Conflict of Laws Problem QuestionWatch this thread
I've been tackling a problem question regarding conflict of jurisdiction and I'm struggling for info. It concerns a claimant (domiciled in Delaware, US) and two defendants, one domiciled in England Wales and its subsidiary in Texas. The subsidiary had a contract with the claimant but committed a tort which made the claimant unable to carry out the contractual obligations. The parties agreed in their contract that the courts in Illinois (USA) would be competent for any dispute arising out of the contract. The claimant has brought an action in London and I have to argue that the English courts have jurisdiction over the matter. I've tried applying the Brussels Regulation but I only seem to have argued that the courts in the US are competent.
Any ideas or pointers in the right direction?
Where the tort is committed is important. It is different in Tort and Contract (off the top of my head).
Being competent isn't the same as accepting jurisdiction. I'd need to check by CPR for you to be more sure.