Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T00:05:36.562Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BROWNLIE II AND THE SERVICE-OUT JURISDICTION UNDER ENGLISH LAW

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2022

Ardavan Arzandeh Open the ORCID record for Ardavan Arzandeh [Opens in a new window]
Ardavan Arzandeh*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, arzandeh@nus.edu.sg.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC v Brownlie (Brownlie II) is arguably the United Kingdom's highest appellate court's most significant decision this century on a private international law question. The judgment has ended nearly two decades of debate about the meaning of ‘damage’ sustained in England for the purpose of paragraph 3.1(9)(a) of Practice Direction 6B of the Civil Procedure Rules. In a four-to-one majority ruling, the Supreme Court decided that the provision was to be interpreted widely, such that, in a personal injury claim, any significant harm of any kind suffered by a claimant in England could provide a basis for the service of proceedings on a foreign-based defendant. The article is critical of the majority's decision, as it is liable to create both immediate and long-term problems in the context of the service-out jurisdiction in England. It also examines the court's pronouncements on the other question before it concerning proof of foreign law.

Keywords

private international lawthe English courts’ service-out jurisdictiondamage sustained within the forumproof of foreign law
Type
Shorter Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 71 , Issue 3 , July 2022 , pp. 727 - 741
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press for the British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am grateful to Professor Ernest Lim and Professor Harry McVea for their constructive comments on earlier drafts. The views expressed, and any errors in this article are my own. For the sake of simplicity, throughout the text, I have used ‘England', ‘English courts', and ‘English law' to signify ‘England and Wales', ‘courts in England and Wales', and ‘the law of England and Wales'.

References

1 [2021] UKSC 45.

2 At the time of its creation, the relevant provision was Order 11(1)(f) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

3 Metall und Rohstoff v Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette [1990] 1 QB 391; Bastone & Firminger Ltd v Nasima Enterprises (Nigeria) Ltd [1996] CLC 1902; Beecham Group plc v Norton Healthcare Ltd [1997] FSR 81; ABCI v BFT [2003] EWCA Civ 205; [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 146.

4 Booth v Phillips [2004] EWHC 1437 (Comm); [2004] 1 WLR 3292.

5 Cooley v Ramsey [2008] EWHC 129 (QB); [2008] ILPr 27; Saldanha v Fulton Navigation Inc [2011] EWHC 1118 (Admlty); [2011] 2 Lloyd's Rep 206; Harty v Sabre International Security Ltd [2011] EWHC 852 (QB); Wink v Croatia Osiguranje DD [2013] EWHC 1118 (QB); Stylianou v Toyoshima [2013] EWHC 2188 (QB); Pike v Indian Hotels Co Ltd [2013] EWHC 4096 (QB). Contrast Erste Group Bank AG (London) v JSC (VMZ Red October) [2015] EWCA Civ 379; [2015] 1 CLC 706 where the Court of Appeal opted for a more limited interpretation of gateway 9(a).

6 eg Lord Collins of Mapesbury et al., Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws (15th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2012) Rule 34, para 11.216, fn 600 (‘Dicey, Morris & Collins’); Torremans, P et al. , Cheshire, North & Fawcett: Private International Law (15th edn, Oxford University Press 2017) 349Google Scholar; and Arzandeh, A, ‘The English Court's Service-Out Jurisdiction in International Tortious Disputes’ (2017) 133 LQR 144Google Scholar.

7 Chiefly, Briggs, A, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (7th edn, Routledge 2021)Google Scholar (‘Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments’) para 24.18.

8 Lord Lloyd-Jones, (Lord Reed, Lord Briggs, and Lord Burrows concurring); Lord Leggatt dissenting.

9 Lord Leggatt delivered the court's ruling on this question (Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Reed, Lord Briggs, and Lord Burrows concurring).

10 Pursuant to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934.

11 Under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976.

12 By virtue of CPR, r 6.36.

13 Seaconsar Far East Ltd v Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran [1994] AC 438.

14 As reflected in CPR, r 6.37(1)(b).

15 Under gateway 6(a), in an international contract dispute, a claimant can seek to initiate proceedings against a defendant outside England if the contract was made in England.

16 [2017] UKSC 80; [2018] 1 WLR 192.

17 ibid paras 14–15.

18 Nevertheless, the Justices of the Supreme Court were critical of the law underpinning gateway 6(a): ibid para 16 (per Lord Sumption) and para 34 (per Lady Hale).

19 At first instance, Tugendhat J construed gateway 9(a) widely, and found that Lady Brownlie had successfully shown that her claim had engaged it: [2014] EWHC 273 (QB). However, a unanimous Court of Appeal interpreted the provision narrowly, finding that Lady Brownlie's case fell outside its scope, as the direct damage arising from the tort had been inflicted in Egypt: [2015] EWCA Civ 665; [2016] 1 WLR 1814 (Arden, Bean, and King LJJ).

20 Baroness Hale PSC, Lord Wilson, and Lord Clarke.

21 Lord Sumption (Lord Hughes concurring).

22 Dicey, Morris & Collins, Rule 25(1) para 09R–001.

23 In relation to the vicarious liability claim in tort, FS Cairo accepted that Lady Brownlie had shown a reasonable prospect of success under Egyptian law.

24 [2019] EWHC 2533 (QB) para 126.

25 ibid paras 126, 129 and 134.

26 ibid paras 110–120.

27 ibid paras 136–139.

28 [2020] EWCA Civ 996; [2021] 2 All ER 605 (McCombe and Underhill LJJ for the majority; Arnold LJ, dissenting). The Court of Appeal ordered Lady Brownlie to serve revised particulars of claim, containing the content of the Egyptian law on which she sought to rely in both the contract and tort claims.

29 Brownlie II (n 1) para 111.

30 ibid para 112.

31 ibid paras 113–118.

32 ibid para 112.

33 ibid para 119.

34 ibid para 121, referring to Fentiman, R, Foreign Law in English Courts: Pleading, Proof and Choice of Law (Oxford University Press 1998) 152–3Google Scholar, Gray, A, ‘Choice of Law: The Presumption in the Proof of Foreign Law’ (2008) 31 UNSWLJ 136Google Scholar, and Briggs, A, The Conflict of Laws (4th edn, Oxford University Press 2019) 7–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Brownlie II (n 1) paras 122–125.

36 ibid para 126.

37 ibid paras 127–142.

38 ibid para 143.

39 ibid paras 144–148.

40 ibid para 157.

41 ibid paras 161–166.

42 ibid para 49.

43 ibid para 51, referring to Lord Wilson's and Lord Clark's judgments in Brownlie I (n 16) paras 64 and 68, respectively.

44 Brownlie II (n 1) paras 52–56.

45 Brownlie I (n 16) para 30.

46 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) [2012] OJ L351/1 (Brussels Ia Regulation).

47 Brownlie II (n 1) para 55.

48 Brownlie I (n 16) para 31.

49 Brownlie II (n 1) para 77.

50 ibid paras 77 and 79.

51 ibid paras 57–64.

52 Flaherty v Girgis (1985) 63 ALR 466.

53 Fong Chak Kwan v Ascentic Ltd [2020] HKCFI 679.

54 Brownlie II (n 1) para 66.

55 Societe Commerciale de Reassurance v Eras International Ltd (The Eras Eil Actions) [1992] 1 Lloyd's Rep 570; Bastone (n 3); ABCI (n 3); Eurasia Sports Ltd v Tsai [2018] EWCA Civ 1742; [2018] 1 WLR 6089.

56 Brownlie II (n 1) paras 69–75.

57 ibid para 76.

58 ibid para 81.

59 ibid paras 83–84.

60 ibid paras 179–180 and 189.

61 ibid para 181.

62 ibid para 182. This reasoning had been adopted by the Court of Appeal in Brownlie I (n 19) paras 85–86.

63 Regulation (EC) 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) [2007] OJ L199/40.

64 Brownlie II (n 1) para 176.

65 ibid paras 191–194.

66 ibid para 192.

67 ibid para 193.

68 ibid para 196.

69 ibid para 202.

70 ibid para 198.

71 ibid para 208.

72 Robert Goff LJ in The Albaforth [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep 91, 96. In this case, the English court asserted service-out jurisdiction. England was where the tort of negligent misrepresentation had happened. This finding prompted the Court of Appeal to conclude that England was also forum conveniens.

73 Booth (n 4); Cooley (n 5); Saldanha (n 5); Harty (n 5); Wink (n 5); Stylianou (n 5); Pike (n 5). In Brownlie II itself, at first instance, after concluding that indirect damage sustained by the claimant in England fell within gateway 9(a), Nicol J proceeded to find that England was forum conveniens.

74 For examples of the sort of pleading which has found favour with judges in England, see Cooley (n 5) paras 55–58 and Brownlie II (n 24) paras 137–139.

75 See also Lord Leggatt's observations in Brownlie II (n 1) paras 203–207.

76 ibid para 190.

77 Brownlie I (n 16) para 35.

78 Brownlie II (n 1) para 197.

79 See, chiefly, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (n 7) para 24.06, Briggs, A, Private International Law in English Courts (Oxford University Press 2014) paras 4.458–4.459Google Scholar, and Briggs (n 34) 110.

80 Arzandeh, A, ‘“Gateways” within the Civil Procedure Rules and the Future of Service-out Jurisdiction in England’ (2019) 15 JPIL 516Google Scholar, which evaluates the case for abandoning the gateways, and ultimately argues in favour of retaining (but reforming) them.

81 See also Lord Leggatt's observations in Brownlie II (n 1) paras 199–201.

82 See Arzandeh (n 80) 525–39.