Jurisdiction of the courts in private international law : a comparative study

Abstract

The scope of this thesis is the undertaking of a comparative study of jurisdictional rules in four private international law regimes regulating civil and commercial matters. The four regimes are: the English traditional rules; the Maltese rules; and finally the rules found in the Brussels and Lugano Conventions (including amendments). Such rules come into effect when a case contains a foreign element. Although a thorough study on jurisdictional rules can be undertaken separately, however, one cannot forsake the other equally important and related rules on enforcement and recognition of foreign judgments. Although the recognition of judgments goes beyond the scope of this thesis, it makes sense to state that the relation holds to the extent that judgments validly given in one state are expected to be recognised or enforced in another state. When courts are vested with one set of jurisdictional rules it is much easier for them to regulate their civil and commercial proceedings. A case in point is the Maltese courts on civil jurisdiction. On the other hand when courts are vested with two, three or four sets of proceedings, matters can get complicated and the rules can frequently conflict: A case in point is the English situation where the courts have to deal with the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of September 27, 1968 (The Brussels and the Lugano Convention), the Modified Convention and their own traditional rules. By contrast, a very different approach was taken in Scotland where it was recommended that the jurisdictional rules in the Brussels Convention should be taken as the norm both where the defendant is domiciled in another part of the United Kingdom and where he is domiciled in Scotland or in a non-Contracting State.