266 / 448
GAZETTE
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1996
c o n t r a ct c a m e w i t h in A r t i c le 5(1).
A r t i c le 5( 1) c a n a p p l y ^ e v en w h e r e the
e x i s t e n ce of the c o n t r a ct is in d i s p u te
b e t w e en the parties. In
Ejfner
-v-
Kantner
,
the d e f e n d a nt a r g u ed that the
plaintiff h a d c o n c l u d ed a c o n t r a ct w i th a
third party in his p e r s o n al c a p a c i ty a nd
not as a g e nt of the d e f e n d a n t. T h e r e f o re
t h e re w a s n o c o n t r a ct a n d A r t i c le 5( 1)
c o u ld not be i n v o k e d. T h e C o u rt h e ld
that A r t i c le 5( 1) a p p l i e d. T o h o ld
o t h e r w i s e, it said, w o u l d b e to d e p r i ve
A r t i c le 5( 1) of legal e f f e ct as in a ny
d i s p u te o n e of the p a r t i es c o u ld c l a im
that t h e re w a s n o c o n t r a c t.
T h e r e is s o m e u n c e r t a i n ty a b o ut
w h e t h er q u a si c o n t r a c t u al c l a i ms fall
w i t h in A r t i c le 5(1). T h e m a t t er h a s n ot
b e e n r e s o l v ed b y the C o u rt of J u s t i c e. In
Kleinwort Benson -v- Glasgow City
Council
,
a c a s e w h e r e a n u m b e r of
b a n k s s o u g ht to r e c o v er m o n e y p a id in
interest rate s w a p t r a n s a c t i o ns w h i ch the
H o u s e of L o r ds h a d s u b s e q u e n t ly
d e c l a r ed
ultra vires,
the E n g l i sh C o u rt
of A p p e al h e ld that t he a c t i on c a m e
w i t h in A r t i c le 5(1).
The Obligation In Question
A r t i c le 5 ( 1) c o n f e rs j u r i s d i c t i on o n t he
c o u r ts f o r the p l a ce of p e r f o r m a n ce of
t he " o b l i g a t i on in q u e s t i o n ". W h a t is the
" o b l i g a t i on in q u e s t i o n "? In
De Bloos -
v- Bouer
t he C o u rt d e c i d ed to l o ok at
the o b l i g a t i on as o n e w h i ch is i m p o s ed
o n t he g r a n t or of t he c o n t r a ct a n d t he
n o n p e r f o r m a n ce of w h i c h g i v es the
o t h er p a r ty his c a u se of a c t i o n. In
Schenavai
-v-
Kreischer
the Court
f o l l o w ed
De Bloos
b ut w e n t f u r t h e r. It
h e ld that w h e r e t h e re are a n u m b e r of
o b l i g a t i o ns s t e mm i ng f r o m the o n e
c o n t r a ct o n e l o o ks to t he
principal
o b l i g a t i on to d e c i de j u r i s d i c t i o n.
T h e Irish C o u r ts h a v e f o l l o w ed this line.
T h e S u p r e me C o u r t in
Unidare pic and
Unidare Cable Ltd -v- James Scott Ltd
t o ok a p r a g m a t ic a p p r o a c h. It h e ld that
the o b l i g a t i on in q u e s t i on w a s the
o b l i g a t i on w h i c h w a s t he s u b j e ct m a t t er
of the p r o c e e d i n gs - p a y m e nt f o r g o o d s
supplied. In
Ferndale Films Ltd -v-
10
Granada Television Ltd
the Supreme
C o u r t l o o k ed to the p r i n c i p al o b l i g a t i on
w h i c h w a s the b a s is of the a c t i o n, r a t h er
t h an an a n c i l l a ry o b l i g a t i on w h i ch t he
p l a i n t i f fs relied o n in an a t t e mpt to g i ve
the Irish c o u r ts j u r i s d i c t i o n. T h i s is a
250
v e ry restrictive a p p l i c a t i on of the
Schenavai
principle.
Place of Performance
W h a t of the p l a ce of p e r f o r m a n c e? In
Tessili -v- Dunlop
the Court of Justice
h e ld that this is d e c i d ed a c c o r d i ng to the
c o n f l i c ts r u l es of t he l aw g o v e r n i ng the
o b l i g a t i on in q u e s t i o n. T h e Irish c o u r ts
h a v e t a k en a restrictive v i ew of this
t e r m. T h i s c an b e s e en in
Handbridge
Services Ltd-v- Aerospace
Communications Ltd .
The Supreme
C o u r t h e ld that t he o n u s w a s o n a
p l a i n t i ff to e s t a b l i sh that the c l a im c a m e
u n e q u i v o c a l ly w i t h in A r t i c le 5(1). If it
d id a p l a i n t i ff h a d then to p r o ve that the
o b l i g a t i on in q u e s t i on w a s by v i r t ue of
t he t e r ms of t he c o n t r a ct or b y a g e n e r al
p r i n c i p le of Irish l a w an o b l i g a t i on
w h i c h w a s r e q u i r ed to be p e r f o r m ed in
I r e l a nd a n d in I r e l a nd o n l y. T h i s
j u d g m e n t is v e ry r e s t r i c t i ve a n d
s u g g e s ts that an a l l e g ed c o n t r a ct m u st
p r o v i de ( e x p r e s s ly or i mp l i c i t l y) f or
p e r f o r m a n ce of an o b l i g a t i on to t a ke
p l a ce in I r e l a nd o n l y.
A r t i c le 5( 1) p r o v i d es that f o r c o n t r a c ts
of e m p l o y m e nt t he p l a ce of
p e r f o r m a n ce of the o b l i g a t i on in
q u e s t i on is the p l a ce w h e r e the
e m p l o y e e h a b i t u a l ly c a r r i es o ut his
w o r k, or if t he e m p l o y ee d o e s not
1
h a b i t u a l ly c a r ry o ut h is w o r k in a ny o n e
c o u n t r y, t he e m p l o y er m a y a l so b e s u ed
in t he c o u r ts f o r t he p l a ce w h e r e t he
b u s i n e ss w h i c h e n g a g ed the e m p l o y ee
w a s or is n o w situated.
TORT
U n d e r A r t i c le 5 ( 3) in ma t t e rs relating to
tort a plaintiff c an s ue e i t h er in the state
of the d e f e n d a n t 's d o m i c i le or in the
state w h e r e the h a r m f ul e v e nt o c c u r r e d.
T h e " p l a ce w h e r e the h a r m f ul e v e nt
o c c u r r e d" h as b e en g i v en q u i te a w i d e
interpretation. In
Bier -v- Mines de
Potasse
, the C o u rt i n t e r p r e t ed this
p h r a se as g i v i ng j u r i s d i c t i o n, at the
p l a i n t i f f s o p t i o n, to e i t h er t he c o u r ts f or
the p l a ce w h e r e t he d a m a g e o c c u r r ed or
t he c o u r ts f or the p l a ce of t he " e v e nt
g i v i ng rise to t he d a m a g e ". T h e c a se
c o n c e r n ed a F r e n ch c o m p a n y w h i ch
p o l l u t ed t he R i v er R h i ne in F r a n ce
c a u s i ng d a m a g e to the p l a i n t i f f 's
c o mm e r c i al n u r s e ry in t he N e t h e r l a n d s.
T h e plaintiff h a d the o p t i on of b r i n g i ng
suit, e i t h er in the N e t h e r l a n ds w h e re the
h a r m f ul e v e nt t o ok p l a ce or in F r a n ce
w h e r e the e v e nt t o ok p l a ce g i v i ng rise to
the d a m a g e (the p o l l u t i o n ).
14
In
Dumez -v- Hessiche Landesbank ,
the C o u rt c o n s i d e r ed e c o n o m ic torts.
T h e c a se c o n c e r n ed a c l a im f o r d a m a g es
b r o u g ht in the F r e n ch c o u r ts by a
n u m b e r of F r e n ch c o m p a n i e s. T h e y
c l a i m ed that the c o n d u ct of the G e r m a n
b a n k s in p r e v e n t i ng G e r m a n
s u b s i d i a r i es of the p l a i n t i f fs f r o m
c a r r y i ng o ut certain c o n t r a c ts h ad
r e s u l t ed in financial loss to the p l a i n t i f fs
(as the a n t i c i p a t ed profits w o u l d h a ve
b e e n sent b a ck to the F r e n ch
c o m p a n i e s ). T h e C o u rt h e ld that the
F r e n ch c o m p a n i es w e re not entitled
b r i ng the a c t i o n. T h e v i c t i ms of the act
w e r e the G e r m a n s u b s i d i a r i es a n d o n ly
they w o u l d b e a b le to s ue u n d er A r t i c le
5(3). R i c o c h et v i c t i ms w e re t h us
specifically e x c l u d e d. T h e C o u rt m a d e a
s i m i l ar finding in the r e c e nt c a se of
Marinari -v- Lloyds Bank Pic
. It held
that " T h e p l a ce w h e r e the h a r m f ul e v e nt
o c c u r r e d" d id n ot i n c l u de the p l a ce
w h e r e a plaintiff c l a i m ed to h a ve
s u f f e r ed financial loss c o n s e q u e n t i al on
initial d a m a g e a r i s i ng a n d s u f f e r ed b y
h i m in a n o t h er c o n t r a c t i ng state.
T h e issue of mu l ti state d e f a m a t i on
arose in
Shevill -v- Presse Alliance
. An
E n g l i sh plaintiff w a s libelled by a
F r e n ch n e w s p a p e r, " F r a n ce S o i r ". S h e
s u ed the F r e n ch n e w s p a p er in E n g l a nd
! in d e f a m a t i o n. T h e C o u rt of J u s t i ce
; f o l l o w ed
Bier
a nd h e ld that s he the
plaintiff w a s entitled to b r i ng h er a c t i on
in the E n g l i sh c o u r t s, but o n ly in r e s p e ct
of the d a m a g e to h er r e p u t a t i on s u f f e r ed
in E n g l a n d. T h e e v e nt g i v i ng rise to the
d a m a g e t o ok p l a ce in F r a n ce w h e r e the
n e w s p a p er w a s p u b l i s h ed a n d s he c o u ld
s ue t h e re f o r all d a m a g e s u f f e r ed in e a ch
c o n t r a c t i ng state. In the r e c e nt c a se of
Murray -v- Times Newspapers
the
H i g h C o u rt a p p l i ed
Shevill.
An Irish
plaintiff a r g u ed that it w a s libelled by
p u b l i c a t i on of an a l l e g e d ly d e f a m a t o ry
article in the state, in a n e w s p a p er
w h i c h w a s p r i n t ed in E n g l a nd a nd
o w n e d b y an E n g l i sh d e f e n d a n t, a nd
c l a i m ed special d a m a g e s f o r h a r m
c a u s ed to its r e p u t a t i on in E n g l a n d.
B a r r on J h e ld that A r t i c le 5 ( 3) did n ot
entitle the plaintiff to s e ek s u ch
d a m a g e s .