No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Judicial Unification of Private International Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Extract
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has generally been considered in the context of its constitutional function as the supreme court of appeal from the various parts of the British Commonwealth. This aspect of its work has suffered a gradual decrease as various parts of the Commonwealth, having obtained independence, have decided to bring to an end appeals to the Privy Council, as did Canada a few years ago. Yet this primary function is significant still, and has been of the greatest importance in the constitutional history of the Commonwealth, as well as in the history of the legal systems throughout that area. But this is not the story that should be told again in this place. One particular aspect of this principal function of the Judicial Committee which has been largely ignored is the contribution made by it to the development of a unified body of rules of conflict of laws throughout the Commonwealth. It is this international aspect which may be of interest to the two great legal scholars, Professor Offerhaus and Professor Kollewijn, to whom the present article is dedicated. It may be said at the outset that the decisions of the Judicial Committee have been accorded the greatest respect, amounting often to binding authority, in most Commonwealth countries, whether or not a particular decision was on appeal from the courts of the country concerned. This unifying consequence, whether or not deliberate, is no mean factor in the assessment of the contribution of the Judicial Committee to the construction of a widely unified and consistently applied body of private international law, for its scope is not limited to common law systems.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 9 , Issue 4: Special Issue: De Conflictu Legum, Essays Presented to RD Kollewijn and J Offerhaus , October 1962 , pp. 154 - 180
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1962
References
1. Whicker v. Hume (1858) 7 H.L.C. 124Google Scholar; Moorhouse v. Lord (1863) 10 H.L.C. 272Google Scholar; Bell v. Kennedy (1868) L. R. 1 Sc. & Div. 307Google Scholar; Udny v. Udny (1869) L.R. 1 Sc. & Div. 441.Google Scholar
2. Aspects Philosophiques du Droit International Privé, Paris (1956), p. 44.Google Scholar
3. Now published in book form by the Clarendon Press, 1919.
4. Jurisprudence and the Conflict of Laws (1919), p. 122.Google Scholar
5. Op. cit., p. 123.
6. Hull v. M'Kenna [1926] I.R. 402.Google Scholar
7. Judicial Committee Acts, 1833 and 1844.Google Scholar
8. Dicey, , The Law of the Constitution, 10th ed. (1960), pp. 375–381.Google Scholar
9. Wade, and Phillips, , Constitutional Law, 6th ed. (1960), p. 452.Google Scholar
10. [1941] A.C. 403.
11. Casdagli v. Casdagli [1918], P. 89, 106Google Scholar; Re Ross [1930] 1 Ch. 377Google Scholar; Re Askew [1930] 2 Ch. 259.Google Scholar
12. The Palestine Succession Ordinance of 1923 Section 4 (III).
13. [1918] P. 89, 106.
14. [1941] A.C. 403 at 414 up to 415.
15. [1939] A.C. 277. at 292.
16. In re United Railways of the Havana and Regla Warehouses Ltd. [1959] 2 W.L.R. 251 at 277 per Jenkins L.J.Google Scholar
17. See Ponoka Calmar Oils Ltd. v. Earl F. Wakefield Company [1960] A.C. 18.Google Scholar
18. [1893] A.C. 150.
19. [1958] A.C. 354.
20. Ross. v. Ross [1904] A.C. 287.Google Scholar
21. [1926] A.C. 444.
22. Stathatos v. Stathatos [1913], P. 46Google Scholar; De Montaigu v. De Montaigu [1913], P. 154.Google Scholar
23. Canadian Divorce Jurisdiction Act, 1930.Google Scholar
24. Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, S. 13.Google Scholar
25. [1898] P. 178 at 185.
26. [1926] A.C. 444 at 455.
27. [1926] A.C. 444 at 448–449.
28. At p. 450.
29. Discussed in Cowen, and da Costa, Mendes, Matrimonial Causes Jurisdiction (1961).Google Scholar
30. The reference in the judgment of the Judicial Committee to the granting of legislative divorces by the Dominion parliament in Canada presents an interesting instance of the different bases of legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the same matter. See Graveson, , Conflict of Laws, 4th ed., pp. 325–328.Google Scholar
31. Cheung Thye Phin v. Tan Ah Lay [1920] A.C. 369Google Scholar; Khoo Hooi Leong v. Khoo Hean Kwee [1926] A.C. 529Google Scholar; Khoo Hooi Leong v. KhooChong Yeok [1930] A.C. 346.Google Scholar
32. The question of ceremony was dealt with chiefly to dispose of an argument based on the so-called Six Widows Case, i.e. Choo Eng Choon v. Neo Chan Neo, 12 Straits Settlements Law Reports, 120Google Scholar, which was alleged to establish that a ceremony of marriage was necessary for the legitimate relationship of a secondary wife.
33. [1926] A.C. 529.
34. Choa Choon Neo v. Spottiswoode 1 Kyshe 216, 221Google Scholar; Yeap Cheah Neo v. Ong Cheng Neo L.R. 6 P.C. 381, 396.Google Scholar
35. [1930] A.C. 346 at 355.
36. [1946] P. 67 at p. 70.
37. [1866] L.R. 1 P. & M. 130.
38. Sowa v. Sowa [1961] P. 70 at 86.Google Scholar
39. See Legitimacy Act, 1959, s. 2.Google Scholar
40. [1955] A.C. 107.
41. [1961] A.C. 481.
42. [1930] A.C. 79.
43. [1930] A.C. 79 at p. 83.
44. [1953] A.C. 304.
45. It is interesting to note the interpretation of this case by the Court of Appeal in Taczanowska v. Taczanowski [1957] P. 301Google Scholar, at 328 and 329.
46. See Graveson, and Crane, (Editors) A Century of Family Law (1957), Ch. 13 (C.E.P. Davies).Google Scholar
47. L.R. 4 P.D. 1.
48. [1895] A.C. 517.
49. Le Mesurier v. Le Mesurier [1895] A.C. 517 at 540.Google Scholar
50. At p. 540.
51. See dicta in Ogden v. Ogden [1908] P. 46Google Scholar and the decisions in Stathatos v. Stathatos [1913] P. 46Google Scholar and De Montaigu v. De Montaigu [1913] P. 154.Google Scholar
52. The Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937Google Scholar, Section 13 has been embodied with a-mendments, first in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1949, and, most recently, in the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950.
53. [1878] L. R. 4 P.D. 1.
54. [1953] P. 246.
55. “…a decree of divorce a vinculo, pronounced by a Court whose jurisdiction is solely derived from some rule of municipal law peculiar to its forum, cannot, when it trenches upon the interests of any other country, to whose tribunals the spouses were amenable, claim extra-territorial authority.” Le Mesurier v. Le Mesurier [1895] A.C. 517 at 528.Google Scholar
56. Discussed in Graveson, , Conflict of Laws, 4th ed., 453–459.Google Scholar
57. [1926] A.C. 444, discussed above p. 151.
58. See Graveson, and Crane, (Editors), A Century of Family Law (1957) Chapter 16.Google Scholar
59. Spurrier v. La Cloche [1902] A.C. 446.Google Scholar
60. [1902] A.C. 446, at 450.
61. [1939] A.C. 224, at 232.
62. Id. at p. 240.
63. Id. at p. 241.
64. Lord Atkin, Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright and Lord Maugham.
65. R. v. International Trustee for Bondholders (1937) A.C. 500.Google Scholar
66. [1939] A.C. 277.
67. Id. at pp. 289–290.
68. Id. at p. 290.
69. Id. at p. 292.
70. [1920] 2 K.B. 287.
71. [1932] P. 78.
72. R. v. International Trustee for Bondholders [1937] A.C. 500.Google Scholar
73. In Spurrier v. La Cloche [1902] A.C. 446, at p. 450, cited above.Google Scholar
74. The Discharge of Foreign Monetary Obligations in the English Courts, in The Conflict of Laws and International Contracts, Univ. of Michigan Law School, 1951.Google Scholar
75. Gilbert v. Brett 1604, Davis 18Google Scholar (Privy Council of Ireland).
76. See Kornatzki v. Oppenheimer [1937]. 4 All E.R. 433.Google Scholar
77. [1938] A.C. 260.
78. [1923] 2 Ch. 466.
79. [1939] A.C. 224, above p. 15.
80. See “The Discharge of Foreign Monetary Obligations in the English Courts”, pp. 113–4.Google Scholar
81. [1938] A.C. 260.
82. [1938] 4 All E.R. 713.
83. [1943] 1 All E.R. 276.
84. [1951] A.C. 201.
85. [1956] A.C. 369.
86. [1951] A.C. 201 at 219.
87. [1956] A.C. 369.
88. [1951] A.C. 201.
89. Id. at p. 202.
90. The Privy Council also considered National Bank of Australasia Ltd. v. Scottish Union and National Insurance Co. Ltd. [1952], A.C. 493.
91. [1895] A.C. 517.
92. [1952] A.C. 318.
93. [1952] A.C. at 343.
94. [1938] A.C. 485 at 494 and 505.
95. [1923] A.C. 113.
96. [1923] A.C. 12O.
97. L.R. 6 Q.B. 1.
98. [1923] A.C. 113 at 119.
99. Id. at p. 119.
100. [1923] A.C. 120.
101. L.R. 6 Q.B. 1.
102. [1923] A.C. 12O at 124.
103. [1895] A.C. 89.
104. [1960] A.C. 659.
105. (1857) 10 Moo. P.C. 306.
106. See the writer's Conflict of Laws, 4th ed., Chap. 12, sections A and B and excursus A and B.
107. See Graveson, Conflict of Laws, 4th ed., pp. 317–318.
108. Cmnd. 491. The principal proposals are set out in Graveson, , op. cit., pp. 318–321.Google Scholar
109. In the writer's “The Ninth Conference on Private International Law” 10, I.C.L.Q., pp. 18–69.Google Scholar
110. [1895] A.C. 517.
111. [1926] A.C. 444.
112. See Gràveson, , Conflict of Laws, 4th ed., Chap. 3.Google Scholar
113. [1951] A.C. 352.
114. Nugent v. Vetzera L.R. 2 Eq. 704 and Di Savini v. Lousada 18 W.R. 425.Google Scholar
115. [1940] Ch. 54.
116. Guardianship of Infants Act, 1925, s. 1.Google Scholar