Jump to Content Jump to Main Navigation

Part III Jurisdiction, Foreign Judgments and Awards, 12 The Competence of the English Courts Under—The Traditional Rules

Paul Torremans

From: Cheshire, North & Fawcett: Private International Law (15th Edition)

Uglješa Grušić, Christian Heinze, Louise Merrett, Alex Mills, Carmen Otero García-Castrillón, Zheng Sophia Tang, Katarina Trimmings, Lara Walker
Edited By: Paul Torremans, James J. Fawcett

From: Oxford Legal Research Library (http://olrl.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2023. All Rights Reserved.date: 24 June 2024

Choice of law clauses — Jurisdiction under the Brussels-Lugano Regime — Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments – traditional rules — Jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation — Jurisdiction under the Lugano Convention

This chapter explores the competence of the English courts under the traditional rules, and more specifically actions in personam and actions in rem. An action in personam is designed to settle the rights of the parties as between themselves, e.g. an action for damages for breach of contract. In English law the only action in rem is that which lies in an Admiralty court against a particular res, namely a ship or some other res, such as cargo, associated with the ship. This chapter first considers three situations in which English courts are competent under common law rules to try an action in personam before discussing the effect of the Brussels/Lugano system on actions in rem. It also reflects on the implications of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 for the competence of the English courts.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.