Conflicts of Law Course Outline

2011 CONFLICT OF LAWS COURSE OUTLINE AND READING MATERIALS Books: Morris, The Conflict of Laws (3 ed. ) 1984 Cheshire and North, Private International law (11 ed. ) 1987 Collier, Conflict of Laws (1988) Reference: Dicey and Morris, Conflict of Laws (11 ed. ) 1987 Casebook: Morris and North, Cases and Materials on Private International Law (1984) Other works: Anton, Private International Law (of Scotland) 1967. Cook, Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict of Laws (1942) ; Graveson, The Conflict of Laws (7 ed. ) 1974; Wolff, Private International Law (2 ed. ) 1950. INTRODUCTION 1.
Nature and Scope of the Subject Morris Ch. 1 (and 34), Cheshire Ch. 1 Collier, Ch. 1, 2, 21, 22 Anton Ch. 2. Mehrunnissa v Parves (1981) KLR 547 2. Reasons for the basis of the Conflict of Laws: Theories: Territoriality, Vested Rights, Comity, Local Law; see Davies (1937) 18 BYIL 49. Slater v Mexican National Rly 194 US 120, 126 (1904) Loucks v Standard Oil Co. of NY. 224 N. Y. 99 (1918). JURISDICTION 1. Preliminary Issues Patel v Singh (No 2) (1987) KLR 585 2. Common Law Position Morris Ch. 6; Cheshire, Chs. 10,11; Collier Ch. 6; Dicey, Ch. 11. (a)Presence, Submission, Effectiveness Colt Industries v Sarlie (No. ) (1966) 1 W. L. R. 440; Maharanee of Baroda v Wildenstein (1972) 2 Q. B. 282; Re Dulles (1951) Ch. 842; Manta Line v Sofianites (1984) 1 L1. R. 14. Union Bank of M. E. v Clapham (1981) “Times”, 20 July. Obikoya v Silvernorth (1983) “Times” 6 July The Messianiki Tolmi (1984) 1L1. R. 266 Williams & Glyn`s v Astro Dinamico (1984) 1 All E. R. 760. Kanti v South British Ins. Co. Ltd. (1981) K. L. R. 1 (b)Limitations Cheshire Ch. 13 British South Africa Co v Companhia de Mocambique (1893) A. C 602 Mackinnon v Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette Securities Corpn. (1986) 1 All E.
R. 563 Ministry of Defence of the Govt of UK v Ndegwa (1983) K. L. R 68 (c)Staying of Actions Morris, Ch. 8; Cheshire Ch. 12; Collier Ch. 7; Dicey Ch. 13. (i)General St. Pierre v South American Stores (1936)1 K. B. 382, at 398; Logan v Bank of Scotland (No. 2) (1906) 1 K. B. 141; Egbert v Short (1907) 2 Ch 205; Re Norton`s Settlement (1908) 1 Ch. 471. Maharanee of Baroda v Wildenstein (1972) 2 . Q. B. 283; The Atlantic Star (1974) A. C. 436; McShannon v Rockware Glass (1978) A. C. 795; The Wladslaw Lokictek (1978) 2 L1. R. 520. The Wellamo (1980) 2 L1. R. 229.

European Asian Bank v Punjab & Sind Bank (1981) 2 L1. R. 65. Coupland v Arabian Gulf Petroleum (1983) 2 All E. R. 436 (1983) 1 W. L. R. 1136 The Abidin Daver (1984) A. C. 398 The Jalakrishna (1983) 2 L1. R. 628. The Traugutt (1985) 1 L1. R. 76; The Forum Craftsmen (1985) 1 L1. R. 291. Spiliada v Cansulex (1987) A. C. 460. E. I. Pont de Nemours v Agnew (1987) 2 L1. R. 585; De Dampierre v de Dampierre (1988) A. C. 92. Ocean Sun v Fay (1988) 29 A. L. R. 9. The Francois Vieljeux (1982-88) 1 KAR 398, (1984) K. L. R.. 1 United India Insurance Company and Kenindia Insurance Companyv E.
A Underwriter &Anor (1982-88) 1 KAR 639, ((1985) K. L. R 898 (ii)Lis Alibi Pendens St . Pierre v South American Stores (above); McHenry v Lewis (1882) 22 Ch. D. 397; Cohen v Rothfield (1919) 1 K. B. 410; Ionian Bank v Coouvreur (1969) 1 W. L. R. 781; The Christianborg (1885) 10 P. D. 141; The Atlantic Star (1974) A. C. 436. Bushby v Munday (1821) 5 Madd. 297; Orr-Lewis v O-L (1949) P. 347; Sealy (orse. Callan) v Callan (1953) P. 135. The Tyllie Lykes (1977) 1 L1. R. 436 Castanho v Brown & Root (1981) A. C. 557; The Abidin Daver (1984) A. C. 398; Metall und Rohstoff v ACLI Metals (1984) 1 L1.
R. 598; Societe N. I. Aerospitiale v Lee Kui Jak (1987) A. C. 871; South Carolina v Ass. de Zeven Provincien (1987) A. C. 24; Meadows Insurance v Ins. Corp. of Ireland (1989) 2 L1. R. 298; Pont de Nemours v Agnew (1988) 2 L1. R. 240; A-G v Arthur Anderson (1988) `Independent` 31 March (iii)Submission to Foreign Arbitration or Foreign Court Arbitration Act (Act N0. 4 of 1995)); Law v Garret (1878) 8 Ch. D. 26 ; The Fehmarn (1958) 1 W. L. R. 159; Mackender v Feldia (1967) 2 Q. B. 590; The Eleftheria (1970) P. 94; Evans Marshall v Bertola (1973) 1 W. L. R. 349.
The Vishva Prabha (1979) 2 L. 1. Rep. 286. Carvalho v Hull Blyth (1979) 1 W. L. R. 1228. The El Amria (1980) 1 L1. R. 39; The Kislovodsk (1980) 1 L1. R. 183; Trendex v Credit Suisse (1982) A. C. 679; The Biskra (1983) 2 L1. R. 59; The Hollandia (1983) A. C. 565; The Benarty (1985) Q. B. 325. The Atlantic Song (1983) 2 L1. R. 394. Kisumuwaalla Oil Industries and PanAsiatic Commodities Pte Ltd v E. A. Storage Company Ltd Civil Appeal No 100 of 1995 Naizsons (K) Ltd v China Road and Bridge Corp (Kenya) (2001) 2 E. A. 502 Friendship Container Manufacturers Ltd. v Mitchell Cotts (K) Ltd (2001 2 E. A. 38 Tononoka Steels Ltd v The Eastern ans Souther Africa Development Bank 2 (2000) E. A. 536 Indigo E. P. Z. Ltd v. The P. T. A Bank (2002) 1K. L. R. 811 Raytheon Aircraft Credit Corpn & Anor v Air Al-Faray Ltd (2005) eKLR (iv)Proceedings abroad Settlement Corpn. v Hochschild (1966) Ch. 10; Smith Kline & French v Bloch (1983) 1 W. L. R. 730; Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak (1987) 3 All. E. R. 510 British Airways v Laker Airways (1985) A. C. 58; Smith Kline & Bloch (No. 2) (1984) `Times` 14 Nov; Midland Bank v Laker Airways (1986) 1 All E.
R. 526. 3. Statutory Position Service out of the jurisdiction under Civil Procedure Rules only with leave of the court: Order V Rule 21 a) General Principles: The Hagen (1908) P. 189; GAF v Amchen (1975) 1 L1. R. 601: Amin Rasheed v Kuwait Insurance (1984) A. C. 50: Spiliada Maritime v Cansulex (1987) A. C. 460. Mackender v Feldia (1967) 2 Q. B. 590; Evans Marshall v Bertola (1973) 1 W. L. R. 349; Attock Cement v Romanian Bank (1989) 1 W. L. R. 1147; Matthews v Kuwait Bechtel (1959) 2 Q. B. 57. b) Domicile: Re Liddell`s ST (1936) Ch. 365. (Ord 11, rule 4) c) Injunction: Rosler v Hilbery (1925) Ch. 250:
The Siskina (1979) A. C. 210(CJ and J Act 1982 s. 25 ). X v Y and Y Republic of Haiti v Duvalier (1990) Q. B. 202. d) Necessary or proper party: Chancy v Murphy (1948) W. N. 130 Witted v Galbraith (1949) A. C. 326; The Brabo (1949) A. C. 326 Multinational Gas v M. G. Services (1983) 3 W. L. R. 492. Qatar Petroleum v Shell (1983) L1. R. 35. e) Contract: Finnish Marine v Protective Ins. (1990) 2 W. L. R. 914; Hutton v Moffarij (1989) 1 W. L. R. 488; Entores v Miles Far East Corporation (1955) 2 Q. B. 327: Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl (1982) 2 A. C. 34 Islamic Arab Insurance v Saudi Egyptian (1987) 1 L.
R. 315; National Mortgage Co of NZ v Gosselin (1922) 38 T. L. R. 382; See cases on proper law of contract, esp. Amin Rasheed v Kuwait Insurance (1984) A. C. 50; The Magnum (1988) 1 L1. R. 47; The Chapparal (1968) 2 L1. R. 158; Johnson v Taylor (1920) A. C. 144: f) Tort: Handelskwerkerij be Bier v Mines de Potasse. (1978) Q. B. 708 Metall u Rohstoff v Donaldson Lufkin (1990) Q. B. 391. g) Land: Agnew v Ussher (1884) 14 Q. B. D. 78; Kaye v Sutherland (1887) 20 Q. B. D. 147: Tassel v Hallen (1892) 1 Q. B. 321: Official Reciever v Stype (1983) 1 W. L. R. 214. (h)Trusts: i)Administration of estates, probate: (j)Enforcement of judgement and awards 4. Brussels Convention (a)Objectives; comparison with common law: Berisford v New Hampshire (1990) 2 All E. R. 321; Arkwright v Bryanston (1990) 2 All E. R 335. Owusu v Jackson and Others Case C-128/01 Cheshire, Chs. 14, 16; Collier Ch. 9; Dicey, Chs. 11, 14. Part I. b) Interpretation: (Reference to European Court: arts 2, 3) LTU v Eurocontrol (1976) ECR 1561; Bavaria & Germania v Eurocontrol (1977) ECR 1517; Netherlands v Ruffer (1980) ECR 3807; Gourdain v Nadler (1979) ECR 733; Bertrand v Ott (1978) ECR 1431;
Somafer v Saar-Ferngas (1978) ECR 2183; Industrial Diamond Supplies v Riva (1977) ECR 2175; Duijnstee v Goderbauer (1983) ECR 3663; . Tessili v Dunlop (1976) ECR 1473. c) Sphere of application: civil and commercial matters (art. 1): LTU v Eurocontrol; Bavaria and Germania v Eurocontrol; Netherlands v Ruffer. Exceptions: De cavel v De C. (No. 1) (1979) ECR 105; (No. 2) (1980) ECR 731; W v H (1982) ECR 1189; see also The Deichland (1990) Q. B. 361. d) Jurisdiction (Arts 2-23): i) General rule: domicile of defendant (art 2); definition: (arts 2-3 The Deichland (1989) 3 W. L. R. 478 i) Special (concurrent) jurisdiction (Arts. 5-6) especially 1. Contract: place of performance of obligation: Effer v Kantner (1982) ECR 825; De Bloos v Bouyer (1976) ECR 1473; Ivenel v Schwab (1982) ECR 1891 Zelger v Salinitri (1980) ECR 89; Martin Peters v Zuid Nederlandsche (1983) ECR 987; Shenavai v Kreischer (1987) 3 C. M. L. R. 782 Tesam v Shuh Mode (1989) `Times` 24 October; Medway v Meurer (1990) `Times` 7 May 2. Tort: where the harmful event occurred: Netherlands v Ruffer (1980) ECR 3807 at 3833; Kalfelis v Schroder (1988) `Times` 5 October; Bier v Mines de Potasse (1976) ECR 1735, (1978) Q. B. 708.
Minister Investments v Hyundai (1988) 2 L1. R. 621 3. Branch, agency etc: Somafer v Sarr-Ferngas (1978) ECR 2183; De Bloos v Bouyer; Blanckaert & Willems v Trost (1981) ECR 819; Sar Schotte v Parfums Rothschild (1988) `Times`12 January. 4. Insurance (arts. 7-12); Consumer Contracts (arts. 13-15); Bertrand v Ott (1978) ECR 1431. iii) Exclusive jurisdiction (art 16) especially: 1. Immovables: Sanders v Van der Putte (1977) ECR 2383 Roessler v Rottwinkel (1985) CMLR. 806; Scherrens v Maenhout (1988) `Times` 5 September. 2. Companies or Legal Persons 3. Enforcement of judgment iv) Submission v) Contractual agreement (art 17).
Elefanten Schuh v Jacqmain (1981) 1671;. Meeth v Glacetal (1978) ECR 2133; Salotti v Ruwa (1976) ECR 1831; Segoura v Bonakdarian, 1976 ECR 1851; Iveco Fiat v Van Hool (1988) 1 CMLR. 5757; Anterist v Credit Lyonnais (1987) 1 CMLR 333. National Law: Sanicentral v Collin (1979) ECR 3423 ; Ms Tilly Russ v Haven (1985) 3 W. L. R. 179; Other submission (art. 18) Elefanten Schuh v Jacqmain; Rohr v Ossberger (1981) ECR 2431; W v H (1982) ECR 1189; Gerling v Tesoro (1983) ECR 2503; Berghoefer v A. S. A. (1986) 1 CMLR 13; The Sidney Express (1988) 2 L1. R. 257. vi) Scrutiny of jurisdiction and admissibility (arts. 19-20) ii) Lis pendens – related action (arts. 21-23) The Nordglimt (198) Q. B. 183; The Linda (1988) 1 L1. R. 175; Gubisch Maschinenfabrik v Palumbo (1988) `Times` 12 January; Kloeckner v Gatoil (1990) 1 L1. R. 177; Berisford v New Hampshire; (1990) 2 All E. R. 335. viii) Provisional and protective measures (art. 24) CHOICE OF LAW 1. General Considerations Reading list: Kahn-Freund, General Problems of Private International Law Leyden, 1976 and 1980, 89-101 Wolff, Private International Law, 2nd ed, 96ff. Forsyyth, Private Interational Law, (first edition) Juta & co, 1981, 5-7. (2nd edition, 1989, pages 4-8) a)The History of the choice of law rule Lipstein, `Principles of the conflict of laws, National and International’ 1981, 1-46. Cheshire, op cit, chapter 2. Kahn-Freund, op cit, 97-101 Forsyth, 20-57. (b)Pleading Foreign Law The Evidence Act, section 60 A. G. of New Zealand v Ortiz (1984) A. C. 1 Vervaeke v Smith (1983) 1 A. C. 145 (c) Renvoi Kahn-Freund, op cit, 285-291. Anton, 55ff Morris, 469-480 Cheshire, 57ff Forsyth, 68-78. Munro, `The Magic Roundabout of Conflict of Laws’ 1978 Juridicial Review 65 Hicks, `The Lair Paradox in Legal Reasoning’ 1971 CLJ 275 at 284 and 289.
In re Annesley: Davidson v Annesley [1926] ch 692 In re Ross, Ross v Waterfield [1930] 1 ch 377 Collier v Rivaz (1841) 2 Curt 855 Re Askew [1930] 2 ch 259 Re O’Keefe [1949] ch 124 Re Trufort (1887) 36 ch D 600 R v Brentwood Superintendent Registrar of Marriages, ex parte Arias [1968] 2 QB 956 Amin Rasheed Shipping Corporation v Kuwait Insurance Co [1984] AC 50 (d)The incidental question Kahn- Freund, op cit, 291-294. Morris, op cit, 489-492. Cheshire, Private International Law, 53ff. Forsyth, op cit, 2nd ed, 78-81. Gotlieb, `The incidental question revisited- theory and practise in the conflict of Laws’ (1977) 26 ICLQ 734.
Schwebel v Ungar (1926) 42DLR (2d) 622 affd (1964) 48 DLR (2d) 644 Lawrence v Lawrence [1985] Fam 106 (e) Characterisation Kahn-Freund, op cit, 223-241 Cheshire, op cit, 43-52. Morris, op cit, 481-488 Falconbridge `Conflicts Rule and Characterization of Question’ (1952) 30 Canadian Bar Review 103 and 264. Anton,op cit 43ff Forsyth, op cit. , 59-69 Forsyth, `Extinctive Prescription and the Lex Fori’ (1982)99 SALJ 16 Forsyth, `Characterization etc’ (1987) 104 SALJ 4 Bennett, `Cumulation and Gap: Are they systemic defects in the conflict of Laws? ’ (1988) 105 SALJ 444 Ogden v Ogden [1908] p 46
Huber v Steiner (1835) 2 Bing NC 202 Re Maldonado [1954] p 223 Re Cohn [1945] ch 5 In re State of Norway’s Application (No 2) [1989] 1 ALL ER 701 (CA) and 745 (HL) (f)Domicile and Residence Morris, Ch. 2; Cheshire Ch. 9; Collier, Ch. 5; Dicey Ch. 7. Law of Domicil Act Cap 37 (i)Definition Whicker v Hume (1858) 7 H. L. C. 124; Gatty v A-G. (1951) P. 144; Udny v Udny (1869) L. R. 1 Sc. & D. 441; Re Annesly (1926) Ch. 692. (ii)Domicile of Origin Udny v U. ; Urquhart v Butterfield (1887) 37 Ch. D. 357; Re McKenzie (1951) 51 S. R. N. S. W. 293; Henderson v H (1967) P. 77; Re Jones 192 Iowa 78 (1921). (iii)Domicile of Choice
Schiratti v Schiratti (1978) K. L. R 128; White v Tennant 31 W, Va. 790 (1888) ; Re Fuld (No. 3) (1968) P. 675; Bell v Kennedy (1868) L. R. 1 Sc. Div. 307; Winans v A-G (1904) A. C. 287; Ramsey v Royal Liverpool Infirmary (1930) A. C. 588; Ross v Ross (1930) A. C. 1; Buswell v I. R. C. (1974) 1 W. L. R. 1631; I. R. C. v Bullock (1976) 1 W. L. R. 1178. Puttick v A. G. (1980) Fam. 1. Re Furse (1980) 3 All E. R. 838. Brown v B. (1982) 3 F. L. R. 212; Re Clore (1984) S. T. C. 609; Cramer v C (1987) 1 F. L. R. 116; IRC v Plummer (1988) 1 W. L. R. 292; Re Lloyd Evans (1947) Ch 695; Tee v Tee (1973) 3 All. E. R. 1105 iii) Special Cases 1.
Naturalisation: Wahl v A-G. (1932) 147 L. T. 382; Re Fuld. 2. Deportees: Boldirini v B. (1932) P. 9; May v May (1943) 2 All E. R. 146; Szechter v S. (1971) P. 286; Zanelli v Z (1948) 64 T. L. R. 556; Cruh v C (1945) 2 All E. R. 545. 3. Fugitives and Refugees: Re Martin (1900) P. 211; De Bonneval v D. B. (1838) 1 Curt. 856; Re Lloyd-Evans (1947) Ch. 695; May v M. 4. Invalids: Hoskins v Matthews (1855) 8 D. M. & G. 13; Re James (1908) 98 L. T. 438. 5. Servicemen: Sellars v S. 1942 S. C. 206; Donaldson v D. (1949) P. 363; Cruishanks v C. (1957) 1 All E. R. 889; Stone v S. (1958) 1 W. L. R. 1287. 6. Abandonment: In b. Raffenel (1863) 3 S.
W. & Tr. 49; Zannelli v Z. ; b (1968) 1 ALL E. R. 49; Tee v Tee (1974) 1 W. L. R. 213. (iv)Domicile of Dependancy (see 37 M. L. R. 179) 1. Married Women: A-G. for Alberta v Cook (1926) A. C. 444; Re Scullard (1957) Ch. 107; Domicile and Matrimonnial Proceedings Act 1973, s. 1. Puttick v A-G (1980) Fam. 1. Oundian v O. (1980) Fam. L. R. 198. IRC v Portland (1982) Ch. 314. 2. Children: Johnstone v Beattie (1843) 10 Cl. & F. 42; Harrison v H. (1953) 1 W. L. R. 865; Potinger v Wightman (1817) 3 Mer. 67; Re Beaumont (1893) 3 Ch. 490; Hope v H. (1968) N. Ir. 1; Shanks v S. 1965 S. L. T. 330; Domicile Act, 1973 ss. 3, 4. 3.
Insane Persons: Urquhart v Butterfield; Crumpton`s Judicial Factor v Finch-Noyes 1918 S. C. 378; Sharpe v Crispin (1860) L. R. 1 P. D. 611 (v)Residence 1. Habitual Residence: Cruse v Chittum (1974) 2 All E. R. 940; 24 I. C. L. Q. 1. ; Kapur v K. (1984) F. L. R. 920. 2. Ordinary Residence: Levene v I. R. C. (1928) A. C. 217; Hopkins v H. (1951) P. 116; Stransky v S. (1954) P. 248; Lewis v L. (1956) 1 W. L. R. 200. Re P (GE) (An Infant) (1965) Ch. 568. R v Barnet L. B. C. ex. P. Nilish Shah (1983) 2 A. C. 309. (vi)Corporations 1. Status National Bank of Greece and Anthens v Metliss (1958) A. C. 509; Adams v National Bank of Greece S.
A. (1961) A. C. 225. 2. Domicile and Residence Ridsdon Iron and Locomotive Works v Furness (1906) 1 K. B. 49; Cesena Sulphur Co. v Nicholson (1876) 1 Ex. D. 428; De Beers Consolidated v Howe (1906) A. C. 455; Egyptian Delta Land & Co. v Todd (1929) A. C. 1; Swedish Central Rly v Thompson (1925) A. C. 495; Unit Construction Co. v Bullock (1960) A. C. 351; Gasque v I. R. C. (1940) 2 K. B. 80;. Shah v Barnet London Borough Council (1983) 1 All. E. R. 226; Kapur v Kapur (1985) Fam Law. Rep. 22 2. Substantive Choice of Law Rules (a)Marriage Bishop, `Choice of Law of Impotence and Wilful Refusal`, (1978) 41 MLR 512.
Carter, `Capacity to Remarry After Foreign Divorce`, (1985) 101 LQR 496. Fentiman, `The Validity of marriage and the Proper Law`, (1985) CLJ 256. Hartley, `Polygamy and Social Policy`, (1969) 32 MLR 155; `The Policy Basis of the English Conflict of Laws of Marriage`, (1972) 35 MLR 571. Jaffey, `The Essential Validity of Marriage in the English Conflict of Laws`, (1978) 41 MLR 38; `The Incidental Question and Capacity to Remarry`, (1985) 48 MLR 465. North, `Development of Rules of Private International Law in the Field of Family Law`, (1980) I Recueil des Cours 17. Poulter, `Hyde v Hyde – A Reappraisal` (1976) 25 ICLQ 475.
Smart, `Interest Analysis, False Conflicts and the Essential Validity of Marriage`, (1985) 14 Anglo-Amer L Rev 225. Stone, `Some Aspects of Fundamental Rights in the English Conflict of Laws` in Bridge et al (eds) Fundamental Rights (1973) London, Sweet & Maxwell, pp 232, 246-7; `Capacity for Polygamy – Judicial Rectification of Legislative Error` (1983) Fam Law 76. Brook v Brook (1861) 9 HL Cas 193 De Reneville v de Reneville (1948) P 100 Cheni v Cheni (1965) P 85 Lawrence v Lawrence (1985) 2 All E. R. 733 Re Paine (1940) Ch 46 Sottomayer v De Barros (No 2) (1879) 5 PD 94 Ogden v Ogden (1908) P 46 Vervaeke v Smith (1981) 1 All ER 55
Mohammed v Knott (1969) 1 QB 1 Pugh v Pugh (1951) P 482 Radwan v Radwan (No 2) (1972) 3 All ER 1026 R v Brentwood Marriage Registrar (1968) 3 All ER 279 Schwebel v Ungar (1964) 48 DLR (2d) 644 Breen v Breen (1964) P 144 Schezter v Schezter (1971) P 286 Way v Way (1950) P 71 Ponticelli v Ponticelli (1958) P 204 Berthiaume v Dastous (1930) A C 79 Starkowski v AG (1954) AC 155 Lodge v Lodge (1967) 107 Sol Jo. 437 Tackzanowska v Tackzanowski (1957) P 301 (b)Matrimonial Causes Forsyth, `Recognition of Extra-Judicial Divorces: The Transnational Divoce`, (1985) 34 ICLQ 398. Jaffey, `Vervaeke v Smith`, (1983) 32 ICLQ 500.
Karsten, `Recognition of Non-Judicial Divorces`, (1980) 43 MLR 202. McClean, Recognition of Family Judgements in the Commonwealth (1983) London, Butterworths. North, The Private International Law of Matrimonial Causes in the British Isles and the Republic of Ireland (1977) Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing Co. Stone, `The Recognition in England of Talaq Divorces`, (1985) 14 Anglo-Amer L Rev 363. Young, `The Recognition of Extra-Judicial DIvorces`, (1987) 7 LS 78. Schiratti v Schiratti (1978) K. L. R 128 Le Mesurier v Le Mesurier (1895) AC 517 Armitage v AG (1906) P 135 Indyka v Indyka (1969) 1AC 33 Re Meyer (1971) P 298
Salvesen v Australian Propety Administrator (1927) AC 641 Re Edgerton’s Wills Trust (1956) Ch 593 Duke of Malborough v AG (1945) Ch 78 Cooper v Cooper (1888) 13 App Cas 88 Callwood v Callwood (1960) AC 659 Harvey v Farnie (1882) 8 App Cas 43 Travers v Holley (1953) P 246 Quazi v Quazi (1980) AC 794 Bater v Bater (1906) P 209 Kendall v Kendall (1971) 1 All ER 378 Merker v Merker (1963) P 283 Re Bankes (1902) 2 Ch 333 Re De Nichols (1900) 2 Ch 410 De Nichols v Curlier (1900) AC 21 (c) Contracts Cheshire, International Contracts (1948). Fletcher, Conflict of Law and European Community Law, Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing Co, Chapter 5.
Jaffey, `Essential Validity of Contracts in the English Conflicts of Laws`, (1974) 23 ICLQ 1; `Offer and Acceptance and Related Questions in the English Conflict of Laws` (1975) 24 ICLQ 603; `The English Proper Law Doctrine and the EEC Convention`, (1984) 33 ICLQ 531. Lasok and Stone, Conflict of Laws in the European Community (1987) Abingdon, Professional Books, Chapter 9. Libling, `Formation of International Contracts`, (1979) 42 MLR 169. Mann, `The Proper Law of the Contract`, (1950) 3 ICLQ 60 and 597; `Proper Law and Illegality in Private International Law` (1973) 18 BYIL 97.
Morris, `The Proper Law of a Contract: a Reply`, (1950) 3 ILQ 197. North, `Varying the Proper Law`, in Multum non Multa, Festschrift for Kurt Lipstein (1980), Heidelberg, Muller, p 205. Pierce, `Post-Formation Choice of Law in Contract`, (1987) 50 MLR 176. Karachi Gas Ltd. v Issaq (1965) E. A. 42 Bonython v Commonwealth of Australia (1951) AC 201 Amin Rasheed Case (Supra) Campagnie D’Armement Maritime SA v Cie Tunisienne de Navigation SA (1971) AC 572 Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd v Xenakis (1982) 2 Ll Rep 304 Royal Exchange Assurance Corp v Sjofarsakrings Akt Vega (1902) 2 KB 384 The Adriatic (1931) P 241
Sayers v International Drilling Co NV (1971) 3 All ER 163 Rossano v Manufactures Life Assurance Co (1963) 2 QB 352 Coast Lines Ltd v Hudig and Veder Chartering (1972) 2 QB 34 Vita Food Products Inc v Unus Shipping Co Ltd (1939) AC 277 The Iran Vojdan (1984) 2 Ll Rep 380 The Mariannina (1983) 1 Ll Rep 12 De Dampierre v De Dampierre (1987) 2 All. E. R. 1 (d)Torts Briggs, `What Did Boys v Chaplin Decide? `, (1983) 12 Anglo-Amer L Rev 237. Carter, `Torts in English Private International Law`, (1981) 52 BYIL 9. Fawcett, `Policy Considerations in Tort Choice of Law`, (1984) 47 MLR 650.
Jaffey, `Choice of Law inTort: A Justice-Based Approach`, (1982) 2 LS 98. Karsten, `Chaplin v Boys: Another Analysis`, (1970) 19 ICLQ 35. Kahn-Freund, `Delictual Liability and the Conflict of Laws`, (1968) II Recueil des Cours, 5. Law Commission Working Paper No 87, `Choice of Law in Tort` (1984). Lasok and Stone, Conflict of Laws in European Community (1987) Abingdon, Professional Books, Chapter 9. McGregor, `The International Accident problem`, (1907) 33 MLR 1. Morris, `Torts in the Conflicts of Laws`, (1949) 12 MLR 248; `The Proper Law of a Tort` (1951) 64 Harv L Rev 881.
Morse, Torts in Private International Law (1978) Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing Co. North, `Contract as a Tort Defence in the Conflict of Laws`, (1977) 26 ICLQ 914. Clarence Smith, `Torts and the Conflict of Laws`, (1957) 20 MLR 447. The Halley (1868) LR 2 PC 193 Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 Machado V Fontes (1897) 2 QB 231 Mclean v Pettigrew (1945) 2 DLR 65 Mackinnon v Iberia Shipping Company (1954) 2 Ll 372 Babcock v Jackson 12 NY 2d 473 Reich v Purcell 432 P 2d 727 Chaplin v Boys (1971) AC 356 Church of Scientology of California v Metropolitan Police Commr (1976) 120 Sol Jo 690 Coupland v Arabian Gulf Petroleum Co. 1983) 2 All E. R. 434 (e)Succession Re Annesley (1926) Ch 692 Re Ross (1930) 1 Ch 377 Re Cunnington (1924) 1 Ch 68 Re Fergusson’s Will (1902) 1 Ch 483 Re Price (1900) 1 Ch 442 Re Lewal’s Settlement Trust (1918) 2 Ch 391 Re Fuld’s Estate (No 3) (1968) P 675 Re Schnapper (1928) Ch 420 Re Hellman’s Will (1866) LR 2 Eq. 363 Re Martin (1900) P 211 Re Miller (1914) 1 Ch 511 Phillip- Stow v IRC (1961) AC 727 Re Collens (1986) Ch 505 Re O’ Keefe (1940) Ch 124 Law of Succession Act, section 16 (f) Transfer of Property Inter Vivos Davis, `Conditional Sales and Chattel Mortgages in the Conflict of Law`, (1964) 13 ICLQ 53.
Winkworth v Christie, Manson & Woods Ltd (1980) Ch 496 Adams v Clutterbuck (1883) 10 QBD 403 Re Smith (1916) 2 Ch 206 Bank of Africa Ltd v Cohen (1909) 2 Ch 129 Bank voor Handel en Scheepvart NV v Slatford (1953) 1 QB 248 Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Agricultural and Poultry Producers Association (1966) 1 All ER 306 RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGEMENTS Morris, Ch. 9; Cheshire Ch. 15; Collier Ch. 8; Dicey, Ch. 14; Anton, Ch. 26; . 1. Recognition /Enforcement 2. Enforcement of Judgements in personam a) Action of judgement at Common Law Grant v Easton (1883) 13 Ch. D. 302 (GA) (b)Registration under Statute
Foreign Judgements Reciprocal Enforcement Act (Cap 43) Trepca Mines (1960) 1 W. L. R. 1273 at 1282; Rossano v Manufacturers Life Ins. Co. (1963) 2 Q. B. 352; Sidmetal v Titan (1966) 1 Q. B. 828; Black-Clawson v Papierwerke (1975) A. C. 591. 3. Jurisdiction of Foreign Court Buchanan v Rucker (1808) 9 East 193; Sirdar Gurdyal Singh v Rajah of Faridkote (1894) A. C. 670; Emanuel v Symon (1908) 1 K. B. 302, 309. (a)Presence or Residence at time of service of process Carrick v Hancock (1895) 12 T. L. R. 59; Blohn v Desser (1962) 2 Q. B. 116; 1933 Act s. 4 (2) (a) (iv). b) Residence of companies
Littauer Glove Co. v F. W. Millington (1928) 44 T. L. R. 746; Sfier v National Ins. Co. of N. Z. (1964) 1 L1. R. 330; Vogel v Kohnstamm Ltd. (1973) Q. B. 133; Adams v Cape Industries (1990) 2 W. L. R. 657. (c)Submission to Foreign Courts i) As Plaintiff: Schibsby v Westenholtz (1870) L. R. 6 Q. B. 155, 161, or as counterclaimant: Cap 43s. 4 (2) (a) (ii). ii) Contract of Agreement to Submit: Feyerick v Hubbard (1902) 71 L. J. K. B. 509; Cap 43 s. 4 (2) (a) (iii); Copin v Adamson (1874) L. R. 9 Ex. 345; Emanuel v Symon; Blohn v Desser; Vogel v Kohnstamn. iii) As defendant pleading to the merits: Cap 43 s. (2) (a) (iii); Copin v Adamson (1874) L. R. 9 Ex. 345; Emanuel v Symon; Blohn v Desser; Vogel v Kohnstamn. (d)Office or Place of Business Cap 43 s. 4 (1) (e) Italframe Ltd vs Mediterranean Shipping Co (1986) KLR 54 Gathuna v African Orthodox Church of Kenya (1982) KLR 356 4. Defence when Foreign Court has Jurisdiction d. (a)Fraud: Ochsenbein v Papelier (1893) L. R. 8 Ch. App. 695; Abouloff v Oppenheimer (1882) 10 Q. B. D. 310; Syal v Heyward (1948) 2 K. B. 443; Jet Holdings v Patel (1990) Q. B. 335; House of Spring Gardens v Waite (1990) 3 W. L. R. 347; Cap 43 s. 10(1) (h) . (b)Natural Justice
Price v Dewhurst (1837) 8 Sim. 279; Scarpetta v Lowenfield (1911) 27 T. L. R. 424; Jacobson v Franchon (1927) 138 L. T. 386; Gray v Formosa (1963) P. 259; Lepre v Lepre (1965) P. 52; Adams v Cape Industries (1990) 2 W. L. R. 657; Cap 43 s. 10 (1) (g) c) Public Policy Re Macartney (1921) 1 Ch. 522; Armitage v Nanchen (1983) 4 F. L. R. 293; Phrantzes v Argenti (1960) 2 Q. B. 19; Mayo-Perrot v M-P (1958) Ir. R 336. Cap 43. 4 (1) (a) (v). Israel Discount Bank of N. Y. v Hadjipateras (1983) 3 All E. R. 129. Vervaeke v Smith (1983) 1 A. C. 145; Cap 43 s. 10 (1) (n) 5. Requirements for and Method of Enforcement a)Must be “final and conclusive” Nouvion v Freeman (1889) 15 App. Cas 1; Colt Industries v Sarlie (No. 2) (1966) 1 W. L. R. 1287; Berliner Indusrie Bank v Jost (1971) 2 Q. B. 463; Cap 43 s. 3 (2) (b) (b)Must be for debt or fixed sum: Sadler v Robins (1808) 1 Camp. 253. Harrop v H. (1920) 3 K. B. 386; Beatty v B (1924) 1 K. B. 807; Cap 43 s. 3 (2) (a) (c)Must not be for taxes or a penalty: Huntington v Attril (1893) A. C. 150; Raulin v Fischer (1911) 2 K. B. 93; Schemmer v Property Resources (1975) Ch. 273; SA Consortium v Sun and Sand (1978) Q. B. 279; U. S. A. v Inkley (1989) Q. B. 255; Cap 43 s. 3 (3) (a)

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Conflicts of Law Course Outline
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay
Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Order your essay today and save 20% with the discount code WELCOME