ii) the law of which country applies to the merits of the dispute. Within the European Union, these matters are clarified, respectively, by the Brussels Convention on (i.a.) jurisdiction and by the Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations. The scope of application of the Brussels Convention is extended also to cover the EFTA Countries, through the Lugano Convention. The scope of the Rome Convention, on the contrary, does not reach beyond the European Union. This imbalance in the relationship between choice of forum and choice of law is particularly noticeable in Norway, which does not have a codified system of choice of law rules. The relationship between choice of forum rules and choice of law rules is highlighted in this article from the point of view of a specific connecting factor: the performance of the disputed obligation.

Plus ça Change? Article 5(1) of the Regulation on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments

2000 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 383-406
Author(s):  
Pippa Rogerson
Keyword(s):  
European Community ◽  
Brussels Convention ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Article 5

In October 2000 the Commission of the European Community presented an amended proposal of the Council’s new Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. This Regulation proposes considerable changes to the Brussels Convention. Article 5(1) has been one of the most frequently used and often litigated provisions of the Brussels Convention. Academic criticism of it in England has occasionally been forceful. Article 5(1) has not escaped the reforming zeal of the Commission and it is interesting to reflect on the new Regulation.

Plus ça Change? Article 5(1) of the Regulation on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments

2000 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 383-406
Author(s):  
Pippa Rogerson
Keyword(s):  
European Community ◽  
Brussels Convention ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Article 5

In October 2000 the Commission of the European Community presented an amended proposal of the Council’s new Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. This Regulation proposes considerable changes to the Brussels Convention. Article 5(1) has been one of the most frequently used and often litigated provisions of the Brussels Convention. Academic criticism of it in England has occasionally been forceful. Article 5(1) has not escaped the reforming zeal of the Commission and it is interesting to reflect on the new Regulation.

Pengaturan Waralaba Di Indonesia: Perspektif Hukum Bisnis

Liquidity ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-166
Author(s):  
Muchtar Riva’i
Keyword(s):  
Government Regulation ◽  
Small And Medium Enterprises ◽  
Economic Community ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
Medium Enterprises ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Laws And Regulations

The law arrangement of franchise law was first explicitly regulated by the Government Regulation No. 16 of 1997 which is then updated by Government Regulation No. 42 of 2007 to be created in an agreement that at least contains clauses as stipulated by Article 5 of the Government Regulation. However, franchise arrangements also associated with a variety of other laws and regulations applicable in Indonesia. This article is going to state that the importance of partnerships with small and medium enterprises as an effort to encourage the involvement of the wider economic community.

Waldpolitischer Jahresrückblick 2010 | Annual review of swiss forest policy 2010

2011 ◽  
Vol 162 (5) ◽  
pp. 137-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willi Zimmermann
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Planning ◽  
Forest Conservation ◽  
Forest Policy ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
Annual Review ◽  
Forest Law ◽  
One Step ◽  
Climate Convention ◽  
Article 5

In 2010, there were no major forest policy issues that attracted media attention. The year 2010 was rather marked by the preparation of decisions “offstage” and by recurring administrative implementation activities. The partial revision of the forest law, which has been launched, can be regarded as special, because it is not a routine affair: the Committee for the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy of the Council of States decided to revise particularly article 7 (compensation for deforestation) and article 10 (assessing forest status) of the forest law, and thus loosen the strict regime for forest conservation. Concerning the sectoral policies related to forest, the parliament took the law on spatial planning (RPG) one step further towards its revision. With the proposed revision of the spatial planning law's article 5 (value-added charge) a forest policy relevant article is now up for discussion. Different forest relevant topics on the international political agenda were discussed during the two international conferences on biodiversity and climate convention just as during the treatment of the alpine and the landscape convention. Next year the discussions will presumably be about the future forest conservation policy.

scholarly journals Do Parents Know Best?

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 613-631
Author(s):  
John Eekelaar
Keyword(s):  
Public Expenditure ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Rights Of The Child ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Involvement ◽  
Best Interests Standard ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Children's Interests

Abstract While Article 5 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires states to respect parents’ responsibilities to provide ‘appropriate’ direction and guidance to their children, Article 18 also proclaims that ‘the best interests of the child will be [the parents’] basic concern’. But how can this be done if, as is widely accepted, the “best interests” standard is too indeterminate safely to allow courts to substitute their assessment of children’s interests for those of a child’s parents? This reason for privatising such decisions has been reinforced by concerns over the extent of public expenditure on court involvement in and legal aid for such issues, with the possible result of withdrawal of the law from this process. This article argues that there are inherent risks in leaving the arrangements for children of separating parents entirely in the hands of the parents, and considers various ways in which such risks might be reduced.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document