Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:54:44.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CHOICE OF LAW AND ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS: RELOCATING COMITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2013

Cameron Sim
Cameron Sim*
Affiliation:
Judicial Assistant, [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

English private international law generally gives a potential role, where appropriate, to foreign law, by allowing for the application of choice of law rules to determine its relevance. Yet in the context of anti-suit injunctions granted otherwise than in aid of a contractual right not to be sued, choice of law is conspicuously absent. In those cases, courts simply apply the lex fori without paying any regard to foreign law, although the notion of comity is taken into account in the final decision on whether to grant anti-suit relief. Clearer identification of the grounds for granting such relief should limit application of the lex fori to instances where the anti-suit injunction serves as a form of ancillary relief to protect the judicial processes of the forum, and in which comity plays no role. In all other cases, which ultimately concern private justice between the parties, comity is best understood as an expression of justice in cases involving foreign elements, and better reflected through choice of law rules, which might lead to the application of foreign law. This approach is preferable to invoking comity as a consideration relating to the manner in which the court regulates the grant of anti-suit relief, because courts tend to bestow rights, which parties may not otherwise have, under the cloak of comity. Understanding comity as the catalyst for taking account of foreign law assuages concerns about interfering with foreign courts, acts as a deterrent to remedy shopping, and provides greater certainty as regards the vindication of rights. The case for widening the application of choice of law in this context does not depend on Rome II, but if the principle is accepted, courts must follow the process which it specifies.

Keywords

anti-suit injunctionchoice of lawcomityequitylex foriprivate international lawRome II
Type
Shorter Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 62 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 703 - 726
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Case C-159/02 Turner v Grovit [2004] ECR I–3565; Case C-185/07 Allianz SpA (formerly Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA) v West Tankers Inc [2009] ECR I-663. It is now clear that the revised Brussels I Regulation, which will apply from 20 January 2015, will not resuscitate the anti-suit injunction in litigation and arbitration taking place within the EU.

2 The argument that European law should be applied by analogy to anti-suit injunctions granted in respect of proceedings before non-EU courts has been given short shrift. See eg Shashoua v Sharma [2009] EWHC 957 (Comm), [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 477 [35]–[39]; Midgulf International Ltd v Group Chimique Tunisien [2010] EWCA Civ 66, [2010] 2 Lloyd's Rep 543 [67]–[69].

3 That is, an anti-suit injunction granted otherwise than in aid of a contractual right not to be sued.

4 Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd (No 3) [2008] EWCA Civ 625, [2009] QB 503.

5 OT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corp [2005] EWCA Civ 710, [2006] 1 All ER(Comm) 32 [73]; Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA v Enesa Engenharia SA [2012] EWCA Civ 638, [2013] 1 WLR 302.

6 As will become evident, the common law and equity division ought only be considered relevant after English law is determined to be applicable.

7 Briggs, A, ‘Anti-Suit Injunctions: a Pause for Thought’ [1997] LMCLQ 90Google Scholar.

8 Masri (n 4); Royal Bank Of Scotland Plc v Hicks [2010] EWHC 2579 (Ch) (Liverpool (No 1)); Royal Bank Of Scotland Plc v Hicks [2011] EWHC 287 (Ch) (Liverpool (No 2)); Star Reefers Pool Inc v JFC Group Co Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 14, [2012] 2 All ER (Comm) 225.

9 Harris, J, ‘Anti-Suit Injunctions: A Home Comfort?’ [1997] LMCLQ 413Google Scholar; Fawcett, J, Carruthers, J, and North, Sir Peter, Cheshire, North & Fawcett: Private International Law (14th edn, OUP 2008) 459–60Google Scholar. See also Raphael, T, The Anti-Suit Injunction (OUP 2008)Google Scholar [3.12].

10 Yeo, TM, Choice of Law for Equitable Doctrines (OUP 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar [4.51], [4.76].

11 Senior Courts Act 1981, s 37(1).

12 Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64, [2002] 1 All ER 749 [19].

13 Fourie v Le Roux [2007] UKHL 1, [2007] 1 WLR 320 [30].

14 Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v Lee Kui Jak [1987] AC 871 (PC) 893–97.

15 ibid 871; Hyman v Helm (1883) LR 24 Ch D 531 (CA) 537–42.

16 British Airways Board v Laker Airways Ltd [1985] AC 58, 95; Turner v Grovit [2001] UKHL 65, [2002] 1 WLR 107 [23]–[25].

17 Aérospatiale (n 14) 896–97; see eg Elektrim SA v Vivendi Holdings 1 Corp [2008] EWCA Civ 1178, [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 213 [82]–[83]; Deutsche Bank AG v Highland Crusader Offshore Partners LP [2009] EWCA Civ 725, [2010] 1 WLR 1023 [50].

18 Masri (n 4) [45].

19 Donohue (n 12). However, there has been some recent uncertainty concerning the requirement that England be the ‘natural forum’, and the appropriateness of injunctive relief in some instances. See further Briggs, A and Rees, P, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (5th edn, Informa 2009)Google Scholar [5.41]–[5.42].

20 The Court of Appeal has interpreted Turner (n 16) as setting out these two categories: Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v Pakistan [2002] EWCA Civ 1643, [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 571 [39]–[40]; OT Africa Line (n 5) [63]. See also Fawcett, Carruthers, and North (n 9) 458.

21 Lord Collins of Mapesbury (ed), Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws (15th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2012)Google Scholar [12-080]–[12-082]. A similar approach is adopted in Briggs and Rees (n 19) [5.43]–[5.48]. Jonathan Hill and Adeline Chong draw a similar, but more limited, categorization between legal/equitable rights, and unconscionability: International Commercial Disputes: Commercial Conflict of Laws in English Courts (4th edn, Hart Publishing 2010) [11.2.1].

22 Fentiman, R, International Commercial Litigation (OUP 2010)Google Scholar [15.26]–[15.30]; Raphael (n 9) [4.15]–[4.16].

23 Briggs, A, ‘Anti-Suit Injunctions in a Complex World’ in Rose, F (ed), Lex Mercatoria: Essays on International Commercial Law in Honour of Francis Reynolds (LLP Professional Publishing 2000) 219Google Scholar, 243.

24 Briggs, ‘Pause for Thought’ (n 7) 92.

25 Fentiman (n 22) [15.23(ii)].

26 Raphael (n 9) [3.12].

27 Masri (n 4) [1]–[7].

28 Longman LJ and Sir Anthony Clarke MR agreeing.

29 Airbus Industrie GIE v Patel [1999] 1 AC 119 (HL) 134–37.

30 ibid 137–38. Whilst differing circumstances may exist as regards the number of jurisdictions in which proceedings might be commenced, it is not apparent why this should result in different outcomes to otherwise identical applications for anti-suit relief. These rules also favour the respondent to the anti-suit application where he points to the sole court in which he claims he might win: see further Briggs, A, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law (OUP 2008) 102Google Scholar.

31 Masri (n 4) [44].

32 Collins LJ was considering the rules for service out under the then existing CPR r 6.20, which has since been replaced by CPR r 6.36 and CPR Practice Direction 6B [3.1].

33 Knight, CJS, ‘The Continued Rise (And Future Fall?) of the Anti-Suit Injunction’ (2009) 20 KCLJ 137, 140–41Google Scholar; Raphael (n 9) [3.11]. Raphael submits that these concerns apply with equal force under the new wording of the CPR: Raphael, T, The Anti-Suit Injunction: Updating Supplement (OUP 2010)Google Scholar [18.12].

34 Raphael (n 9) [3.08].

35 Trafigura Beheer BV v Kookmin Bank Co [2006] EWHC 1921 (Comm), [2007] 1 Lloyd's Rep 669 [44].

36 Yeo (n 10) [4.75].

37 (n 8).

38 ibid.

39 ibid.

40 Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Hicks [2010] EWHC 2568 (Ch) [22]–[36].

41 ibid [36], [48].

42 The application involved several parties and financial agreements, but this simplification of the facts is sufficient for present purposes.

43 Liverpool (No 1) (n 8) [5], [8].

44 ibid [14].

45 ibid [7], [25].

46 ibid [29].

47 Liverpool (No 2) (n 8) (emphasis added).

48 ibid [61]. In Hospira UK Ltd v Eli Lilly & Company [2008] EWHC 1862 [9] Floyd J said obiter that the court's power to grant an anti-suit injunction stems from its inherent jurisdiction and relied on authorities relating to vexatious litigants to support this proposition. With respect, this is erroneous, because there are clear differences between vexatious litigants and vexation in the anti-suit injunction context: Raphael (n 9) [6.19].

49 cf Bank of Tokyo Ltd v Karoon [1987] AC 45 (CA) 69.

50 One commentator suggests that anti-suit injunctions are concerned with jurisdiction and fall to be governed by private international law: Zuckerman, A, Zuckerman on Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice (2nd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2006) [9.4]Google Scholar. Another simply suggests they are a method to protect parties from abuse of process: Andrews, N, English Civil Procedure: Fundamentals of the New Civil Justice System (OUP 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar [16.27].

51 See eg Harms Offshore AHT Taurus GmbH & Co KG v Bloom [2009] EWCA Civ 632, [2010] Ch 187 [26]–[27].

52 Gee, S, Commercial Injunctions (5th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2004)Google Scholar [14.026].

53 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199 [93]–[95]. In CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 345, 390–92, the majority of the High Court of Australia recognized the inherent jurisdiction of Australian courts to do so.

54 Abuse of process allows the courts to prevent misuse of procedure in a way which would be manifestly unfair to a party, or would otherwise bring the administration of justice into disrepute, where such misuse would be contrary to the public interest and the relevant matters do not fall under cause of action estoppel or issue estoppel: Arthur JS Hall & Co v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615 (HL); Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands [1982] AC 529 (HL).

55 Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1, 120.

56 Turner v Grovit [2000] QB 345 (CA) 357–58.

57 Incorrect use of the term abuse of process might represent a malapropism from cross-applying language on stays of proceedings to the anti-suit injunction context: Raphael (n 9) [4.32].

58 Jolowicz, JA, ‘Abuse of the Process of the Court: Handle With Care’ (1990) 43 CLP 77, 90–3Google Scholar.

59 Andrews (n 50) [16.09].

60 The failure to fully rationalize the law on anti-suit injunctions in the insolvency context has been lamented: Chan Ho, L, ‘Anti-Suit Injunctions in Cross-Border Insolvency: A Restatement’ (2003) 52 ICLQ 697, 725–35Google Scholar.

61 Briggs, A, ‘Enforcing and Reinforcing an English Judgment’ [2008] LMCLQ 421Google Scholar, 425.

62 This includes attack on a final injunction, following the grant of which (although subject to engagement of appellate mechanisms) the processes of the forum no longer remain engaged.

63 Star Reefers (n 8) [4]–[21].

64 ibid [34].

65 Which had been granted by Clarke J on 15 October 2010 (unreported): ibid [14]–[15].

66 Star Reefers Pool Inc v JFC Group Co Ltd [2010] EWHC 3003 (Comm) [19].

67 ibid [20]–[25].

68 Sullivan LJ and Lewison LJ agreeing.

69 Star Reefers (n 8) [2].

70 ibid.

71 ibid.

72 ibid [3].

73 Rix LJ said this test did not apply to single forum cases, because these are ‘exceptional in nature’: ibid [30].

74 ibid [2].

75 ibid [42]. This is also very different to the account Rix LJ gives in Glencore International AG v Metro Trading International Inc (No 3) [2002] EWCA Civ 528, [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 1 [42]–[43].

76 Star Reefers (n 8) [42].

77 Even if transnational public policy is slowly emerging, which not everyone accepts, such policy would appear to be limited to certain rules of public international law and universal principles of morality and justice: Chong, A, ‘Transnational Public Policy in Civil and Commercial Matters’ (2012) 128 LQR 88Google Scholar.

78 Raphael speaks of the need for a ‘system-transcendent reason’ to make it appropriate for English courts to intervene when the laws of a foreign jurisdiction would invalidate an exclusive choice of court clause, suggesting a possible candidate for this rationale to be the principle of freedom of contract: Raphael (n 9) [1.30]. But he also acknowledges that identification of system-transcendent justifications is imperfect, because English courts are still imposing their view of transcendence: ibid [8.21]. The idea of system-transcendence thereby falls away rather abruptly.

79 Atlantic Star (Owners) v Bona Spes (Owners) (The Atlantic Star) [1973] QB 364 (CA) 382.

80 Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460 (HL).

81 Star Reefers (n 8) [22].

82 ibid [31].

83 ibid [39].

84 ibid [37].

85 Masri (n 4) [95].

86 ibid [40].

87 Raphael (n 9) [3.11].

88 Patel (n 29) 133–34.

89 Turner (n 16) [28].

90 The Angelic Grace [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 87 (CA) 96.

91 Hartley, T C, ‘Comity and the Use of Antisuit Injunctions in International Litigation’ (1987) AmJCompL 487, 506Google Scholar.

92 Laker (n 16) 95; Patel (n 29) 138.

93 Liverpool (No 2) (n 8) [61].

94 Barclays Bank Plc v Homan [1993] BCLC 680, 687.

95 Dr Mann viewed comity as ‘so elusive and imprecise a term as to render its use unhelpful and confusing’, with a ‘deplorable influence … liable to produce false analogies and unacceptable results’: Mann, FA, Foreign Affairs in English Courts (OUP 1986) 136CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 149. For similar criticisms, see Collier, JG, Conflict of Laws (3rd edn, CUP 2003) 379Google Scholar; Fawcett, Carruthers and North (n 9) 5.

96 159 US 113 (1895).

97 It is said to be the most commonly cited statement of comity in US law: Paul, JR, ‘Comity in International Law’ (1991) 32 HarvIntlLJ 40Google Scholar, 44.

98 Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye [1990] 3 SCR 1077, 1096 (Supreme Court of Canada); CSR v Cigna (n 53) 395–96 (High Court of Australia).

99 In re Johnson [1903] 1 Ch 821 (Ch) 829 appears to accept the statement as authoritative. Following a long hiatus, the next reported reference to Hilton, whilst not criticizing this definition, suggests that it does not represent English law: Homan (n 94) 703.

100 Hilton (n 96) 163–64.

101 Collins, L, ‘Comity in Modern Private International Law’ in Fawcett, J (ed), Reform and Development of Private International Law: Essays in Honour of Sir Peter North (OUP 2002) 91–95Google Scholar.

102 Gutzwiller, M, Geschichte des Internationalprivatrechts (Helbing & Lichtenhahn 1977) 137Google Scholar.

103 ibid 136.

104 Childress, DE, ‘Comity as Conflict: Resituating International Comity as Conflict of Laws’ (2010) 44 UCDavisLRev 1Google Scholar, 19.

105 ibid 23.

106 Dicey, A V, The Conflict of Laws (1st edn, Sweet & Maxwell 1896) 10Google Scholar.

107 Westlake, J, A Treatise on Private International Law: With Principal Reference to its practice in England (4th edn, Norman Bentwich 1905) 21–2Google Scholar.

108 Collins, Dicey, Morris and Collins (n 21) [1-009].

109 ibid [1-008]–[1-017].

110 Masri (n 4) [16].

111 See eg Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Corp [2002] UKHL 19, [2002] 2 AC 883 [138].

112 See eg The Abidin Daver [1984] AC 398, 411 (HL).

113 Amchem Products Inc v British Colombia (Workers’ Compensation Board) [1993] 1 SCR 897 [51].

114 ibid [53]–[56].

115 Edgard Elias Joujou v Munib Masri [2011] EWCA Civ 746 [55].

116 Gutzwiller (n 102) 136.

117 R Fentiman, ‘Anti-Suit Injunctions: Comity Redux?’ (2012) CLJ 273, 275–6.

118 Loucks v Standard Oil Co, 120 NE 198 (NY 1918) 201–02.

119 Hilton (n 96) 168.

120 Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd (2005) 223 CLR 331, 363; Habib v Commonwealth (2010) 183 FCR 62, 77.

121 Donohue (n 12) [24].

122 OT Africa Line (n 5) [32].

123 Joint Stock Asset Management Company v BNP Paribas SA [2012] EWCA Civ 644 [68].

124 ibid [66].

125 See (n 17).

126 Goldring and Carnwath LJJ agreeing.

127 ibid [50].

128 Star Reefers (n 8) [40].

129 This brings to mind the second strand of the principle of non-justiciability, namely that in cases involving issues of interest to foreign states, courts should abstain from adjudication where to do otherwise would cause ‘embarrassment’ to the forum's executive: Buttes Gas and Oil Co v Hammer (No 3) [1982] AC 888, 938. As Lord Greene MR once said, ‘the fear of the embarrassment of the Executive [is not] a very attractive basis upon which to build a rule of … law’: Kawasaki Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha of Kobe v Bantham Steamship Co [1939] 2 KB 544, 552. The same might be said in respect of the idea of causing offence to a foreign judiciary.

130 See (nn 28–30) and surrounding text.

131 Patel (n 29) 138.

132 ibid 138–139.

133 ibid 139.

134 Kuwait Airways (n 111) [15].

135 Briggs, Agreements on Jurisdiction (n 30) [2.20]. On the argument that contractual choice of law clauses are promissory terms, see ibid [11.45]–[11.58]. For rejection of that argument in favour of the view that such clauses are merely declaratory of the parties’ intention, see Ace Insurance Ltd v Moose Enterprise Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 724 [41]–[53].

136 Although parties must have pleaded and proven the foreign law.

137 McClean, D and Beevers, K, Morris: The Conflict of Laws (7th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2009)Google Scholar [21-008].

138 Kerwin, J, ‘A Choice of Law Approach for International Antisuit Injunctions’ (2003) 81 TexasLRev 927Google Scholar, 935.

139 Star Reefers (n 8) [31].

140 Currie, B, Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws (Duke University Press 1963) 52Google Scholar.

141 For present purposes, these propositions are examined outside Currie's governmental interests analysis.

142 Currie (n 140) 52–3.

143 McKain v R W Miller & Co (South Australia) Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 1, 23, 50.

144 ibid 57–58.

145 Fawcett, Carruthers, and North (n 9) 118; Mann (n 95) 167.

146 cf Lucasfilm Limited v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39, [2012] 1 AC 208 [69]–[86] and the discussion about whether the conflict of laws rules as regards tortious conduct abroad have undermined the older decisions. See also Garnett, R, ‘Foreign States in Australian Courts’ (2005) 29 MULR 704Google Scholar, 717–18.

147 Re Enforcement of an English Anti-Suit Injunction [1997] ILPr 320 [13].

148 Briggs, ‘Pause for Thought’ (n 7).

149 Patel (n 29) 127–8.

150 The Bangalore City Civil Court did not enjoy international jurisdiction over all respondents, so the final anti-suit injunction it had granted was not entirely effective: ibid 140.

151 Barnard, L, ‘Choice of Law in Equitable Wrongs: A Comparative Analysis’ [1992] CLJ 474CrossRefGoogle Scholar was a start, but did not consider anti-suit injunctions.

152 See eg Paramasivam v Flynn (1998) 90 FCR 489 (Full Crt) 503.

153 ibid.

154 Yeo (n 10); Garnett, R, Substance and Procedure in Private International Law (OUP 2012)Google Scholar [4.57], [4.63].

155 Yeo (n 10) [2.10]–[2.12].

156 ibid [2.13]–[2.18].

157 ibid [2.19]–[2.30].

158 Briggs, A, ‘Decisions of British Courts Involving Questions of Private International Law’ (2001) 72 BYIL 437, 443Google Scholar.

159 Yeo (n 10) [2.19]–[2.20].

160 ibid [2.19].

161 See eg OJSC Oil Co Yugraneft v Abramovich [2008] EWHC 2613 (Comm); Collins, Dicey, Morris and Collins (n 21) [34-084]–[34-085].

162 Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1.

163 Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, section 11. This excludes defamation (section 13), and is subject to displacement (section 12).

164 Garnett, Substance and Procedure (n 154) [3.27].

165 Gummow J concedes that ‘[t]he hostile reaction in Europe to the anti-suit injunction … may indicate dangers of the universalist assumptions made by English equity’: WMC Gummow, ‘Foreword’ in Yeo (n 10) vi.

166 Cavers, DF, The Choice-of-Law Process (University of Michigan Press 1965) 269Google Scholar.

167 Similar criticisms were directed at Cavers following his argument for changes to the choice of law approach in the US: ibid 268.

168 Parker v TUI UK Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1261 [22]–[23].

169 Damberg v Damberg (2001) 52 NSWLR 492, 522; The Ship ‘Mercury Bell’ v Amosin (1986) 27 DLR (4th) 641, 650–52.

170 cf Cavers (n 166) 273.

171 In New South Wales, the Supreme Court rules have been amended to allow for this (with the consent of parties) and specific memoranda have been agreed with the courts of New York and Singapore: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) section 125; Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 6.42–6.45; Spigelman, JJ, ‘Proof of Foreign Law by Reference to the Foreign Court’ (2011) 127 LQR 208, 214–16Google Scholar.

172 Coupland v Arabian Gulf Oil Co [1983] 1 WLR 1136 (CA) 1153.

173 Briggs, A, ‘Choice of Choice of Law’ [2003] LMCLQ 12Google Scholar, 15.

174 ibid.

175 ibid 31.

176 Briggs and Rees (n 19) [5.43].

177 Rome II art 1(1).

178 Rome I art 1(1).

179 Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG v Five Star Trading LLC [2001] EWCA Civ 68, [2001] QB 825 [43].

180 Rome I art 1(2)(e).

181 Briggs, Agreements on Jurisdiction (n 30) [4.08].

182 OT Africa Line (n 5) [73].

183 As is explored below, injunctions granted to protect the processes of the forum do not fall within the scope of Rome I.

184 Raphael (n 9) [4.08].

185 Garnett, Substance and Procedure (n 154) [4.63].

186 Briggs, ‘Pause for Thought’ (n 7) 93–94; Briggs, ‘Complex World’ (n 23) 242–43.

187 Briggs, ‘Pause for Thought’ (n 7) 93–94.

188 Yeo (n 10) [8.87].

189 Briggs, ‘Pause for Thought’ (n 7) 94.

190 Rome II art 1(3). See also Raphael (n 9) [4.09].

191 Turner (n 16) [24].

192 Dickinson, A, The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (OUP 2010)Google Scholar [4.109]–[4.111].

193 ibid [4.36]–[4.45], [4.109].

194 ibid [4.110]–[4.111]. See also Masri (n 4) [56].

195 Raphael (n 9) [4.07].

196 Briggs, A, ‘Conflict of Laws and Commercial Remedies’ in Burrows, A and Peel, E (eds), Commercial Remedies: Current Issues and Problems (6th edn, OUP 2003) 284–86Google Scholar.

197 ibid 285.

198 A Rushworth, ‘Remedies and International Private Law’ (D Phil Thesis, University of Oxford 2010) [7.68].

199 ibid [7.69].

200 Garnett, Substance and Procedure (n 154) [4.63].

201 Pfeiffer v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503 [97], [133]; Tolofson v Jensen (1994) 120 DLR (4th) 289, 321. See further Garnett, Substance and Procedure (n 154) [2.17]–[2.50].

202 Garnett, Substance and Procedure (n 154) [2.08].

203 Kahn-Freund, O, General Problems of Private International Law (Sijthoff 1976) 227–31Google Scholar.

204 Garnett, Substance and Procedure (n 154) [10.16].

205 Rome II art 15(d).

206 Plender, R and Wilderspin, M, The European Private International Law of Obligations (3rd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2009)Google Scholar [14.036]–[14.047].