Search Results

This chapter assesses the role for environmental liability in the context of the GMOs, with emphasis on the provisions of the Community Environmental Liability Directive. It commences with discussion of the role of liability regimes more generally (adopting Coasean analysis) and compares and contrasts the Environmental Liability Directive with the Lugano Convention. The application of the Environmental Liability Directive is then considered in detail, with particular attention devoted to: the definition of environmental damage, the basis of liability (whether strict or grounded upon fault), the use of the administrative liability model, and risk allocation and insurance. The chapter concludes that the Community regime has serious limitations. Not least, its territorial application is largely restricted to the Natura 2000 network of protected wildlife sites, where GM crop cultivation is in practice unlikely to occur.

This chapter considers the jurisdiction of the UK and Irish courts in relation to schemes and restructuring plans. The chapter considers these under the statutory jurisdictional requirements and the judge-made jurisdictional elements, such as sufficient connection and the ‘substantial effect’ doctrine. The chapter also discusses the pre- and post-Brexit jurisdictional position of UK schemes, restructuring plans, and Irish schemes under the EU Judgments Regulation, the Lugano Convention, the EU Insolvency Regulation, the Hague Convention, the UNCITRAL Model law, and private domestic international law.

The international jurisdiction of the Court shall be established in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 or, where applicable, on the basis of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Lugano Convention).

This essay revisits the relationship between the conflict of laws and the law of unjust enrichment (or, more widely, the law of restitution) in light of shifts in the legal landscape over the past forty years. It considers the rules of jurisdiction and of choice of law applied by the English courts, accounting for the effects of the UK’s departure from the European Union.

Swiss law does not recognize the concept of trusts (although it does recognize trusts created under foreign law). Hence a trust cannot be governed by Swiss law. Yet, Switzerland is seen by many foreigners as an attractive place to live and trusts are often imported by settlors relocating to Switzerland. Switzerland’s popularity as a hub for trust administration and related services has risen during the last years and so has the number of litigation matters involving trust structures. Trustees have become increasingly involved in Swiss proceedings and are frequently parties to complex cross-border disputes; the trustees become a target for aggrieved beneficiaries and family members or ex-spouses.

The Trade Marks Act 1996 (the Act of 1996)¹ provides the statutory framework for the protection of Irish registered trade marks and Community Trade Marks (CTMs). At common law the goodwill of enterprises having unregistered marks is protected by the law of passing off which is not affected by the Act of 1996.

Section 423, which is applicable in both corporate and personal insolvency, acknowledges that transactions that are prejudicial to creditors may be entered into at any time, and not just in the period leading up to insolvency. Unlike the other transaction avoidance provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986, there is no requirement that the transaction should have occurred within a specified time period leading up to winding up or bankruptcy in order to be voidable. Nor indeed is it required that there is a formal insolvency or even that the debtor should have been insolvent at the time of the transaction or subsequently.

To date, domain name disputes in the United Kingdom have tended to revolve around trade marks. Most larger companies who are sufficiently motivated and financially equipped to take such disputes through to a conclusion, own registered trade marks and/or strong trading goodwill.

The main statutory provisions in Gibraltar are: the Trustees Act 1895 as amended, which is based on early versions of trust legislation in England and the Trusts (Private International Law) Act 2015 which came into force on 17 September 2015. In addition, Gibraltar is a common law jurisdiction and English common law and the rules of equity are applied in accordance with section 2(1) of the English Law (Application) Act 1962.

The court’s jurisdiction to give directions derives from the long-established jurisdiction of the Chancery courts to execute a trust and supervise its proper administration. Trustees may apply to the court for guidance or authority to take a particular course so that they can carry out their duties properly and without fear of being in breach of trust. Others who are affected by or concerned in the administration of a trust can also apply for directions.