imo

X v Amstelveen Equity Trust BV et al. Holds (wrongly imo) that Article 26 Brussels Ia submission applies to non-EU defendants, too. Then grants an A33-34 stay viz Dutch defendants and, in a show of cakeism, a ‘metoo’ stay against the Turkish defendants. – Go Health Pro

by
X v Amstelveen Equity Trust BV et al. Holds (wrongly imo) that Article 26 Brussels Ia submission applies to non-EU defendants, too. Then grants an A33-34 stay viz Dutch defendants and, in a show of cakeism, a ‘metoo’ stay against the Turkish defendants. – Go Health Pro

If you do use the blog for research or database purposes, citation would be appreciated, to the blog as a whole and /or to specific blog posts. Many have suggested I should turn the blog into a paid for, subscription service however I have resisted doing so. Proper reference to how the blog is useful … Read more

a good example of a poorly drafted choice of court clause (and wrong High Court conclusion IMO). – gavc law – geert van calster – Go Health Pro

by
a good example of a poorly drafted choice of court clause (and wrong High Court conclusion IMO). – gavc law – geert van calster – Go Health Pro

There is a gale force wind out there and the girls and I are housebound: so I thought I’ld clear the blog queue a bit. It is generally not good practice to post poorly drafted choice of court provisions yet once in a while it helps illustrate what I often say in class: that even … Read more