Advanced search
Publication Cover
Journal of Private International Law Volume 7, 2011 - Issue 2
Journal homepage
273
Views
2
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Article 23: Formal Validity, Material Validity or Both?

Simon Patrick Camilleri BCL Candidate, St Edmund Hall, Oxford. This article is dedicated to the memory of my grandmother Josephine Camilleri–she will be missed. My thanks to Professor Adrian Briggs, the editors of the Journal of Private International Law and the two anonymous referees for their helpful comments and suggestions. Any errors remain my own.
Pages 297-320 | Published online: 07 May 2015

  • Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
  • Indeed, in some areas it could be argued that the Regulation (or at least the European Court of Justice's interpretation of it) has gained too much influence–see Case C-185/07 Allianz SpA (formerly Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA) v West Tankers [2009] ECR I-663, particularly the Opinion of Advocate-General Kokott. For a critical view of the decision, see SP Camilleri, “The Front Comor—The End of Arbitration as We Know It?” (2010) 6 Cambridge Student Law Review 214.
  • See L Merrett, “Article 21 of the Brussels I Regulation: A Comprehensive Code for Jurisdiction Agreements? (2009) 58(3) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 545 and Z Tang, “The Interrelationship of European Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Contract” (2008) 4(1) Journal of Private International Law 35.
  • See A Briggs, L Collins, J Harris, CGJ Morse, J Hill, D McClean and C McLachlan, Dicey, Morris & Collins on The conflict of Laws (Sweet & Maxwell, 14th edn, 2006), 12–108; A Briggs, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law (Oxford University Press, 2008), [7.12] and [7.25]; A Briggs and P Rees, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (LLP, 4th edn, 2005), [2.105].
  • Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, COM(2010) 748 final.
  • See Merrett, supra n 3.
  • Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (“the Hague Convention”).
  • PR Beaumont and B Yüksel, “The Validity of Choice of Court Agreements under the Brussels I Regulation and the Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention” in T Einhorn, D Girsberger, S Symeonides and K Boele-Woelki (eds), Convergence and Divergence in Private International Law: Liber Amicorum Kurt Siehr (Eleven International Publishing/Schulthess, 2010).
  • Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters.
  • 10 Art 23(1) of the Regulation cited only.
  • Merrett, supra n 3, 550.
  • Case 24/76 Estasis Salotti di Colzani Aimo e Gianmario Colzani snc v Rüwa Polstereimaschinen GmbH [1976] ECR 1831.
  • Ibid, [7]
  • Ibid, [9]-[10]
  • S Whittaker, “The Reformulation of Contractual Formality” in P Birks and A Pretto (eds), Themes in Comparative Law in Honour of Bernard Rudden (Oxford University Press, 2002), 199–217, 201.
  • In English law, s 9 Wills Act 1837 (as amended). See generally, Halsbury's Laws of England (Lexis-Nexus/Butterworths, Vol 102, 5th edn, 2010), paras 70–78.
  • Case 71/83 Partenreederei ms Tilly Russ v NV Haven & Vervoebedrijf Nova N V.
  • Ibid, [24].
  • D McClean and K Beevers, Morris on the conflict of Laws (Sweet & Maxwell, 7th edn, 2008), [4–050].
  • Case C-106/95 Mainschiffahrts-Genossenschaft eG (MSG) v Les Gravières Rhénanes SARL [1997] ECR I-911.
  • Ibid, [17].
  • Case C-387/98 Coreck Maritime GmbH v Handelsveem BV and Others [2000] I-9337.
  • A further issue of some importance was the question of how a Member State court should approach an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of a non-Member State court. In this regard, see Briggs (2008), supra n 4, [7.98]-[7.104].
  • Coreck Maritime, supra n 22, [15].
  • [2009] EWHC 3223 (Comm); [2009] All ER (D) 123 (Dec).
  • Ibid, [26].
  • Ibid, [28], with particular reference made to 7E Communications Ltd v Vertex Antennentechnik GmbH [2007] EWCA Civ 140; [2007] 1 WLR 2175.
  • Ibid, [30].
  • Ibid, [31].
  • See Sea Trade Maritime Corp v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd “The Athena” [2006] EWHC 2530 (Comm); [2007] 1 All ER (Comm) 183 per Langley J at [65].
  • Credit Suisse Financial Products v Société Générale d'Enterprises [1997] CLC 168.
  • 7E Communications Ltd v Vertex Antennentechnik GmbH [2007] EWCA Civ 140; [2007] 1 WLR 2175.
  • Credit Suisse Financial Products v Societe Generale d'Enterprises [1997] CLC 168, at 172.
  • Where the terms are not common, a different conclusion may be reached. However, it is not the purpose of this article to discuss such a situation.
  • 7E Communications Ltd v Vertex Antennentechnik GmbH [2007] 1 WLR 2175 at [32].
  • Ibid, [36].
  • See Briggs and Rees, supra n 4, [2.105] and J-J Kuipers, “Party Autonomy in the Brussels I Regulation and Rome I Regulation and the European Court of Justice” (2009) 10(11) German Law Journal 1505.
  • Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, COM(2010) 748 final.
  • A Briggs, “The Brussels I Regulation Appears on the Horizon” [2011] Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 157.
  • Case C-116/02 Erich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl.
  • See section E.2 infra.
  • Briggs (2008), supra n 4, ch 7.
  • A Dickinson, “A Charter for Tactical Litigation in Europe?” [2004] Lloyds Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 273.
  • Ibid, 280.
  • Case 221/84 Berghoefer GmbH & Co v ASA SA [1985] ECR I-2699.
  • See Merrett, supra n 3.
  • Case 221/84 Berghoefer GmbH & Co v ASA SA [1985] ECR I-2699 at [15].
  • H Collins, “Good Faith in European Contract Law” (1994) 14(2) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 230, 249.
  • Walford v Miles [1992] 2 AC 128, at 138.
  • Which has not adopted Art 2 of the UCC.
  • See comments to this section.
  • Ibid.
  • EMS Houh, “The Doctrine of Good Faith in Contract Law: A (Nearly) Empty Vessel?” [2005] Utah Law Review 1.
  • Ibid, 4 and 17.
  • R Summers, “‘Good Faith’ in General Contract Law and the Sales Provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code” (1968) 54 Virginia Law Review 195.
  • Ibid, 265.
  • Houh, supra n 53, 23–24 discussing Seidenberg v Summit Bank 791 A2d 1068 (NJ Super Ct App Div 2002).
  • R Brownsword, Contract Law: Themes for the 21st Century (Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 2006), 73.
  • S Litvinoff, “Good Faith” (1997) 71 Tulane Law Review 1645, 1663–64.
  • The doctrine itself has an undisputedly long history in Europe–see J Klein, “Good Faith in International Transactions” (1993) 15(2) Liverpool Law Review 115.
  • Art 1134 of the French Civil Code.
  • Art 1337 of the Italian Civil Code.
  • Art 242.
  • P Schlechtriem, “'Good Faith in German Law and in International Uniform Laws” (1997), http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/schlechtriem16.html, 4.
  • Ibid, 5–7. See also Klein, supra n 60, 122–23.
  • G Teubner, “Legal Irritants: Good Faith in British Law or How Unifying Law Ends Up in New Divergences” (1998) 61 Modern Law Review 11, 19.
  • Ibid.
  • See Reg 5(1) which states that a contractual term shall be regarded as unfair “if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer”.
  • For a general discussion of good faith and the earlier 1993 Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, see H Collins, “Good Faith in European Contract Law” (1994) 14 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 229.
  • See H Kötz, European Contract Law, Vol I (Clarendon Press, 1998), 143–53.
  • Teubner, supra n 66, 25.
  • See C v D [2007] EWCA Civ 1218, [2008] 1 Lloyd's Rep 239 at [17] (a choice of seat is analogous to an exclusive jurisdiction clause) and Deutsche Bank AG & Ors v Asia Pacifi c Broadband Wireless Communications Inc & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 1091, [2008] 2 Lloyd's Rep 619 at [24]–[25] (an exclusive jurisdiction clause, like an arbitration clause, is a separable agreement).
  • Case C-269/95 Benincasa v Dentalkit [1997] ECR I-3767.
  • Deutsche Bank AG & Ors v Asia Pacifi c Broadband Wireless Communications Inc & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 1091, [2008] 2 CLC 520.
  • Heyman v Darwins Ltd [1942] AC 356.
  • [2007] UKHL 40, [2007] 4 All ER 951.
  • Ibid, [13].
  • Ibid, [17].
  • N Blackaby, C Partasides, A Redfern and M Hunter, Redfern & Hunter on International Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 5th edn, 2009), section 3.B
  • Ibid.
  • See C v D [2007] EWHC 1541 (Comm), [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 557; affirmed in [2007] EWCA Civ 1282, [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 1001.
  • Blackaby et al, supra n 79, s 3.B.
  • See S Schwebel, International Arbitration: Three Salient Problems (Grotius Publications, 1987), ch 1, 1–13.
  • It is arguable, for instance, that the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz has shaped the interpretation of separability through its interaction with it and that, since the former doctrine does not apply to national courts (or at least does not apply to the same extent), a different result would be reached in the evolution of the doctrine of separability as applied to national courts. Although I do not intend to discuss the interaction between separability and Kom petenz-Kom-petenz any further, see MS McNeill and B Juratowitch, “Agora: Thoughts on Fiona Trust—The Doctrine of Separability and Consent to Arbitrate” (2008) 24(3) Arbitration International 499 for a discussion of this point.
  • Although this now seems to be under threat–see Camilleri, supra n 2.
  • Although see JDM Lew, “The Law Applicable to the Form and Substance of the Arbitration Clause”, ICCA Congress Series No 14, 1998, Paris, s III(1) for a discussion of arbitration's attempt to bring some degree of unity to this area.
  • Reg No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (“Rome I”).
  • Regulation No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (“Rome II”).
  • C v D [2007] EWCA Civ 1282, [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 1001 per Longmore LJ at [16].
  • New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“the New York Convention”), Art V.1(e).
  • See Report on the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations OJEC No. C 282/1, 0001–0050 (“the Giuliano Lagarde Report”).
  • Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 1980.
  • Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation and Others v Privalov and Others [2007] UKHL 40, [2008] 1 Lloyd's Rep 254, per Lord Hoffmann at [17].
  • 94 The clause would only ever be covered by the new sub-clause (rendering Art 4(2) inapplicable), it would always be manifestly most closely connected to the forum court for the reasons given at section D.2 above (rendering Art 4(3) inapplicable) and, as a result, the fall-back provision of Art 4(4) would never need to be invoked.
  • www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=98.
  • For a fuller discussion of the workings of the Hague Convention, see RA Brand and P Herrup, The 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: Commentary and Documents (Cambridge University Press, 2008)
  • Art 26(6) of the Hague Convention. See in general the Commission's Proposal for a Council Decision on the signing by the European Community of the Convention on Choice-of-Court Agreements, 5 September 2008 COM(2008) 538 final.
  • Beaumont and Yüksel, supra n 8.
  • The inclusion of which is recognised by the Explanatory Report by T Hartley and M Dogauchi of the Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements, para 125.
  • Ibid, 575.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.