English Law One, Sharia Law Nil

[anonymous-user]

One for the conflicts wonks -

http://sites.herbertsmithfreehills.vuturevx.com/34...


http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2017/2928...

[anonymous-user]

I'm nowhere near intelligent enough to understand your Sunday morning postings, BV.

[anonymous-user]

Nor am I.

[Flooble]

I'm a bit confused - an agreement under English Law, compliant with English Law, has been declared to be legally binding under English Law?

I can see the separate agreement which seems to be a way to doge around the Islamic Law, but I can't follow why the parties thought that the English law part of the contract would be rendered invalid.

Not having any legal training, I guess I am missing some massive obvious issue?

[anonymous-user]

There were several agreements all forming part of one overall transaction. The English agreement was to give effect to other agreements. Hence the issue of whether invalidity of other contracts affected the English contract.

[Countdown]

I bet they wouldn't put up with this in Saudi Arabia would they.......

[mbcx4jrh]

Countdown said:

I bet they wouldn't put up with this in Saudi Arabia would they.......

You mean in the same way as it hasn't "been put up with" here?

[Pica-Pica]

Surely in any contract that has international reach, the jurisdiction is stated in the contract?

[Zod]

Pica-Pica said:

Surely in any contract that has international reach, the jurisdiction is stated in the contract?

Unfortunately, it's not always that simple. That is why BV72 refers to "conflicts wonks".

In opinions on jurisdiction and choice of law clauses, we include this qualification:

"5.13 Jurisdiction: As regards the enforcement by the English courts of a choice of English jurisdiction:

5.13.1 in certain circumstances legislation confers jurisdiction upon the courts of a particular country in relation to specified proceedings and in such cases the English courts would decline jurisdiction;

5.13.2 the English courts may not give effect to a jurisdiction agreement which offends mandatory rules of English law or which is incompatible with English public policy;

5.13.3 the English courts may decline jurisdiction if the parties have agreed to arbitrate the dispute in question or a party has waived its right to litigate by participating in an arbitration; and

5.13.4 in our opinion the English courts will consider submission to the jurisdiction of the English courts to be valid notwithstanding that the submission is pursuant to a unilateral jurisdiction clause, i.e. a clause which gives a greater choice of where to bring proceedings to one or more of the parties. The courts in France have however held a unilateral jurisdiction clause to be void. There is no authority of the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") on this issue. It is possible that the CJEU may in due course consider such clauses to be void and any such decision would be binding on the English courts.

5.14 Choice of law – contractual obligations: An English court may not give effect to a choice of law applicable to a contract where:

5.14.1 all elements relevant to the situation at the time of choice are connected with or located in a country other than the country whose law has been chosen by the parties (in which case the English court may apply such rules of law of the connected country as may not be derogated from by contract);

5.14.2 it is bound, in relation to specified proceedings, specified types of contract or specified issues, to apply the law of a different jurisdiction; or

5.14.3 the application of the parties' choice of law is incompatible with English public policy.

5.15 Choice of law – non-contractual obligations: An English court may not give effect to a choice of law in relation to non-contractual obligations where:

5.15.1 the situation is not one involving a conflict of laws;

5.15.2 the non-contractual obligation, liability or matter in question falls outside or is expressly excluded from the scope of Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (known as the "Rome II Regulation");

5.15.3 the relevant non-contractual obligation arises out of:

(A) an act of unfair competition or restricting free competition; or

(B) an infringement of an intellectual property right;

5.15.4 all elements relevant to the situation at the time when the event giving rise to the damage occurs are located in a country other than the country whose law has been chosen (in which case the English court may apply such rules of law of the connected country as may not be derogated from by agreement); or

5.15.5 the application of the parties' choice of law is incompatible with English public policy."

[Flooble]

Ah I think I see - interesting and illuminating. And reassuring.

[MorganP104]

Countdown said:

I bet they wouldn't put up with this in Saudi Arabia would they.......

I know, right? The UK government will be giving women the vote next!

Wait, what?

[anonymous-user]

Pica-Pica said:

Surely in any contract that has international reach, the jurisdiction is stated in the contract?

Choice of law and choice of jurisdiction are not the same thing.

#conflictswonks

[ruminator]

• deleted*

Comment intended for a Reddit post, apologies!

Edited by ruminator on Tuesday 19th December 15:12

[ATG]

(nor did the reef)

[anonymous-user]

Wrong thread?

[a.lex]

Wrong forum?

[liam1986]

I notice lots of the threads you create relate to the Islamic problem we have in this country breadvan. Your approach to the issue is to be admired. I don't see lots of 'nazi' 'xenophobia' comments, it's refreshing.

I enjoy reading them. Expand ones knowledge base and all that.

[WolfAir]

liam1986 said:

I notice lots of the threads you create relate to the Islamic problem we have in this country breadvan. Your approach to the issue is to be admired. I don't see lots of 'nazi' 'xenophobia' comments, it's refreshing.

I enjoy reading them. Expand ones knowledge base and all that.

The "Islamic problem we have in this country"? What problem is that then?
Shouldn't you really expand your knowledge on a subject via somebody who knows of that subject?

And my last point, why do people who do not believe in Islam get all hot and bothered about Islamic issues? Shariah law and the lot does not affect anybody who does not follow its rules. There would be no reason to use Islamic banking facilities for somebody who is not Muslim, in the UK especially.

[liam1986]

WolfAir said:

The "Islamic problem we have in this country"? What problem is that then?
Shouldn't you really expand your knowledge on a subject via somebody who knows of that subject?

And my last point, why do people who do not believe in Islam get all hot and bothered about Islamic issues? Shariah law and the lot does not affect anybody who does not follow its rules. There would be no reason to use Islamic banking facilities for somebody who is not Muslim, in the UK especially.

Breadvan, has taught me one thing. Don;t try and debate religon and its issues in society on an internet forum.

[WolfAir]

liam1986 said:

Breadvan, has taught me one thing. Don;t try and debate religon and its issues in society on an internet forum.

I am not debating, but I think you'll find there are not many issues with any religion in particular and more with the tw*ts that claim to follow it.
Same goes for the tw*ts sat outside the house looking in and guessing what's going on.