GwynTovey,19922006

LectureNotes2006.Code:Cnf.01.01v30206

ConflictofLaws
Topic1(of10):IntroductiontotheConflictofLaws.

TheNatureandScopeoftheConflictofLaws
Aim: ToprovideanoverviewofthenatureandscopeoftheConflictofLaws. Objectives After carefully studying the following notes, and other prescribed readings for this lecture, youwillbeableto: 1. ExplainhowanEnglishcourtmayacquirejurisdictioninaConflictofLawscase 2. Explain the stages in the choice of law process and outline what is meant by: categorisation a connecting factor characterisation (or classification) renvoi an incidentalquestionthetimefactorandsubstanceandprocedure 3. Provide,inoutline,anaccountoftheprocessbywhichtherecognitionandenforcement offoreignjudgmentsismade.

Introduction
TheConflictofLawsisanintegralpartofEnglishprivatelaw.Ithasauniquesubjectmatter giventhatevery issuewithwhich it isconcerned alwayscontainsaforeignelement.Ina simple example, the foreign element differs from (i.e., conflicts with) the English rule on the same point. Resolution of the problem i.e., resolution of the conflict is by way of determiningthecourtsofwhichcountryhavejurisdictiontohearthecaseandwhichsystem of law they would apply. The following examples illustrate the distinction between uncomplicated,domesticcasesandthoserequiring furtheranalysis becauseofthe inclusion oftheforeignelement.

Examples
George, an autonomous individual who has always lived in England, contracts in London with Arthur,anotherautonomous individual who,also,hasalways lived inEngland, forthe purchase of Arthurs vintage car. The contract price is specified in pounds sterling. If, subsequently, Arthur should breach the terms of the contract, then it would appear to be a relativelystraightforwardmatterforanEnglishcourttodealwithif litigationshouldensue: the parties to the contract are English, the place of contracting is England and so, in the absenceofevidencetothecontrary,thecontractwillbegovernedbyEnglishlaw.Thereis noforeignelementinthatthereisnoconnectionwithalegalsystemotherthantheEnglish LegalSystem.

Application of essentially the same legal points to natural persons in (say) Sweden might illustratethat Stefan, who has the capacity to make a binding contract and who has always lived in Sweden, has contracted, in Stockholm, with Anders, for the purchase of Anders vintage car. The contract price is specified in Swedish Krona. Anders has the capacity to makeabindingcontractandhehasalwayslivedinSweden.If,subsequently,Andersshould renegeonthecontract,itwouldappeartobearelativelystraightforwardmatterforaSwedish courttodealwithiflitigationshouldensue.ForaSwedishcourtthereisnoforeignelement inthiscase:itispurelyamatterforSwedishdomesticlaw. However,ifGeorge,theEnglishman,shouldcontractwithAnders,theSwede,in(say)New YorkforthepurchaseofAndersvintagecar,thecontractpricebeingspecifiedinEuros(), itisnotimmediatelyobviousastowhichlegalsystemwillhavejurisdictiontohearaclaim whichmayresultfromanactionforanallegedbreachofcontract.Butirrespectiveofwhere thedisputeisheard,thecourtsinthatparticularcountry,orlawdistrict,willhavetodecidea casethatcontainsaforeignelement. IfGeorgeattemptedtoinitiateanaction inEngland, itwouldbe forthecourttodetermine, firstofall,whetherithadjurisdictiontohearthecase.Asastartingpoint,thegeneralrule 1 isthatifthedefendantisdomiciledintheECheshouldbesuedinthecourtsofhisdomicile . TheEnglishcourtsmayclaimjurisdictionwhenthedefendantisnotdomiciledintheECand 2 if it does,then it does so by virtue of the EC Regulation permitting the application of the traditionalrulesofEnglishlaw.Shouldthatbethecase,jurisdictionisclaimedonlyifitis intheinterestsofbothpartiesandtheendsofjusticetodoso. However, any declaration of itself, that the English courts have jurisdiction, does not necessarily mean that it is appropriate for resolution of this problem for English lawto be applied.Consequently,itisafunctionofthecourtinaConflictofLawscasetodetermine notonlythequestionofJurisdictionbutalsowhatsystemorchoiceoflawtoapply.Ifthe deemedchoiceoflawisotherthanEnglishlaw,NewYorklaw,forexample,thenitsrelevant provisions havetobeproved inthesame mannerasotherevidence, i.e.asa matterof fact. Thus,theplaintiffwhoaimstorelyonthe foreign lawwilltrytoprove itbyrelyingonan expert witness to testify as to the law of the country in question. If, for some reason, the plaintiff does not discharge his burden of proof, then an English court will presume that English law istobeapplied.Equally,English lawcouldbeappliedandthe foreign law be excludedifapplicationofthelatterwasoffensivetoEnglishjusticeoragainstpublicpolicy. Furthermore,hadGeorgesucceededinhavingjudgmentmadeinhisfavourinanactionfor breachofacontractunrelatedtotheonenotedabove,andwhichwasbroughtbeforeacourt in adifferentcountry(NewZealand, forexample),butthen findsthatthedefendantandall hisassetshavearrivedinEnglandwithoutthejudgmenthavingbeensatisfied,thenGeorge, nodoubt,willhopethathecanpursuethematterthroughanEnglishcourt,notbyhavingto prove his case again, but by persuading the court to recognise and enforce the foreign judgment.

1 2

ECRegulation44/2001, Article2. Regulation44/2001,Art.4

EssentialElementsoftheConflictofLawsasDevelopedfromtheExamples
The foregoing examples are merely indications that matters relating to Jurisdiction and ChoiceofLaw,incasesinvolvingaforeignelement,andtheRecognitionandEnforcement ofForeignJudgmentsformthebasisof,ortheessentialelementsof,theConflictofLaws. Moreover, the determination of jurisdiction and the choice of law are as important for arbitrationmattersasforanyotherconventionallitigationissuesintheConflictofLaws

SummaryoftheNatureoftheConflictofLaws
TheConflictofLawsispartoftheprivatelawofacountrythatalwaysdealswithaforeign element.Itisafunctionofthecourttoapplyrulestothefactsbeforeitinordertoselectthe appropriate legal system (jurisdiction) under which the problem may be resolved. In this respectitisunique:allotherlegalsubjectsapplyrulestofactsinordertoresolveproblems. In contrast, in the Conflict of Laws, resolution of the problem in question is possible only afterselectionoftheappropriatelegalsystem,i.e.onceithasbeenestablishedthatacourthas thejurisdictiontohearanddecideacase,thenextstepistodeterminetheappropriatechoice oflaw.IfanEnglishcourtrulesthatitdoesnthavejurisdictionoverthecase,thenallother mattersareforaforeigncourttodecide. Whereas the Conflict of Laws is as much a part of English Law as is (say) Labour Law, Contract,TortorFamilyLaw,itdiffersfromotherEnglishlegalsubjectsinthat: i. ii. itssubjectmatteralwaysincludesaforeignelement oneofitsprimeobjectivesisthepursuitandapplicationoftheappropriatelegalsystem (expressedas:theforumconveniens)and iii. jurists have been more influential in this branch of the law than is typical with other legalsubjects. Since the subject is part of English Law, then the application of foreign law (if deemed appropriatebythecourt)isnotaderogationofsovereignty.GiventhatAustinhadsaidthat lawwasacommandofaSovereignbackedbyasanction,thisstatementmightimplythatif foreign law is applied by an English court then the foreign law has a position of relative supremacyoverEnglishlawandthatiswhyitprevails.However,theapplicationofforeign lawismadeundertheauthorityofEnglishlawanditisappliedbythecourtsintheinterests ofjusticeforallthepartiesconcerned.If,inanyway,theapplicationofforeignlawwould beoffensivetoEnglishpublicpolicy,however,thenthegeneralruleisthatthecourtswould notenforceit:Englishlawwouldbesubstitutedinstead. (N.B.:ThatECLawprevailsoverconflictingEnglishlawonthesamepointisamatterthathasbeen
decidedbytheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanCommunities(ECJ)in1964inCase6/64,Costav. ENELandaffirmedintheFactortamecase(CaseC213/89)inwhichanEnglish Act ofParliament breachedthenondiscriminationandrightsofestablishmentprovisionsoftheTreatyofRome(as amended) an international Treaty to which the UK had voluntary acceded and to which it had voluntarily ceded its sovereignty over specific issues. Given that Art.249EC provides that Regulations are generally applicable, binding in their entirety and directly applicable, it is readily understood why Regulation 44/2001/EC is the current starting point for the determination of st jurisdiction.This has beenthe casesince1 March2002.Seealso:Arts.293and65EC ands.2(1) EuropeanCommunitiesAct1972.Regulation44/2001doesnotapplyin Denmark).

AnOutlineoftheElementsoftheConflictofLaws 1. Jurisdiction
In the English Conflict of Laws the principal concern relating to jurisdiction is that of jurisdiction in personam, i.e. jurisdiction over a particular person (natural or legal) as opposed to jurisdiction in rem which involves a particular thing such as a ship in an Admiraltyactioninrem. (i)ThebasiccommonlawruleapplicableifthedefendantisnotdomiciledwithintheEC isthatacourtmayonlyexerciseitsjurisdictioninpersonamifthedefendantpersonallyhas beenservedwithaclaimform[formerlyawritofsummons]inEnglandorWales.Itisnota prerequisitethatthematterbeinglitigatedhasaconnectionwiththeEnglishlegalsystemnor is it necessary for the defendant to be in England for a specified minimum period before a writ may be served. Thus, in Maharanee of Baroda v. Wildenstein [1972] 2 QB 283, the defendant, who was resident in France, was served with a writ when he was in England merelyforadayatAscotracecourse.ThatwasheldtobesufficienttogivetheEnglishHigh Court jurisdiction. Mere presence in England would, of course, no longer be sufficient for theEnglishcourttoclaimjurisdictionwhenapersonservedwithaclaimformisdomiciled withintheEC. Adefectofthecommonlaw,however,wasthatifthedefendantwasnotpresentinEngland, orif hehad neitherexpressly norimpliedlysubmitted(i.e.agreed)tothejurisdictionofthe Englishcourt,thenthecourtdidnothavejurisdictionoverhim.Toremedythisdefect,the Common Law Procedure Act 1852 was enacted. This introduced the principle of an assumed or extended or exorbitant jurisdiction, i.e. this gave the court a discretionary powertosummonbeforeitdefendants(irrespectiveofnationality)whowerenotdomiciledor residentorpresentinEngland,byhavingthemservedwiththewritornoticeofthewrit. Thepresentrulesrelatingtotheservingofaclaimformonadefendant,whoisnotpresentin EnglandordomiciledinanotherECMemberState,(i.e.,thoseinforcesinceMay2000)are containedinPart6oftheCivilProcedureRules.(Priortothat,theywereprovidedforbythe Rules of the Supreme Court Order 11. r.1(1) (RSC Ord.11)). The discretion to serve a claim outsideEnglandwillnotbeexercised,however,unlessthecourtbelievesthatEnglandisthe appropriateforuminwhichthedisputeshouldberesolvedi.e.Englandmustberegardedas the forum conveniens. A significant feature of an English court having jurisdiction over a casehasbeenthatinmanyinstances,e.g.inproceedingsforseparation,divorce,maintenance of wives and children, it has applied English domestic law. Conversely, as the late Dr. Morrisnotes, Therearemanysituationsinwhich,ifaforeigncourthasjurisdictionaccordingto English rules of the conflict of laws, its judgmentor decree will be recognised or enforcedinEngland,regardlessofthegroundsonwhichitwasbasedorthechoice oflawrulewhichitapplied. (NB.:Notethequalificationmanysituations.Aspreviouslynoted,onp2supra,iftheenforcement
ofaforeignjudgement wouldbecontrarytoEnglishpublicpolicythentheEnglishcourtwillapply theappropriateruleofEnglishlawinstead).

(ii)WhenadefendantisdomiciledwithinaMemberStateoftheEC,thegeneralruleisthat heshallbesuedinthecourtsofthecountryofhisdomicile:Art.2of Regulation44/2001/EC (formerlythe1968BrusselsConvention). However,therearenotableexceptionstothisas providedforin Arts.516and17 oftheRegulation.

2. ChoiceofLawRules
North&Fawcett(Cheshire&NorthsPrivateInternationalLaw,13/e,1999)pointoutthat: IftheEnglishcourtdecidesthat itpossesses jurisdiction,thena furtherquestion, astothe choiceoflaw,mustbeconsideredi.e.whichsystemoflaw,Englishorforeign,mustgovern thecase?Thegeneralruleisthat,whateverthecaserelatestoforexample,contract,tortor propertytheanswertothisquestioncanbeexpressedinthesamestraightforwardmanner. Thisisillustratedbytheevolutionofcommonlawruleswhichinclude,interalia: i. Succession to immovables [a category of property which, essentially, corresponds with theEnglishnotionofrealpropertyorland,isgovernedbythelexsitus[i.e.lawofthe placewherethelandissituated(situs)]. ii. Successiontomovableproperty[personalty]isgovernedbythelawofthelastdomicile ofthedeceased:lexultimidomicilii. iii. Theformalvalidityofamarriageisgovernedbythelawoftheplaceofcelebration:the lexlocicelebrationis. Clearly,eachruleconsistsoftwoparts:(i)acategorysuchassuccessiontoimmovablesor movablesortheformalvalidityofamarriagewhichisgovernedby:(ii)afactor,knownas a connecting factor, since it connects, or links, the category with what is deemed to be the applicablelaw.Thus,thebasicanalysisofchoiceoflawrulesreducesto:(1):acategory isgovernedby(2):a connectingfactor. The category determines what type of case is to be resolved and the connecting factor indicatestheappropriatelegal systemthatisapplicable.Theconnecting factorcanonly be indicativeand notdeterminativeoftheapplicable law since, forexample,reasonsofpublic policy may exist for excluding the application of foreign law. When the connecting factor links the category with the law of the Country (or forum) in which the Court decides the dispute,theapplicablelaw(especiallytheEnglishprocedurallawintheEnglishConflictof Lawrules)isreferredtoasthelexfori.Thesubstantivelawthatisapplied(maybeEnglish laworaforeignlaw)isusuallydescribedasthelexcausae.

ConnectingFactor.
Therearerelativelyfewconnectingfactorslinkinglegalcategoriestotheapplicablelaw.As alreadynoted,supra,examplesofconnectingfactorsinclude: lexsitus(inrelationtosuccessiontoimmovables) lexlocicelebrationis(thelawoftheplacewhereamarriagewascelebrated) lexdomicilii(domicile)averyimportantconnectingfactorlinkingapersontoasystemof lawandusedinrelationtointeralia,successiontomovablesandcapacitytomarry.

The influence of English law on the determination and meaning of connecting factors is clearlyexpressedby Collier(ConflictofLaws,3/e,2001)whosays: SincetheconflictoflawsformspartofEnglishlaw,Englishlawalonecandetermine when a foreign law is to be applied. It follows from this that English law must not only select the connecting factor, it must also say what it means. This is clear, thoughitisonlyinrespecttotwoconnectingfactors,domicileand,forjurisdictional purposes,theplaceofcontracting,thatauthorityexists. The authority cited by Collier in relation to domicile is Re Annesley (1926). Both English andFrenchlawusedomicileasaconnectingfactor.However,whereas,accordingtoEnglish law,MrsAdieddomiciledinFrance,thisdidnotaccordwithFrenchlaw. HELD:EnglishlawprevailedMrsAdieddomiciledinFrance.
[Domicile,arguablythemostimportantofconnectingfactors,isdealtwith,asappropriate,inTopic3].

Inpractice,however,anattempttocompartmentalisethechoiceoflawrulesintotwoclear cut components is often met with difficulties and further analysis is required before the applicable law can be determined. This analysis may introduce considerations of: characterisation renvoi an incidental question the time factor and questions of substance and/orprocedure.

Characterisation.
Whereas it has beendecidedthatsuccessiontothe movablesofan intestateisgoverned by thelawofhisdomicileatthetimeofhisdeath,(hislexultimidomicilii) itisnotatallobvious that, say, a widow who makes a claim against her intestate husbands estate is seeking successiontothemovablesofanintestate.Forexample,asScotslawentitlesawidowtoa portionofherhusbandsestate,thenitmaybethatthecorrectcategoryofclaiminvolvesthe proprietaryconsequenceofthe marriageandthatit is notamatterofsuccessionatall.If this is the case, then it is governed by the husbands domicile at the time of the marriage. Suppose,then,thatHwasdomiciledinScotlandatthetimeofhismarriagebutthathedied domiciledinFrance.If(i),Wsclaimiscategorisedasintestatesuccession,thenFrenchlaw applies. However, if (ii), her claim is categorised as a proprietary cause of marriage, then Scots law will apply. Consequently, there has to be a process under which the correct category is determinable. There is such a process and it is known as characterisation (sometimesknownasclassification). {ThisisdiscussedfurtherinTopic2}

Renvoi
Whereas the process of characterisation is deemed necessary when there is not a uniform approachtothedeterminationofa legalcategory,anotherapproach,knownas renvoi, may needtobeemployedwhenthere isnotauniformapproachtotheapplicableconnecting factor. Diversityofapproachmayarisebywayofeither:(a)thelexforiandthelexcausae employingthesameconnecting factorbutmeaningdifferentthingsby it,as inReAnnesley (1926)or,(b)thelexforiandthelexcausaeusingdifferentconnectingfactorsinconjunction with the same legal category, e.g. English law using domicile when Italian law uses nationality.However, therealproblemreducestothis:iftheconnectingfactorindicatesthat

thelawofcountryXistheapplicablelaw,justwhatismeantbythelawofX[bearingin mind that it is English law that decides whatthe connecting factor means]? As country X will have its own Conflict of Laws rules does the law of X refer to: (i) the domestic or internallawofX,i.e.Xminusitsconflictrules,or,perhaps,(ii)thelawofXincludingits conflictrulesbut minus itsconflictrulesapplyingrenvoi(if it hasany)which may indicate thattheappropriatelawiseitherthatofthecountryfromwhichthelitigationarose(i.e.the problemisremittedtoEngland)orperhapsthelawofsomethirdcountry,e.g.Utopianlaw(a caseoftransmission)or,finally,does it mean(iii)the lawofX including itsconflictrules andwhichincluderenvoi,ifapplicable?Ifitisthelast,thentheproblemshould,intheory, beviewedfromtheperspectiveofajudgehearingthecaseincountry(X)firstindicatedby theforum,withtheforumthenapplyingthesamelaw(ofEnglandorofX)asdeterminedby thejudgeincountryX. The process for resolving problems generated by diversity in the application of collecting factorsbetweenthelexforiandthepotentiallexcausaeisknownasrenvoi.Intheexamples above: (i) referstonorenvoi (ii) referstosingleorpartialrenvoiand (iii) referstodoubleortotalrenvoi,orissometimesknownastheforeigncourttheory. [N.B.: 1.Since ReAnnesley(1926)doublerenvoihasemergedastheorthodoxEnglishapproach.
2.Renvoihas nofurtherparttoplayinthis course:it isspecifically excludedfromhavinga roletoplayinthechoiceoflawprocessparticularlyby s.46(2)Arbitration Act1996].

TheIncidentalQuestion.
Pierre,atestatorwhowasdomiciledinFrance,grantedmovablesinEnglandtoClaudia,his wife. Now ifthe legal category is successiontomovables then it isgoverned bythelast domicile of the deceased the lex ultimi domicilii so French law applies. However, a subsidiaryorincidentalquestion may arise:this relatestothevalidityofPierres marriage and it may be dependent on the validity of a previous divorce. In such a case it has to be decidedwhetherthisincidentalquestion,ofwhetherClaudiaisPierreswife,istobereferred totheEnglishorFrenchrulesoftheconflictoflawswhichrelatetothevalidityofmarriages and recognition of divorces. It would appear from what limited authoritythere is that the incidentalquestion isusuallydetermined bytheconflictruleofthe lawgoverningthe main issue.

TheTimeFactor.
Thetimefactorreferstotheproblemtobeaddressedwhenchangesinthelawovertimegive risetoachangeinanyofthefactorsaffectingthechoiceoflawprocess,viz: i. theconflictruleoftheforumor ii. theconnectingfactoror iii. thelexcausae. Morris said: Changes in the lex causae present much the most important and difficult problem of time in the conflict of laws, especially when the change purports to have retrospectiveeffect. 7

Yet, in principle, the position is straightforward: the lex causae as amended should apply. Thereasoningbehindthisprinciplebeingthatthatisthelawwhichwouldbeapplicableinan entirelydomesticsituationand,ifthepursuitofuniformityindecisionmakingisagoalofthe ConflictofLaws,thenthatiswhatshouldbeappliedbytheforum.Therecanbederogation fromthisprinciple,however,ifenforcementofthiswouldbeoffensivetothepublicpolicyof thelexfori.
[TheIncidentalQuestionandtheTimeFactorareconsideredinmoredetailinTopic2].

SubstanceandProcedure.
In essence, substantive issues are those which concern the existence of a right whereas proceduralissuesarethosewhichrelatetothemethodandmeansofenforcementofaright. However, the difficulty lies in distinguishing a substantive issue from a procedural issue. Again, this is a problem of characterisation: is a matter categorised as procedural and governed by the lex fori or is it substantive and governed by the lex causae? A House of Lordsdecision,BoysvChaplin(1971),recognisedremotenessofdamageinatortiousclaim assubstantiveandgovernedbythelexcausae.Ontheotherhand,anissueof quantification ofdamagesisproceduralandgovernedbythelexfori.
[SubstanceandProcedureissubjectedtofurtheranalysisinTopic2].

3.TheRecognitionandEnforcementofForeignJudgements.
The recognition by an English court of a foreign judgment simply means that the English courthastakennoticeoftheforeignjudgment.Itisnotrequiredtodoanythingelse:itisan essentially passive function. So, for example, the recognition by an English court of the grantingofadecreeofdivorcebyaforeigncourtdissolvingthemarriageofH&Wmeans that in a case before the English court, H & W will be recognised as not married to each other. By contrast, enforcing a foreign judgment requires the English court to act: P is petitioningthecourtseekinganorderdemandingthatDmustpayhimafixedsumofmoney thesumthatwasawardedbytheforeigncourt. At common law, the situations under which a court would recognise or enforce a foreign judgmentwerelistedbyBuckleyL.J.inEmanuelvSymon(1908).Hereferredto...[the] fivecases inwhichthecourtsofthiscountrywillenforcea foreign judgment.Inessence, however, one of the cases (that based on nationality) has been doubted three of them constitute various aspects of submission to the foreign courts jurisdiction and the fifth relatestoresidencewithinthejurisdictionoftheforeigncourt.Thus,theeffectatcommon lawisthatfortheforeigncourttohavejurisdiction(orinternationalcompetence),i.e.forthe judgmentoftheforeigncourttoberecognisedorenforcedbytheEnglishcourt,itmusthave hadtheauthoritytodecideacasebywayofthedefendantsresidencewithin,orsubmission to,itsjurisdiction. Thebasicprinciple,then,isthatanEnglishcourtwillusuallyenforceajudgmentofaforeign courtprovidedthattheforeigncourthadjurisdictiontorenderthatjudgment.Astowhether theforeigncourthadjurisdictionisamatterof Englishlaw:andEnglishlawhasdecidedthat

it is irrelevant that the foreign court did not have jurisdiction under its own internal (or domestic)law: BuchananvRucker(1808). Thereasonforthisisthattheenforcementofa foreign judgment by an English court is largely (though not exclusively) dependent on the sufficiencyofthelinkbetweenthedefendantandtheforeigncourt.Ifthestrengthofthislink isestablished,thenlackofjurisdictionbytheparticularforeigncourt(byreferencetoitsown internal law), or the making of an error of fact or law by that court will not enable the defendant to invoke either of these mistakes in order successfully to defend an action for enforcementinanEnglishcourt. The common law rules still predominate in situations where enforcement is sought of judgmentsmadeoutsideECMemberStates. Inadditionto(i)the foreigncourthavingtohaveInternational competence intheeyesof Englishlaw,twootherpointsmustbesatisfied,viz(ii)theforeignjudgmentmustbefora fixed sum of money and (iii) the judgment must be final and conclusive, i.e. final and conclusiveinthecourtwhichrenderedthejudgment.Itdoesnotmeanthatifitissubjectto appealinahighercourtthatitisnotfinalandconclusive. Apart from enforcement at common law for judgements rendered outside the EC there are situations dealing with statutory enforcement of judgments of nonEC countries and enforcementofjudgementsrenderedwithintheEC.

JudgmentsRenderedWithintheEC.
With regard to judgments being rendered within Contracting States of the EC, there are provisionsunderRegulation44/2001/ECwhichareveryprotectiveofthedefendantinthat, interalia,theyensurethattheonlycourtheissuedinisonewithwhichhehasasubstantial connection usually the court of his domicile. Having benefited from these protective measures there is then no reason why, once the court with which he has that substantial connection gives judgment against him, it should not be enforced against him in any other Contracting Stateof the EC. Indeed, Article 38(1) of the Regulation specifically provides that:AjudgmentgiveninaMemberStateandenforceableinthatStateshallbeenforcedin anotherMemberStatewhen,ontheapplicationofanyinterestedparty,ithasbeendeclared enforceablethere.

Summary
The functions of the English Conflict of Laws are, firstly, to ascertain which court has jurisdiction over the case in question and then (if its the English court), to select the appropriatesystemoflawfordetermininganactionwhichcontainsaforeignelement.Once the applicable legal system is selected and the appropriate choice of law is applied the essentialfunctionoftheConflictofLawsiscompleted. In addition to the first two functions relating to Jurisdiction in personam and the determinationoftheappropriateChoiceofLawrules,theRecognitionandEnforcementof Foreign Judgements constitutes the third of the three principal functions of the conflict of laws.

References:
Briggs,TheConflictofLaws.Oxford:OUP,2002,Ch.1. Cheshire&North,PrivateInternationalLaw,13/e.London:Butterworths,1999,Ch.1. Clarkson&Hill, JaffeyontheConflictofLaws,2/e. London:Butterworths,2002,Ch.1. Collier,TheConflictofLaws,3/e. Cambridge:C.U.P.,2001,Ch.1 Morris,TheConflictofLaws,6/e.London:Sweet&Maxwell,2005,Ch.1. OBrien,SmithsConflictofLaws,2/e.London:Cavendish,1999.Chs.1&2.

ShortAnswerWorkshopQuestions
1. How,ifatall,doestheConflictofLawsdiffer fromotherbranchesofEnglishprivate law? 2. (a)WhatsignificantpointoflawwasconfirmedinMaharaneeofBarodav.Wildenstein [1972]2QB283? (b)Ifthis,oraverysimilar,casewasbeingheardforthefirsttimein2006,whatpointof lawwouldyouciteasauthorityfortheEnglishcourtshaving/nothavingjurisdiction? 3. Explain(a)whatismeantbyassumedorextendedorexorbitantjurisdictionand(b) howtheneedforthisjurisdictionarose. 4. Whatarethecircumstancesthathavetobesatisfiedforaclaimformtobeservedona defendantwhoneitherisinEnglandnordomiciledinanotherECMemberState? 5. Explainthemeaningof forumconveniens . 6. (a) Explain the significance of the provision contained in Art.2 of Regulation 44/2001/ECand(b)outlinetheexceptionstoit,ifany. 7. Explain the basic rule that determines how the choice of law in a Conflicts case is determined. 8. (a)Withreferencetoappropriateexamples,explainwhatismeantbycharacterisationor classification (b) What is the relationship, if any, between characterisation and the IncidentalQuestion? 9. Outlinethetype(s)ofproblemassociatedwiththetimefactor. 10. To what extent, if at all, might difficulty be encountered in trying to distinguish substantiveandproceduralissues? 11. Criticallyassesstheinfluence,ifany,ofEnglishLawonthedeterminationandmeaning ofconnectingfactors.

10

12. If,inaConflictscase,countryXreferstoconnectingfactorp,whereascountryYrefers to connecting factor q, what process will indicate which connecting factor should prevail? 13. Outlinethesignificantpointsoflawwhichemergedfrom(a)Emanuelv.Symon(1908) and(b)Buchananv. Rucker(1808). 14. WhatdoesArt.38(1) of Regulation44/2001specificallyprovidefor? 15. (a)ReviewtheprincipalelementsofthesubjectConflictofLawsand(b)explainhow, ifatall, it ispossible fora foreign lawtogovernaconflictscasewhich is heard inan Englishcourt. 16. When,ifever,canaforeignjudgementberecognisedwithoutbeingenforced?

11