345187
| Question | Answer |
| internal law of the forum | Lex fori |
| law [of the casue] to be applied by the forum | lex causae |
| law of party's domicile | lex patriae |
| law of the country where a marriage celebrated | lex loci celebrationis |
| law of the country where contract deemed to have been formed | lex loci contractus |
| law of country where contract to be performed | lex loci solutionis |
| law of country where legal act takes place | lex loci actus |
| law to which a legal act/ transaction has the most connection | lex actus |
| law of a person's domicile | lex loci domicilii |
| law of the country where property situated | lex situs |
| law of country where a delict performed | lex delicti |
| law used to determine rights in succession | lex successionis |
| REGULATION re jurisdiction, recognition, and enforcement of judgments re matrimonial and PR matters | Brussels II bis |
| REGULATION re jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in CIVIL & COMMERCIAL matters | Brussels I (Regulation) |
| Classification- collection of tax - no! Assisting in investigation -Yes! | Re. State of Norway's Application |
| proof of foreign law provided by... | experts. Not the judge, unless disagreement between parties' experts, whereby own examination required. |
| Judicial knowledge of Scots law and Scots IPL law assumed bu Scots ct, but UKSP | assumed to have judicial knowledge of all three UK LSs. |
| Foreign law is a Q of | fact |
| where parties ignore FL aspect in pleadings | lex fori applied |
| if D has not raised FL issue in pleadings but later feels it would be advantageous... | Lord Kincraig: too late! Bonnor v Balfour Kilpatrick (Oman) Pryde v Proctor & Gamble (solatium in Eng.) |
| Bonnor v Balfour Kilpatrick | ? |
| Pryde v Proctor & Gamble | ?? |
| gift inter vivos so lex situs, or donatio mortis causa so lex successionis | re Korvine's Trust Russian admiral stole bonds etc from revolution; then purported to give to Russian mistress who had to fight for right as RA had Russian W&Kids |
| Re Korvine's Trust | Russian Admiral escaped rev to London; on death bed, purported to give stuff to mistress not Wife; was it gift inter vivos or donatio mortis causa? If later, Russain succession law would prevent gift to mistress; HELD former so lex situs (ENG) allowed it. |
| incapax to contract creates international invalidity | Butler v Cooper 19yr-old Irish girl too young to contact away her legal rights on H's death in Scotland |
| onus of proving DoO changed to DoC | Bell v Kennedy Held in favour of Jamaican slave owner: J dom, X Scots |
| Jamaican colonist; Scots roots rtns when slavery abolished; wife dies soon after; daughter could not demo F was Scots domd as he hadn't made up mind (W's Dom follwed H's) | lex causa re succession is lex successionis which is the law of HIS dom so Jamaica; Scots law would have provided for daughter but J not. |
| Art 5(1) (Brussels I) only works where single place of performance | Besix v Wasserrengigungsbau |
| Brussels I Art 5(1) | place of performance of contract founds jurisdiction |
| Brussels I Art 2 | general rule re dom: sue in Defender's MS |
| Brussels I on contract | Art 5(1) place of performance of contract |
| Brussels I on consumer contracts | Art 15: sue consumer in his MS Art 16: consumer may choose either |
| Brussels I on property | Art 22 (lex situs) |
| Brussels I on prorogation | Art 23 |
| Brussels I on appearance by Def | Art 24 renders jur |
| Brussels I on lis pendens | Art 27 |
| only possible to have one one residence quoad Brussels I; 10% of time spent in England does not qualify | Cherney (Isr) v Deripaska (Rus) dom re BI tested by internal law (Art 59) whichrequires both residence and substantial connection |
| Cherney v Deripaska | Re Art 59 BI; 10% of time there did not make Russian resident in Eng, so Israeli could not serve him there. |
| enforced residence does not equal substantial connection viz s41 CJJA1982 | Petrograde v Smith S had been bailed in UK so forced |
| dom determined at time summons signed by Sh Clerk (Scot) or issuing of the writ (Eng) | Canada Trust v Stolzenberg S were multi party; one of S dom in Eng at time IW issued but left before served; still valid! |
| principal extra-EU IPL Convention? | Lugano II (2007) mirrors BI |
| BI and Lugano II Art that refers to suing in the MS of any one of the defenders | 6 |
| Swiss dom of a multi party provided jurisdiction under Lugano II (extra-EU) | Canada Trust v Stolzenberg |
| Single place reqd to justify jurisdiction quoad place of performance of contract viz BI A5(1) (or LII): case? | Besix v Wasserrengigungsbau |
| where more than one place of provision of service (air travel), ct to look for most significant linking factor | Rheder v Air Baltic but where no single place, such as here, can choose any one. |
| even where a business has detailed spec of goods to be supplied by supplier, still contract for sale of goods, so place of delivery viz BI A5(1)(b) indent 1 relevant | Car Trim v Key Safety Systems |
| Contract for provision of services governed by BI A? | A5(1)(b) indent 2 so where services provided |
| contact for sale of goods governed by BI A? | BI A5(1)(b) indent 1, where good to be delivered. eg Car Trim v Key Safety Systems |
| where services and sale of goods | select principal issue: Car Trim v Key Safety Systems |
| BI Art 23 deals with | prorogation of jurisdiction |
| BI Art 27 deals with | lis pendens |
| conflict between A23 and A27 BI: priciple and case? | court first seised has priority; Erich Gasser v Missat |
| Enforcement of judgements; Ct addressed does not revist Ct of Origin judgement unless | fraud alleged: Gelley v Shephard |
| Marriage: criteria viz Hyde v Hyde & Woodmansee | voluntary union for life between man and woman to teh exclusion of all others |
| 2 principle questions re validity of marraige | formal validity; essential validity |
| essential validity of marriage relates to questions of? | legal capacity: age, mental, consanguinity Physical capacity: impotent |
| German national domd in Eng; 1st wife died and wanted to marry her sister in Germany; because he was domd in Eng immediately prior to marriage, even though ok by German law, invalid in Eng | Mette v Mette Q of essential validity |
| validity of Marriage in Scotland governed by | FLSA 2006 s 38 38(1)formally=lex loci celebrationis 38(2) = essential: dom imediately prior to marriage |
| essentail validity of marraige determined by ct of dom imed prior to marriage; Jewish Egypian uncle/neice married in Egypt: | Cheni would not have been valid if celebrated here but there ok so not so contra public policy |
| Q of formal validity of marriage determined by lex loci celebrationis, case? | Berthiaume v Dastous French couple had not goen about French ceremony properly so divorce proceedings in Eng dismissed. |
| divorce proceedings re French couple in England dismissed as no formal validity of French marraige, case? | Berthiaume v Dastous |
| German domd in Eng imd prior to attempt to marry his late wife's sister in G: law of ? validity, and governed by ? | essential validity, govd by lex fori |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.