Choice of law is a procedural stage in the litigation of a case involving the conflict of laws when it is necessary to reconcile the differences between the laws of different legal jurisdictions, such as sovereign states, federated states, or provinces. The outcome of this process is potentially to require the courts of one jurisdiction to apply the law of a different jurisdiction in lawsuits arising from, say, family law, tort, or contract. The law which is applied is sometimes referred to as the "proper law." Dépeçage is an issue within choice of law.
In conflict of laws, renvoi is a subset of the choice of law rules and it may be applied whenever a forum court is directed to consider the law of another state.
Characterisation, or characterization, in conflict of laws, is the second stage of the procedure to resolve a lawsuit that involves foreign law. The process is described in English law as Characterisation, or classification within the English judgments of the European Court of Justice. It is alternatively known as qualification in French law.
In all lawsuits involving conflict of laws, questions of procedure as opposed to substance are always determined by the lex fori, i.e. the law of the state in which the case is being litigated.
In conflict of laws, the choice of law rules for tort are intended to select the lex causae by which to determine the nature and scope of the judicial remedy to claim damages for loss or damage suffered.
In conflict of laws, the term lex loci is a shorthand version of the choice of law rules that determine the lex causae.
The Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition, or Hague Trust Convention is a multilateral treaty developed by the Hague Conference on Private International Law on the Law Applicable to Trusts. It concluded on 1 July 1985, entered into force 1 January 1992, and is as of September 2017 ratified by 14 countries. The Convention uses a harmonised definition of a trust, which is the subject of the convention, and sets Conflict rules for resolving problems in the choice of the applicable law. The key provisions of the Convention are:
The Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 1980, or the "Rome Convention", is a measure in private international law or conflict of laws which creates a common choice of law system in contracts within the European Union. The convention determines which law should be used, but does not harmonise the substance. It was signed in Rome, Italy on 19 June 1980 and entered into force in 1991.
An arbitral tribunal or arbitration tribunal, also arbitration commission, arbitration committee or arbitration council is a panel of unbiased adjudicators which is convened and sits to resolve a dispute by way of arbitration. The tribunal may consist of a sole arbitrator, or there may be two or more arbitrators, which might include a chairperson or an umpire. Members selected to serve on an arbitration panel are typically professionals with expertise in both law and in friendly dispute resolution (mediation). Some scholars have suggested that the ideal composition of an arbitration commission should include at least also one professional in the field of the disputed situation, in cases that involve questions of asset or damages valuation for instance an economist.
The Rome I Regulation is a regulation which governs the choice of law in the European Union. It is based upon and replaces the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 1980. The Rome I Regulation can be distinguished from the Brussels Regime which determines which court can hear a given dispute, as opposed to which law it should apply. The regulation applies to all EU member states except Denmark, which has an opt-out from implementing regulations under the area of freedom, security and justice. The Danish government planned to join the regulation if a referendum on 3 December 2015 approved converting its opt-out into an opt-in, but the proposal was rejected. While the United Kingdom originally opted-out of the regulation, it subsequently decided to opt in.
Teo Soh Lung v Minister for Home Affairs is the name of two cases of the Singapore courts, a High Court decision delivered in 1989 and the 1990 judgment in the appeal from that decision to the Court of Appeal. The cases were concerned with the constitutionality of amendments made to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and the Internal Security Act ("ISA") in 1989. The latter statute authorizes detention without trial on security grounds. These amendments had the effect of changing the law on judicial review of executive discretion under the ISA by re-establishing the subjective test enunciated in the 1971 High Court decision Lee Mau Seng v Minister for Home Affairs which had been overruled in 1988 by Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs, and limiting the right of judicial review to ensuring compliance with procedures specified in the ISA. In other words, the amendments were intended to render the exercise of power by the President and the Minister for Home Affairs under the ISA to detain persons without trial not justiciable by the courts. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal found that these amendments were constitutional because Parliament had done nothing more than enact the rule of law relating to the law applicable to judicial review. Thus, the amendments validly operated to deprive the applicant Teo Soh Lung of the ability to apply to the courts for judicial review.
The Arbitration Act 1996 is an Act of Parliament which regulates arbitration proceedings within the jurisdiction of England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
Exclusion of judicial review has been attempted by the Parliament of Singapore to protect the exercise of executive power. Typically, this has been done though the insertion of finality or total ouster clauses into Acts of Parliament, or by wording powers conferred by Acts on decision-makers subjectively. Finality clauses are generally viewed restrictively by courts in the United Kingdom. The courts there have taken the view that such clauses are, subject to some exceptions, not effective in denying or restricting the extent to which the courts are able to exercise judicial review. In contrast, Singapore cases suggest that ouster clauses cannot prevent the High Court from exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the exercise of executive power where authorities have committed jurisdictional errors of law, but are effective against non-jurisdictional errors of law.
The administration of justice is the process by which the legal system of a government is executed. The presumed goal of such an administration is to provide justice for all those accessing the legal system. The phrase is also commonly used to describe a University degree, which can be a prerequisite for a job in law enforcement or government.
In law, South African constitutional litigation is the area dealing with the rules and principles concerning constitutional matters in the country of South Africa. It includes the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the High Court of South Africa, the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa, and certain other specialist courts. It also includes the consideration of rules peculiar to these courts that are relevant to constitutional litigation, such as the admission of an amicus curiae, the duty to raise a constitutional matter as early as possible in proceedings, and the duty to join the relevant organ of state in a case involving a constitutional issue.
The City of Gotha and Federal Republic of Germany v. Sotheby's and Cobert Finance S.A. was a September 1998 case in the High Court of England and Wales involving the ownership of a Joachim Wtewael painting. The case was the first reported court decision on section 221 of the German Civil Code. This section involves the limitation of proprietary actions when a third party has acquired possession of the property. The case is important in regards to the concepts of statutes of limitation and acquisitive prescription. It also contains a fascinating tale of state art trophies, theft, smuggling, backstabbing and restitution, against the background of major European political events, written by a judge with a sense of humor.
The Private International Law Act 1995 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Cox v Ergo Versicherung AG[2014] UKSC 22 is a judicial decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom relating to the conflict of laws and the assessment of damages following a road traffic accident.
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association v Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen GmbH[2022] UKSC 29, [2022] 3 WLR 1111 is a judicial decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in relation to the proper law to govern contribution claims in cross-border torts.
Huber v Steiner (1835) 2 Bing (NC) 202 was a judicial decision of the English Court of Common Pleas relating to choice of law issues in connection with a promissory note.
