Search

The article analyses Case C-524/18 Schwabe/Queisser Pharma about health claims under the Nutrition and Health Claim Regulation (Regulation 1924/2006), more specifically about the labelling of references to non-specific health benefits under Article 10(3). Two fundamental concerns about the judgment are presented: (1) From a substantive point it is questionable that the judgment ‘got it right’, because it dilutes the system of authorised health claims. (2) From an institutional point of view, the judgment disregards the European Commission’s Implementing Decision establishing Guidelines for the implementation of Article 10(3). It thereby undermines the legal value of implementing acts as sources of law, and indirectly subverts the institutional balance.

Case note regarding a case involving the intersection of family law and a socially harmful cult.

This case note discusses the recent Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Bakri Navigation Co Ltd [2020] 2 SLR 167, which made important points on the legal position of a floating chargor’s dealings with charged assets outside the chargor’s ordinary course of business. In particular, the decision clarifies the relative priorities of the chargor and the third party as well as whether such dealings would crystallise the charge by operation of law. In so doing, the decision also confirms that the floating charge’s flexibility, its greatest strength, might just be its inherent weakness, first conceptually, and then in its effectiveness.

Are agreements to mediate enforceable? The short (and incomplete) answer is: yes, they may be provided they are drafted appropriately. In this post we review a recent English judgment which sets outs guidelines for the enforceability of agreements to mediate under English law. In August 2019, the Technology and Construction Court of the Queen’s Bench Division in England made an important ruling in regard to the enforceability of agreements to mediate as a precondition to court or arbitration proceedings. Ohpen Operations UK Ltd v Invesco Fund Managers Ltd [2019] EWHC 2246 (TCC) provides guidance for how and when parties may rely on an agreement to mediate.

The dispute concerns with discriminatory application of the EC Seal Regime against Canada and Norway. The EC Seal regime consists of an exception (Travelers’ exception) and two derogations (IC and MRM conditions) from the prohibition against the marketing of seal products in the EU. The Appellate Body (AB) report in this dispute is controversial in its interpretation of ‘technical regulation’ under the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement, as it has limited the scope of the Agreement to assess technical regulatory measures impacting trade. Further, such an interpretation is not supported by the previous Appellate Body rulings. From a legal standpoint, the dispute provides key differences between the National Treatment and Most-Favored Treatment principles of GATT 1994 as compared to the TBT Agreement The interpretation of ‘public morals’ makes the dispute a rare decision dealing with both the protection of public morals and animal welfare. It sheds light on the application of the chapeau of Art. XX GATT 1994 as it clarifies the importance of cooperative agreements and negotiations with the affected Members of the WTO prior to the imposition of any measure that may lead to an arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination. Given the role of WTO as an organization with defined priorities; the AB’s holding that the animal welfare scheme by the EC violates the WTO obligations does not mean that WTO law does not recognize animal welfare as a moral concern. The ruling in this dispute is against the discriminatory application of such a measure. The AB has provided a balanced outcome in this dispute under Art. XX GATT 1994, even though there are some technical inconsistencies in the reasoning as regards the scope of the TBT Agreement.

This article comments on the decision LG Frankfurt, 25 September 2019, 2-06 O 649/12 which held that German courts had international jurisdiction over a parent company whose subsidiary was involved in a cartel. The article notes that this is the first time that German courts have acknowledged parental liability for damages, that jurisdiction should have been based on art. 8 No. 1 (instead of art. 7 No 2) of Regulation 1215/2012, and discusses the consequences of a direct application of Art. 101(1) TFEU as a basis for a cartel damages claim.

French Abstract: Note de cas La partie dediee aux notes de case permettra d’identifier et d’analyser d’importants arrets remis par des tribunaux du monde entier qui ont faconne l’interpretation et l’application des legislations et reglementations visant les produits chimiques. Affaires liees au programme d’autorisation REACH du printemps 2019 : les lecons a tirer des demandes d’autorisation REACH Affaire T-837/16 Royaume de Suede contre Commission europeenne ; Affaire T-108/17 Client Earth contre Commission europeenne ; Marcus Navin-Jones En fevrier, mars et avril de cette annee (2019), d’importantes decisions ont ete rendues en ce qui concerne les autorisations REACH. Ces arrets du printemps 2019 – dont certains furent rendus par le Tribunal de l’UE (ci-apres le « Tribunal ») et d’autres adoptes par la Commission europeenne – permettent de tirer des observations essentielles et des lecons utiles sur la maniere dont les demandeurs devraient remplir leurs demandes d’autorisation REACH, ainsi que sur la facon dont l’Agence europeenne des produits chimiques (ECHA) et la Commission devraient examiner ces demandes. Au moment de la redaction de la presente note, il convient de signaler que certaines de ces decisions devraient etre contestees ou faire l’objet d’un recours. Ainsi, il pourrait exister d’autres points a partir desquels les demandeurs d’une autorisation REACH pourraient tirer des lecons dans ces affaires. L’objectif du present article est de mettre brievement en lumiere certains des principaux points des decisions relatives aux autorisations REACH rendues au cours du printemps 2019. Plus particulierement, cet article resume certains points essentiels abordes dans : (1) Affaire T-837/16 Royaume de Suede contre Commission europeenne (ci-apres l’« affaire de la Suede ») ; (2) Affaire T-108/17 Client Earth contre Commission europeenne (ci-apres l’« affaire Client Earth ») ; et (3) la premiere decision de la Commission europeenne refusant une demande d’autorisation REACH (ci-apres l’« affaire HAPOC »). English Abstract: Case note The section dedicated to case notes will identify and analyse important decisions handed down by courts around the world that have shaped the interpretation and application of laws and regulations on chemicals. Cases related to the REACH authorisation programme of spring 2019: lessons to be learned from REACH authorisation requests Case T-837/16 Kingdom of Sweden v European Commission; Case T-108/17 Client Earth v. European Commission; Marcus Navin-Jones In February, March and April of this year (2019), important decisions were taken on REACH authorisations. These spring 2019 judgments - some of which were delivered by the EU Tribunal (hereinafter the "Tribunal") and others adopted by the European Commission - provide essential observations and useful lessons on how applicants should complete their REACH applications for authorisation, as well as on how the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the Commission should examine these applications. At the time of writing, it should be noted that some of these decisions should be challenged or appealed. Thus, there may be other points from which REACH applicants could learn lessons in these cases. The purpose of this article is to briefly highlight some of the main points of the decisions on REACH authorisations taken in spring 2019. In particular, this article summarizes some of the key points addressed in: (1) Case T-837/16 Kingdom of Sweden v European Commission (hereinafter the "Swedish case"); (2) Case T-108/17 Client Earth v European Commission (hereinafter the "Client Earth case"); and (3) the first decision of the European Commission refusing a REACH authorisation application (hereinafter the "HAPOC case").

Since the signing of the Singapore Convention on Mediation in August this year, there has been an increased interest on the enforceability of settlement agreements, particularly those arising from mediation. The case of Law Chau Loon v Alphire Group Pte Ltd [2019] SGHC 275 from the Singapore High Court provides us with some general legal principles to consider when a settlement agreement is drafted. Although mediation did not take place between the parties in dispute, the principles stated by the High Court here remain relevant to the drafting of binding mediated settlement agreements (MSAs). This case is essential reading for mediators and lawyers involved in mediations in which Singapore law may be applicable in relation to enforcement.

In this post on the Kluwer Mediation Blog, the 2019 decision of the Singapore High Court, Jumaiah bte Amir and Another v Salim bin Abdul Rashid, is analysed. The decision is relevant to the drafting of mediated settlement agreements (MSAs) as it deals with interpretation; it is also indicative of the Singapore courts’ approach to mediation confidentiality.

In the rapidly developing cyber sphere of e-commerce and Fintech, dominated by cryptocurrencies and code, it is perhaps not uncommon for firms to focus on cutting-edge technological developments, leaving the law behind as an afterthought. However, the case of B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd (“B2C2”) may serve as a timely reminder of the importance of the legal principles supporting e-commerce and Fintech. In the first case of its kind, B2C2 raised several key questions before the Singapore International Commercial Court, seeking clarification on how the established legal concepts of breach of trust, mistake and unjust enrichment might apply in the context where an automated contract-forming software had produced unusual results. This decision represents the most comprehensive treatment by a Commonwealth court of the legal nature of cryptocurrencies and automated contract-forming software to date; a harbinger of further and more complex litigation to come, as disputes involving e-commerce and Fintech gradually start to reach the courts. In our recent case note, Cryptocurrencies and Code before the Courts (forthcoming in Kings Law Journal), we examine the decision in B2C2 and argue that while the case appeared novel, proper characterisation of the facts allowed existing legal doctrines to be applied.

Hot off the press, the case of Chan Gek Yong v Violet Netto (practising as L F Violet Netto) and another and another matter [2018] SGHC 208 (‘Violet Netto’) decided by the Singapore High Court provides us with clues as to the Court’s general attitude towards mediation and mediated settlement agreements (‘MSAs’). It is useful to reflect on the Singapore Court’s attitude towards mediation in light of the introduction of the Singapore Mediation Act (No. 1 of 2017) – which has been in effect since 1 November 2017 – and the emergence of the draft Singapore Convention on Mediation, which is expected to be adopted by the UN General Assembly later this year with a signing ceremony expected in August 2019.

This Article details the extensive court hearings in the Charlie Gard saga from the High Court through the European Court of Justice. It is intended as a briefing case note on all five court hearings in a concise academic journal. The author touches on the main areas of law referred to by all of the sitting judges and the impact it has had on the present case; the piece is then concluded with an analysis on the current law as a result.

Case note on the Upper Tribunal decision in Fowler v HMRC. See http://ssrn.com/abstract=3006295 for a note (jointly with Johnann Hattingh) on the First-tier Tribunal decision.

MELITA Jackson died in 2004, leaving an estate worth £486,000. In 2002, she had made a will in which she left a £5,000 legacy to the BBC Benevolent Fund and divided the remainder of her estate between the Blue Cross, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (“the Charities”). Mrs. Jackson had also written a letter of wishes in which she explained her decision to exclude her only daughter, Heather, from her will. Heather had left home in 1978 at the age of 17, without her mother's knowledge or agreement, in order to live with Mr. Ilott, whom Heather later married. Mrs. Jackson clearly disapproved of her daughter's choice of lifestyle. Heather and her husband had five children (the last one living at home, being due to go to university in 2015) and lived in straitened financial circumstances. For example, Heather never went on holiday, found it difficult to afford clothes for the children and a range of food, and possessed many items that were old or second-hand. Despite attempts at reconciliation, mother and daughter were estranged for some 26 years, and Heather was fully aware before Mrs. Jackson's death that she was due to be excluded from the will.

German Abstract: Urteilsanmerkung zu der EuGH-Vorlage zum Anwendungsbereich der Rom III-VO im Fall der Anerkennung einer "Privatscheidung", welche vor einem religiosen Gericht in Syrien vorgenommen wurde. Der EuGH lehnte eine Entscheidung wegen "offensichtlicher Unzustandigkeit" ab, da kein EU-Recht zur Frage stunde. Meiner Ansicht nach hat der EuGH den Begriff der "Anerkennung" falsch, und nur formal auf die "Anerkennung" auslandischer Gerichtsentscheidungen bezogen. Im Gegensatz hierzu ging das vorlegende Gericht von der "kollisionsrechtlichen" Anerkennung aus, welche die Annahme von im Ausland vorgenommenen Rechtshandlungen im Inland regelt.English Abstract: Case note to the preliminary ruling of the CJEU on the Rome III regulation and the recognition of a "private" divorce obtained at a religious court in Syria. The CJEU declined her competence to decide the case, as the question did not regard a question of EU law. I argue that the CJEU most probably misunderstood the concept of "recognition" as only understanding it referring to the formal "recognition" of foreign judgments while some jurisdictions (the one here included) also use the term "recognition" for the acceptance of other legal acts which happened abroad but can have effects in the domestic system.

The present note revisits the Court’s approach to interpretation under Article 60 of its Statute in Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States, Request for Interpretation). It argues that, in its Judgment, the Court felt constrained by the text of the provision in entertaining its powers, adopting an approach that favored form over substance. The note further suggests that, instead, the Court took a much more sensible and pragmatic approach in its Order on Provisional Measures.

This case note concerns the International Court of Justice's March 2014 provisional measures order in Questions Relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v Australia), a case that raises novel issues regarding the integrity of international dispute settlement.

The working paper includes a collection of the case notes written by the national judges who attended the European Networking and Training for National Competition Enforcers (ENTraNCE 2012). The training program was organized by the RSCAS between September 2012 and June 2013 with the financial contribution of DG Competition of the European Commission. The case notes included in the working paper summarize judgments of new EU Member States and candidate countries related to different aspects of competition law enforcement. The working paper thus aims at increasing the understanding of the challenges faced by the national judiciary in enforcing national and EU competition in the context of the decentralized regime of competition law enforcement introduced by Reg. 1/2003.

The article constitutes a case note on a recent (18 July 2014) decision by the PCA in the Energy Charter Treaty arbitration between the former shareholders of Yukos and the Russian Federation. In the award, the tribunal has unanimously found Russia had breached its obligations arising from the ECT and has awarded the claimants over 50 billion USD in compensation. In addition to mentioning the material facts of the award, the article presents certain possible future developments in relation to the ruling.

This case note discusses Case C-270/12 United Kingdom v European Parliament and Council [2014] (not yet reported), regarding certain powers of the European Securities and Markets Authority under the Short-Selling Regulation.

Mandatory mediation for only part of a dispute; costs awarded for an unreasonable act; and mediation media watch.

This case note analyses the Invitel case, referred to the CJEU by the Hungarian Pest Megyei Birosag, via the preliminary reference procedure, and places Invitel within the context of a line of recent CJEU jurisprudence concerning the assessment of contractual terms as to their unfairness and the interpretation of the provisions of the UCTD, where the main proceedings are brought not by an individual but in the public interest by a public, consumer protection body. The case note analyses certain dimensions of the case, including the relationship between the finding of invalidity and availability of an injunction, and the compatibility of a national system of collective effects with the UCTD, within the broader context of the effective judicial protection and enforcement of consumer rights.

Arbitration application stayed without adjudication of the merits; power of the Federal Court of Australia to enforce an arbitral award.

This landmark case, which is also known as the ELSI case, is cited in International Court of Justice Reports, as Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) Judgment of 20 July, 1989, in ICJ Reports (1989): 15.The Chamber was composed of Judge Ruda (as President), Judge Oda, Judge Ago, Judge Schwebel and Sir Robert Jennings.

On 21 August 2012, the Court of Appeal issued a landmark decision that elucidates the conditions under which a person has legal standing to challenge legislation for being in violation of a constitutional right in Singapore. In allowing the appeal and finding that the appellant in the case of Tan Eng Hong had locus standi to argue that s. 377A of the Penal Code infringes art. 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the decision enabled the fate of a contentious criminal provision to be determined by a full hearing. As doctrinal analysis of this decision will undoubtedly be forthcoming and abundant, this commentary will examine its implications from a different angle.

The Court of Appeal in the recent case of Wee Siew Bock laid down the legal proposition that “a dominant owner has no proprietary interest in the [servient] land”. This, it is respectfully submitted, raises doubts as to the true nature of an easement. This particular proposition is unfortunate as it will be demonstrated that an easement is indeed a proprietary interest in the servient land.

This short article is a response piece to a case note review of the U.K. Supreme Court judgment in the case of Sienkiewicz v Greif (2011), and seeks to challenge the argument made in the case note that epidemiological evidence, and scientific evidence in general are as a result of the decision reached by the Supreme Court to be considered as having little or no validity in mesothelioma actions.

This case note examines tort law with respect to landlords' duty of care to tenants in Tennessee. The note analyzes a case from 2009 involving the Memphis Housing Authority and the death of one of its tenants by the criminal act of another tenant.

In Pleasant Grove v. Summum, the United States Supreme Court held that it is constitutional for the City of Pleasant Grove, Utah to deny a religious group’s request to place a monument in a park even though a donated monument of the Ten Commandments was already on display there. This case note examines the progression of the law before this decision, as well as the changes it made and the possible repercussions to come.

This case note deals with the latest case law in relation to the issue of the enforceability of deeds of settlement reached at mediation.The issue for the court was whether the parties had reached a binding agreement at a second mediation. The case analysed whether agreement was reached in the mediation or whether it was to be reached over the negotiation of the contents of the deed of settlement ultimately executed by the parties at the conclusion of those negotiations.

The purpose of the present case note is to present and comment a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Cyprus, which accepted as a defence to alleged human rights violations, the doctrine of “act of government”.

This case note considers the rule of law implications of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in Gillan and Quinton v. UK (App no 4158/05, 12 Jan 2010, nyr) involving the UK’s stop and search powers under the Terrorism Act 2000.

The case notes that in early 2001, despite growth in accounts and assets, the online brokerage industry suffers from the stock market decline. Snapshots of financial situation of Merrill Lynch, Charles Schwab, and E*Trade are compared to give students a clear picture of the situation at that time.

Case note on decision of High Court of Australia in Al-Kateb v Godwin - Court held that unlawful non-citizens able to be detained indefinitely without such detention being considered punitive and thus prohibited - critique of line of reasoning of Justice McHugh in attempting to limit influence of international law in interpreting Constitution.