Jump to Content Jump to Main Navigation

You are looking at 120 of 101 results

Contributor: Dickinson, Andrew x
Clear All

Abbreviations »

From: The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations
Andrew Dickinson

Acknowledgements »

Daniel Carr, Andrew Dickinson, Anne Fairpo, Benjamin Geva, Dorit Geva, Christopher Hare, Kelvin FK Low, Charles Proctor, Wu Ying-Chieh, Corinne Zellweger-Gutknecht
Edited By: David Fox, Sarah Green
From: Cryptocurrencies in Public and Private Law
Edited By: David Fox, Sarah Green

Author’s Introduction »

From: The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations: Updating Supplement
Andrew Dickinson

Part I Introductory Topics, 1 Background »

From: The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations: Updating Supplement
Andrew Dickinson
1.01 (n 7) Add For the application of the Rome I Regulation in the United Kingdom (which had originally decided not to opt-in to the negotiations), see the Commission’s Decision of 22 December 2008 approving the request from the United Kingdom to accept the Regulation (OJ L10, 22 [15.1.2009]). 1.04 Add A revised, final outline version of the Draft Common Frame of Reference was released in February 200918A and the full edition of six volumes published later that year.18B It is fair to say that the work of Professor von Bar and his colleagues, although widely...

Part I Introductory Topics, 1 Background »

From: The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations
Andrew Dickinson
1.01 The EC Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II)1 was adopted on 11 July 2007 and will apply2 from 11 January 2009.3 When, in September 1967, the Belgian permanent representative to the EEC, Joseph van der Meulen, wrote to the Commission urging it to consider possible measures to unify conflict of law rules in the (then) six Member States,4 he can scarcely have foreseen that his letter would trigger a diplomatic and legislative process stretching over thirty years and resulting in a legislative instrument re-writing private...

1 Background and Introduction to the Regulation »

Andrew Dickinson
From: The Brussels I Regulation Recast
Edited By: Andrew Dickinson, Eva Lein, Andrew James (Assistant Editor)
This chapter presents the background and introduction to Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (Recast) that was adopted on 12 December 2012. Topics covered include a review of the original Brussels I Regulation; publication of the Commission’s Proposal to Recast the Brussels I Regulation on 14 December 2010; the legislative process; amendment of the Recast Regulation in relation to the European Patent Court; comparison of the 2001 and Recast Regulations; approach to interpretation; the Regulation’s relationship with other instruments; the Regulation’s relationship with national law and procedure; fundamental rights and freedoms; and the Brussels I Regulation and third states.

The Brussels I Regulation Recast »

Edited By: Andrew Dickinson, Eva Lein, Andrew James (Assistant Editor)

Part IV Freedom of Choice and Common Rules, 13 Choosing the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations »

From: The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations: Updating Supplement
Andrew Dickinson
13.06 Insert footnote 15A at end of paragraph For comment on the reasoning underlying Art 14 and its provisions, see T M de Boer, ‘Party Autonomy and its Limitations in the Rome II Regulation’ (2008) 9 YPIL 19. 13.13 (n 38) The quotation from the ECJ’s judgment in Hugo Trumpy is from paras 48–9, 51. 13.18 (n 53) Add Also P Bertoli, ‘Choice of Law by the Parties in the Rome II Regulation’ (2009) 92 Rivista di diritto internationale‎ 697, 708. 13.20 (n 62) Insert at beginning Also P Bertoli, 13.18 above, 703, fn (21). (n 63) Add Also 1.04 above. cf G Palao Moreno,...

Part IV Freedom of Choice and Common Rules, 13 Choosing the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations »

From: The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations
Andrew Dickinson
13.01 A notable feature of the Commission’s preliminary draft proposal1 was the very wide freedom that it offered to contracting and litigating parties to choose the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising or existing between them. This extension of the principle of party autonomy from contractual to non-contractual obligations was welcome. It was, therefore, disappointing that the Commission in Art 10 of its Proposal moved to restrict the right to choose the law applicable to non-contractual obligations to the period after the dispute had arisen....

Appendices, Appendix 5 Chronology »

From: The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations
Andrew Dickinson

Appendices, Appendix 3 Commission Amended Proposal »

From: The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations
Andrew Dickinson

Appendices, Appendix 2 Commission Proposal »

From: The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations
Andrew Dickinson

Appendix 3 Commission Proposal (Annexes omitted) »

Edited By: Andrew Dickinson, Eva Lein, Andrew James (Assistant Editor)
From: The Brussels I Regulation Recast
Edited By: Andrew Dickinson, Eva Lein, Andrew James (Assistant Editor)

Appendix 2 Comparison of 2001 Regulation and Recast Regulation »

Edited By: Andrew Dickinson, Eva Lein, Andrew James (Assistant Editor)
From: The Brussels I Regulation Recast
Edited By: Andrew Dickinson, Eva Lein, Andrew James (Assistant Editor)

Part IV Freedom of Choice and Common Rules, Conclusion »

From: The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations: Updating Supplement
Andrew Dickinson
p.665 Insert after quotation following n 2 Professor Briggs puts a more positive spin on the Regulation, suggesting that:3 Given the variety of possible connecting factors which are available to the law reformer seeking to engineer a new choice of law for torts, it is very hard to find fault with the manner in which the contending rules for choice of law have been used in and balanced by the Rome II Regulation. It is entirely rational. It may not be the only rationality which could be envisaged, but it cannot be seriously argued that there was a plainly better...

Part IV Freedom of Choice and Common Rules, Conclusion »

From: The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations
Andrew Dickinson
Putting arguments about necessity and treaty basis to one side, the adoption of the Rome II Regulation should be seen as a positive step for private international law in the UK, Europe and globally. Although the structure and content of some of the Regulation’s rules have been criticized in the preceding commentary, the pre-Regulation UK statutory and judge-made rules of applicable law for non-contractual obligations could hardly be said to be a model of clarity or to be satisfactory from a practitioner’s point of view. In terms of legal certainty, the Rome II...

Contents »

Edited By: Andrew Dickinson, Eva Lein, Andrew James (Assistant Editor)
From: The Brussels I Regulation Recast
Edited By: Andrew Dickinson, Eva Lein, Andrew James (Assistant Editor)

Contents »

Daniel Carr, Andrew Dickinson, Anne Fairpo, Benjamin Geva, Dorit Geva, Christopher Hare, Kelvin FK Low, Charles Proctor, Wu Ying-Chieh, Corinne Zellweger-Gutknecht
Edited By: David Fox, Sarah Green
From: Cryptocurrencies in Public and Private Law
Edited By: David Fox, Sarah Green

Contents »

From: The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations: Updating Supplement
Andrew Dickinson

Contents »

From: The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations
Andrew Dickinson