The Recast of the Brussels I Regulation (1215/2012/EC) reforms EU law on jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters and includes long-awaited changes designed to prevent the use of the abusive tactic known as the Italian Torpedo to frustrate choice-of-court agreements. The new rules give priority in determining jurisdiction to a court designated by a prima facie valid agreement, even if litigation underway elsewhere was first in time. While this development has been broadly welcomed, it is unclear if the Recast's solution applies to related actions underway in other states as well as identical actions. Using a recent case from the Irish Supreme Court, in this article, we highlight that this possible omission could create significant problems, and calls into question the comprehensiveness of the Recast's solution to the problem of the Italian Torpedo.

This article explores a solution to the choice-of-law issues concerning both voluntary and involuntary assignments arising in a domestic forum. The focus is on English private international law rules relating to cross-border assignments. A distinction is made between primary and extended parties as the foundation for choice-of-law analysis. Drawing on insights from the distinction of the use value and exchange value of debts found in economics, this article proposes a new analytical framework for choice-of-law based on a modified choice-of-law theory of interest-analysis.

In the wake of the Faroe Islands fishing dispute, this article seeks to clarify the status of overseas territories in the World Trade Organization (WTO). The article considers the rule of public international law regarding the territorial application of treaties, the impact of territorial limitations in WTO goods and services schedules and the treaty actions of individual States responsible for the international relations of overseas territories. The article then explores the implications of WTO rights and obligations in respect of Members' overseas territories, including limitations on free riding and preferential treatment.

This article provides a thorough analysis of the employment contract in comparative European private law and Community law. It argues that a common concept of employment contract should prevail in European private law. In that respect, the autonomous and broad interpretation which has been given to the term ‘worker’ in Community law could be a basis for adoption of an autonomous concept of the employment contract in European private law.

A peculiar and unique agreement exists between Australia and Nauru, which has ensured that, since 1976, appeals may be brought from the Supreme Court of Nauru, an independent Republic, to the High Court of Australia by virtue of a bilateral treaty1 and statutes of the respective Parliaments.2 In 1998 and 1999 two High Court judgments left a question mark hanging over the constitutional validity of this appellate scheme.3 Furthermore, in 2001, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) expressed the view that Australia should terminate the agreement as the arrangement was of no perceived ‘utility’ to Australia.4 For 29 years only two rather trivial cases were appealed from the Supreme Court to Australia's High Court.5 In 2005 a much more significant case, Ruhani, 6 was appealed from Nauru to Australia. The case was not only significant in that it concerned the validity of the so-called ‘Pacific Solution’, which involved Australia holding asylum-seekers offshore in Nauru for the processing of their refugee claims, but it also raised doubts about the desirability of the offshore municipal model of foreign appeals. This article examines the latter of those issues, intending to demonstrate that the model of foreign appeal adopted in the Nauru Treaty is a compromised version of appeal in comparison with the other two more common models.

The general principle, best articulated in the leading case of British South Africa Company v. Companhia de Mocambique,1 is that a court in the Commonwealth will not entertain an action involving the title to foreign realty. However, there are two established exceptions. First, a court of equity will not refuse jurisdiction if the plaintiff's claim is based on contract, trust or fraud affecting the foreign land, and the court has jurisdiction in personam over the defendant.2In personam jurisdiction may be established if the defendant is present within the jurisdiction, submits to the court, or the court grants leave to serve notice of the writ out of the jurisdiction under Order 11, rule 1(1) (or its equivalent) of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Second, “in the exercise of the undoubted jurisdiction of the courts it may become necessary incidentally to investigate and determine the title to foreign lands”.3 Thus, if the court has jurisdiction to administer a trust or the estate of a deceased person, and the property includes property (whether movables or immovables) situated locally, and immovables situated abroad, the court will have jurisdiction to determine questions of title to the foreign immovables for the purposes of the administration.4 No contractual or fiduciary relationship need exist between the parties, and it seems unlikely that in personam jurisdiction is required.5

The judgment of 3 December 2009 in Commission v Germany touches upon the issue of improper implementation by a Member State (Germany) of the EU regulatory framework in the electronic communications sector.1 In this sense, the judgment in question belongs to the relatively large group of rulings in which the European Court of Justice (ECJ) categorizes the legislative actions (or inactions) of Member States in the field of electronic communications as infringing the Union secondary legislation.2 Undoubtedly, however, Commission v Germany constitutes a judgment that is of paramount importance within the above-mentioned group of rulings and deserves a particularly close attention. Being confronted here with the German rules that generally exempted the so-called new (emerging) markets in the sector concerned from ex ante regulation, the Court had an opportunity to express its views on such key regulatory issues as:

1. 1) the position of encouraging efficient investment in infrastructure, and promoting innovation within the hierarchy of objectives that the EU regulation in electronic communications sector aims to achieve;

2. 2) the scope of discretionary powers of national regulatory authorities (NRAs) in defining the markets susceptible to ex ante regulation, and in regulating those markets, including the markets having a new or emerging character;

3. 3) the role of national legislators in regulating electronic communications markets, and particularly the relationships between national legislators and NRAs in the field of regulation of the markets in question.