Provisional and protective remedies: The british experience of the brussels convention

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 302-339

  Maher, Gerry ^a   Rodger, Barry J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 11444258623     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020589300063211     Document Type: Article

References (120)

1. Lawrence Collins, Essays in International Litigation and the Conflict of Laws (1994), pp.10–15.
2. A. Zuckerman, “Interlocutory Remedies in Quest of Procedural Fairness” (1993) 56 M.L.R. 325.
3. See e.g. Operation of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions (Consultation Paper issued by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Scottish Courts Administration, Apr. 1997), esp. pp 32–35
4. Towards Greater Efficiency in Obtaining and Enforcing Judgments in the European Union (Commission Communication to the Council and the European Parliament, 26 Nov. 1997), esp. pp.13–15.
5. For a useful discussion see P. R. Beaumont, “A United Kingdom Perspective on the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention” (1998) 24 Brooklyn J. Int. L. 75.
6. See Hague Conference on Private International Law, Preliminary Document No.7 of April 1997, para. 126
7. Preliminary Document No.8 of November 1997, paras.62–64
8. Preliminary Document No.9 of July 1998, para. 115.
9. For discussion see Beaumont, Preliminary Document.
10. In Case C-391/95, Van Uden Maritime BV v. Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line, Peter Determann KG, judgment of the ECJ, 17 Nov. 1998.
11. See e.g. Case 34/82, Peters v. ZNAV [1983] E.C.R. 987
12. Case C-26/91, Handle v. TMCS [1992] E.CR. 1–3967
13. Case 189/87, Kalfelis v. Bankhaus Schroder Munchmeyer Hengst & Co. [1988] E.CR. 5565
14. Case C-68/93, Shevvill v. Presse Alliance SA [1995] E.C.R. 1–415
15. Case C-364/93, Marinari v. Lloyds Bank plc (Zubaidi Trading Co. intervening) [1995] E.CR 1–2719.
16. Case 129/83, Zelger v. Salinitri (No.2) [1984] E.C.R. 2397.
17. See e.g. Collins, E.C.R. n.l, at pp.5, 37–39
18. P. Matthews, “Provisional and Protective Measures in England and Ireland at Common Law and Under the Conventions: A Comparative Survey” (1995) 14 Civil Justice Q. 190, 198–199.
19. Macphail, Sheriff Court Practice (2nd edn, 1998), pp.357–360.
20. Matthews, Sheriff Court Practice n.10, at pp.197–198
21. Collins, Sheriff Court Practice n.l, at p37.
22. Case 33/78, Somafer v. Saar-Ferngus AC [1978] E.GR. 2183
23. Case 9/87, Arcado SPRL. v. Haviland SA [1988] E.C.R. 1539
24. Kalfelis, E.C.R. n.8.
25. G. Hogan, “The Judgments Convention and Mareva Injunctions in the United Kingdom and Ireland” (1989) 14 E.L.Rev. 191,197–200.
26. (1979) OJ. C59/1,42, section 9.
27. (1979) O J. C59/71,126, para.183. Schlosser also notes (p.134, para.221) in discussing Art.39 that the Convention does not guarantee specific measures of enforcement, or the procedure used to obtain them (e.g. application to the court, or a huisser or similar institution).
28. The Evrigemis and Kerameus Report notes that jurisdiction to grant a provisional, including protective, measure is in principle separate from jurisdiction in the substantive action but does not pursue the implications of this distinction (1986) OJ. C298/a, 3.
29. The Cruz, Real and Jenard Report contains no discussion of Art24 (1990) O J. C189/35,38, nor does the Jenard and Moller Report on the Lugano Convention (1990) OJ. C189/57,61.
30. Case C-261/90, [1992] E.C.R. 1–2149.
31. The independent basis of characterisation of a provisional, including protective, measure for the purposes of Art.24 was made in argument by the European Commission in CHW v. GJH, infra n.20, at p.1195.
32. Case 25/81, [1982] E.C.R. 1189.
33. Case 143/78, De Cavel v. De Cavel (No.1) [1979] E.C.R. 1055.
34. See also Case 120/79, De Cavel v. De Cavel (No.2) [1980] E.C.R. 731, which reached the same conclusion as regards an interlocutory order for payment of maintenance during the divorce action.
35. Van Uden, E.C.R. n.6, at paras.37–39.
36. De Cavel (No.1), E.C.R. n.21, at p.1067
37. De Cavel (No. 2), E.C.R. n.22, at 740.
38. CHW, E.C.R. n.20, at p.1194.
39. Idem, p.1204.
40. Van Uden, E.C.R. n.6, at paras.19–25, 28–34.
41. Case 125/79, [1980] E.C.R. 1553.
42. In De Cavel (No.1), E.C.R. n.21, a similar sort of order was made.
43. Van Uden, E.C.R. n.6, at paras.39–47.
44. Case 258/83, [1984] 3 E.C.R. 3971, 3980.
45. This applies to the Brussels Convention itself, the 1971 Protocol on the ECJ, and the various accession treaties. The texts of these various conventions are set out in Schedules to the 1982 Act Sched.4 to the 1982 Act contains a modified version of the Brussels Convention as amended in respect of inter-UK jurisdiction. Where the provisions of an article in Sched.4 are identical to those of the Brussels Convention (as is the case with the respective versions of An24), the courts in the UK are in effect under a duty to apply the caselaw of the ECJ in questions of interpretation of Sched.4: Kleinwort Benson Ltd v. Glasgow City Council [1997] 4 All E.R. 641, 646, 660,667.
46. Siskina (Cargo Owners) v. Distos Cia Naviera SA (The Siskina) [1977] 3 All E.R. 803.
47. S.I. 1997/302. This effectively reversed the decision in Mercedes Benz AG v. Leiduck [1996] A.C. 284.
48. For discussion see D. Capper, “The Trans-Jurisdictional effects of Mareva Injunctions” (1996) 15 Civil Justice Q. 211.
49. The important effect of the extended power provided by this Order in relation to interim relief in the context of international insolvency litigation has been noted by P. St J. Smart, “Insolvency Proceedings and the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982” (1998) 18 Civil Justice Q. 149.
50. A. Lenon, “Mareva Injunctions in Support of Foreign Proceedings” (1997) New L.J. 1234,1234.
51. See also Practice and Procedure (1997) 16 Civil Justice Q. 185.
52. S. O'Malley and A. Layton, European Civil Practice (1989).
53. N. Rose (Ed.), Pre-Emptive Remedies in Europe (1992).
54. See O'Malley and Layton, Pre-Emptive Remedies in Europe n.40, at p. 1448.
55. [1989] 1 All E.R. 456.
56. Idem, p.463.
57. Nonetheless the “requirement” to provide provisional, including protective, remedies, under Art.24 has been doubted by Collins, All E.R. n.1, at p.37.
58. [1991] 4 All E.R. 458,468.
59. The name is derived from the relief granted in Mareva Compania Naviera SA v. International Bulk Carriers SA [1975] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 509. Its statutory basis is now founded in the Supreme Court Act 1981, s.37(3).
60. Rasu Montana SA v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Miniyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (The Pentamina) [1978] Q.B. 644.
61. Third Chandris Shipping Corp. v. Unimarine SA [1979] 2 All E.R. 972.
62. Furthermore, the plaintiff must give an undertaking in damages in case either he fails on the merits of the action or the injunction turns out to be unjustified (All E.R.).
63. American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd [1975] A.C. 396.
64. See L. Collins, “The Territorial Reach of Mareva Injunctions” (1989) 105 L.Q.R. 262
65. A. Zuckerman, “Mareva Injunctions and Security for Judgment in a Framework of Interlocutory Remedies” (1993) 109 L.Q.R. 432
66. D. Capper, “Worldwide Mareva Injunctions” (1991)54 M.L.R. 329
67. P. Kaye, “Extraterritorial Mareva Orders and the Relevance of Enforceability” (1990) 9 Civil Justice Q. 12.
68. Babanaft International Co. SA v. Bassatne [1989] 1 All E.R. 433
69. Duvalier, All E.R. n.43
70. Derby & Co. Ltd v. Weldon (No.1) [1989] 1 All E.R. 469
71. Derby & Co. Ltd v. Weldon (NosJ and 4) [1990] 2 Ch. 65.
72. [1989] 1 All E.R. 433.
73. These principles were applied in Derby & Co. Ltd and Others v. Weldon and Others (No. I), All E.R. n.52. It should be noted that this principle of enforceability may allow a distinction to be drawn between s.25 cases which fall within Art.24 and s.25 cases which do not.
74. See Rosseel NV v. Oriental Commercial Shipping (UK) Limited [1990] 3 All E.R. 545.
75. Babanaft, All E.R. n.52, at pp.442–445.
76. All E.R. n.29.
77. See Kaye, All E.R. n.50, at pp.14–16.
78. [1989] 1 All E.R. 456.
79. Idem, pp.466–467.
80. Idem, p.467.
81. [1990] 1 All E.R. 469,473.
82. See also Rosseel, All E.R. n.56. Neither of these cases was brought under s.35.
83. Duvalier, All E.R. n.60, at p.466.
84. Collins, All E.R. n.l, at pp.87–88.
85. See Denilauer v. Couchet Fréres [1980] E.C.R. 1553.
86. [1977] 3 All E.R. 718.
87. [1990] 3 All E.R. 545.
88. [1997] 3 All E.R. 724.
89. Lenon, All E.R. n.39, at p.1236.
90. Collins, All E.R. n.1, at p.98.
91. [1997] 3 All E.R. 45.
92. Idem, p.62.
93. All E.R.
94. All E.R.
95. [1998] F.S.R. 222.
96. E.g. Coin Controls, All E.R. n.72.
97. See Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. Lee Kui Jak and Another [1987] 1 A.C. 871.
98. Report of the Scottish Committee on Jurisdiction and Enforcement (Chairman Lord Maxwell; HMSO, Edinburgh, 1980). A similar body examined the impact of the Convention on English law but its report was never made public.
99. G. Maher and D. J. Cusine, The Law and Practice of Diligence (1990), pp.116–117
100. Scottish Law Commission Report: Diligence on the Dependence and Admiralty Arrestments (Scot. Law Com. No.164 (1998)), pp.196–197.
101. 1982 Act, s.27(l)(b). A crucial and remarkable feature of the provisional remedies of arrestment and inhibition is that they are granted to pursuers who raise an action seeking payment of money as now due, as of right and without any judicial scrutiny or supervision. For critical consideration of the present Scots law see G. Maher, “Diligence on the Dependence: Principles for Reform” (1996) Juridical Rev. 188.
102. The Scottish Law Commission has recently recommended changes to this part of the law (see Juridical Rev. n.81).
103. As originally enacted s.27 remedies could be granted only where the principal action had been or, in the case of interim interdict, was about to be raised in another contracting State or elsewhere in the UK and the subject of the action fell within the scope of the Convention. However, these limitations were removed by S.I. 1997/2780. For discussion of some of the problems arising from these changes, see G. Maher, “Provisional and Protective Measures in Respect of Foreign Proceedings” 1998 S.L.T. (News) 225.
104. Maxwell Report, S.L.T. n.79, at paras.5.248–5.252.
105. Court of Session Act 1988, s. 46 deriving from Court of Session Act 1868, s. 89.
106. See Maersk & Co. Ltd v. National Union of Seamen 1988 S.L.T. 828
107. Stirling Shipping Co. Ltd v. National Union of Seamen 1988 S.L.T. 832
108. Five Oaks Properties Ltd v. Granite House Ltd 1994 S.C.L.R. 740.
109. See e.g. Church Commissioners for England v. Abbey National plc 1994 S.L.T. 959
110. Retail Park Investments Ltd v. Royal Bank of Scotland plc 1995 S.L.T. 1156
111. Millar & Bryce Ltd v. Keeper of the Registers of Scotland 1997 S.L.T. 1000.
112. 1990 S.L.T. 746.
113. Idem, p.748J.
114. 1989 S.L.T. 204.
115. The requirement that a pursuer has a “colourable” case to justify the use of arrestment in the dependence of an action was first stated in West Cumberland Farmers Ltd v. Ellon Hinengo Ltd 1988 S.L.T. 294, a decision relied on and followed in Clipper Shipping, S.L.T. However, in West Cumberland Farmers no reference was made to authorities for the general principle in Scots law that there is no requirement as to the substance of a case before warrant for arrestment or inhibition may be granted.
116. Outer House 17 Mar. 1988, noted in 1988 G.W.D. 9–370.
117. 1995 S.L.T. 559.
118. 1990 S.L.T. 213.
119. 1998 S.C.L.R. 475. 100.
120. 1995 S.L.T. 972.