Whether an issue estoppel arises over foreign decisions on the governing law of the claim has not been directly considered by an English court, but decisions in other jurisdictions show that this question is increasingly being raised in litigation. Is there identity of issue if the two courts apply different choice of law rules? The answer turns on whether a broad or narrow framing of the issue is adopted. It is suggested that, absent an issue which is subject to forum international public policy, forum overriding mandatory rules or which is one that the forum court retains the prerogative to determine for itself, a broad framing ought to be adopted. Thus, in principle, an issue estoppel should arise over the identity of the governing law of the claim. However, issue estoppel should not operate where the choice of law category involved is underpinned by public policy considerations. The consideration of the specific issue of the governing law of the claim also feeds into broader questions on the applicability of issue estoppel whenever the two courts would apply different laws or frameworks to decide the issue. In general, whether a plea of issue estoppel ought to succeed depends on balancing the principles underlying res judicata against the considerations arising in each specific context.

Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters is generally perceived to be of a rather ‘specialist and technical nature’. However, for the many UK and EU citizens, families and businesses who work, live, travel and do business abroad, the current European framework for choice of law, jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement is of paramount importance. The article, therefore, explores how that framework might look like after Brexit and explores the merits and demerits of the various ways forward. It argues that the best option for both the UK and the EU would be to agree on the continued application of the existing EU instruments or to strive for conclusion of a new agreement that closely replicates these instruments. If no such agreement can be reached the UK should decide to apply the Rome I and Rome II Regulations unilaterally and sign the Lugano Convention of 2007 as well as the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements of 2005.

The EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive provides tools to deal effectively with unsound or failing banks. Some provisions of this directive are designated as overriding mandatory provisions as referred to in Article 9 Rome I Regulation. The author analyses the effectiveness of the designation of a rule as an overriding mandatory provision, given the principle of private international law that parties can choose the applicable law and the competent forum. His conclusion is that in an international context overriding mandatory provisions are not always as overriding or as mandatory as they may seem at first sight. This may be acceptable with regard to 'normal' overriding mandatory provisions. However, the author argues that financial stability is so important that overriding mandatory provisions that protect financial stability need special treatment.

This article considers points of connection and coherence between and among the Rome I Regulation, the Rome II Regulation, and Regulation 1215, and relevant predecessor instruments. The degree of consistency in aim, design and detail of conflict of laws rules is examined, vertically (between/among consecutive instruments) and horizontally (across cognate instruments). Symbiosis between instruments is explored, as is the interrelationship between choice of court and choice of law. Disadvantaged parties, and the cohesiveness of their treatment under the Regulations, receive particular attention.