References: [2013] EWHC 2672 (QB)
Coram: Simon J
Ratio: Where Article 4 applies, a party must bring forward evidence on foreign law and cannot simply rely on a presumption that in the absence of evidence foreign law should be assumed to be the same as English law.
Simon J said: ‘ It is not consonant with the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules, in a case where the 1995 Act applies, for a party either to decline to plead the relevant provisions of the applicable law or to rely on a presumption that a foreign law is the same as English law. Such an approach is evasive. There may of course be an issue as to which particular law applies, but that is a different matter. The ‘parochial’ approach, which ‘presupposes that it is inherently just for the rules of the English domestic law of tort to be indiscriminately applied regardless of the foreign character of the circumstances and the parties’, is precisely the mischief which the Law Commission sought to remedy, and which was remedied by the 1995 Act’
Statutes: Rome II Regulation 4
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- See Also – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 1394, Judiciary Summary, [2014] WLR(D) 459, WLRD)
Judiciary 1. In these proceedings the appellants seek a declaration of illegality and damages arising from what they contend was the participation of the respondents in their unlawful abduction, kidnapping and . . - See Also – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others QBD (Bailii, [2013] EWHC 4111 (QB))
The Claimants seek a declaration of illegality and claim damages arising from what they contend was the participation of the seven Defendants in their unlawful abduction, kidnapping and illicit removal across state borders to Libya in March 2004. . . - Cited – Rhodes v OPO and Another SC ([2015] 2 WLR 137, Bailii, [2015] UKSC 32, [2016] AC 219, [2015] EMLR 20, [2015] HRLR 11, [2015] WLR(D) 227, [2015] 4 All ER 1, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2014/0251, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary)
The mother sought to prevent a father from publishing a book about his life. It was to contain passages she said may cause psychological harm to their 12 year old son. Mother and son lived in the USA and the family court here had no jurisdiction to . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 13 July 2017
Ref: 566200