Skip to main content

2018 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

2. Principles and Transnational Dimensions

verfasst von : Neil Andrews

Erschienen in: The Three Paths of Justice

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This chapter places the fundamental principles of civil justice under four headings: (1) regulating access to court and to justice; (2) ensuring the fairness of process as a shared responsibility of the court and the parties; (3) maintaining a speedy and efficient process; and (4) achieving just outcomes. It shows how Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, now directly applicable in English courts through the Human Rights Act 1998, has contributed to the development of these principles. Among topics covered are: the duty to give a reasoned judgment; abolition of the House of Lords (Judicial) and the creation of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. There is also consideration of the ALI/UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure (2006).

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
1
ALI/UNIDROIT (2016).
 
2
Generally on the UK’s treatment of Strasbourg case law, see, notably, Manchester CC v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45, [2011] 2 AC 104, at [48] (an important statement, which is cited at 2.14).
 
3
Neil Andrews, ‘The Modern Procedural Synthesis: the American Law Institute and UNIDROIT’s ‘Principles and Rules of Transnational Civil Procedure’ (2008) Revista de Processo 109–120 (Brazil) also published in (2009) Tijdschrift voor Civiele Rechtspleging 52–7 (Netherlands).
 
4
ALI/UNIDROIT (2016).
 
5
Rolf Stürner, ‘The Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure.’ (2005) Rabels Zeitschrift 201–254.
 
6
ALI/UNIDROIT (2016), 99.
 
7
Neil Andrews ‘Embracing the Noble Quest for Transnational Procedural Principles’ in M Andenas, Neil Andrews, R Nazzini, (eds), The Future of Transnational Commercial Litigation: English Responses to the ALI-UNIDROIT Draft Principles and Rules of Transnational Civil Procedure (BIICL, London, 2003; re-printed 2006).
 
8
Andrews, preceding note, at 23–5.
 
9
M Storme (ed), Approximation of Judiciary Law in the European Union (Gent, 1994).
 
10
AAS Zuckerman, ‘Conference on “The ALI-UNIDROIT Principles and Rules of Transnational Civil Procedure’’’ (2002) 21 CJQ 322.
 
11
See Neil Andrews, ‘general report’ (examining nearly 20 jurisdictions) on this topic for the world congress on procedural law in Brazil, in A Pellegrini Grinover and R Calmon (eds), Direito Processual Comparado: XIII World Congress of Procedural Law (Editora Forense, Rio de Janeiro, 2007), 201–42.
 
12
C Hodges, The Reform of Class and Representative Actions in European Legal Systems (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2008).
 
13
Neil Andrews, ‘Multi-party Litigation in England: Current Arrangements and Proposals for Change’ (2008) Lis International 92–7 (Italy).
 
14
Neil Andrews, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution in England’ (2005) 10 ZZP Int 1–34; Neil Andrews, ‘Mediation: a Pillar of Civil Justice in Modern English Practice’ (2007) 12 ZZP Int 1–9; Neil Andrews, (in Italian) ‘I Metodi Alternativi di Risoluzione delle Controversie in Inghliterra’, in V Varano (ed), L’Altra Giustizia (Giuffre Editore, Milano, 2007), 1–43.
 
15
On this topic, Andrews ACP (2018), Chap. 23.
 
16
Neil Andrews, ‘Towards an European Protective Order in Civil Matters’ in M Storme (ed), Procedural Laws in Europe: Towards Harmonisation (Maklu Publishing, Antwerp, 2003); published also in ‘Provisional and Protective Measures: Towards an Uniform Protective Order in Civil Matters’ (2002) VI Uniform Law Review 931–49 (Rome); Stephen Goldstein, ‘Revisiting Preliminary Relief in Light of the ALI/UNIDROIT Principles and the New Israeli Rules’ in Studia in honorem: Pelayia Yessiou-Faltsi (Athens, 2007), 273–96; N Trocker, ‘Provisional Remedies in Transnational Litigation: The Issue of Jurisdiction: A Comparative Outline’ (2009) Lis Int’l 48–56, and 93–101 (Italy).
 
17
Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2017] UKSC 33, [2017] 1 WLR 1415, at [29] to [41]; Poshteh v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC [2017] UKSC 36, [2017] AC 624, at [29] to [37]; Manchester CCl v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45, [2011] 2 AC 104, at [48] (cited in text following).
 
18
Manchester CC v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45, [2011] 2 AC 104, at [48].
 
19
(Cmd 8969); Human Rights Act 1998, s 1(3), and Sch 1, incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law; R Clayton and H Tomlinson, The Law of Human Rights (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2008). A discretionary housing allocation decision does not ‘engage’ Article 6(1), Poshteh v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC [2017] UKSC 36, [2017] AC 624.
 
20
R Clayton and H Tomlinson, op cit.
 
21
The problem is visible in: (i) In re F (A Child) [2016] EWHC 1806 (Fam), [2016] 1 WLR 4720 (Cobb J); (ii) R(S) v Director of Legal Aid Casebook [2016] EWCA Civ 464, [2017] 1 WLR 4733; (iii) Minkin v Landsberg [2015] EWCA Civ 1152, [2016] 1 WLR 1489, at [64] to [77], commenting on the absence of legal aid (at [65] and [66]), and the need (at [76]) for restricted legal intervention to plug this gap; (iv) In re K (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 543, [2015] 1 WLR 3801 (absence of power to require legal representation of a party to family proceedings when that party needs to cross-examine witnesses); and (v) R (S) v Director of Legal Aid Casework [2015] EWHC 1965 (Admin), [2015] 1 WLR 5283 (emergency case funding system too complex for blind and unassisted litigant).
 
22
In Bond v Dunster Properties Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 455, at [4] (Arden LJ) (judgment must be delivered within a reasonable time; but this will depend on ‘the complexity of the legal issues, the volume and nature of the evidence and other matters’).
 
23
On publicity, see also 3.​160 (note 500) and 3.​168.
 
24
Starrs v Ruxton 2000 JC 208, 243; 17 November 1999, The Times (High Court of Justiciary); Millar v Dickson [2002] 1 WLR 1615, PC.
 
25
Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357, HL.
 
26
(2000) 30 EHRR 289, ECHR.
 
27
McGonnell case, (2000) 30 EHRR 289, ECHR, at [55].
 
28
Ibid, at [57].
 
29
R Cornes, ‘McGonnell v UK, the Lord Chancellor and the Law Lords’ (2000) PL 166, 174; D Woodhouse, ‘The office of Lord Chancellor: time to abandon the judicial role—the rest will follow’ (2002) 22 LS 128, 141 ff.
 
30
A Le Sueur, ‘From Appellate Committee to Supreme Court: A Narrative’, in L Blom-Cooper, B Dickson, G Drewry (eds), The Judicial House of Lords: 18762009 (Oxford University Press, 2009), 66–70.
 
31
See two notes above.
 
32
eg, Lord Steyn (now retired as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary), in his 2002 ‘All Souls College, Neill Lecture’, had criticised the multi-faceted role of the Lord Chancellor: Steyn, ‘The Case for a Supreme Court’ (2002) 118 LQR 382.
 
33
Non-retired Law Lords had already eschewed participation in Parliamentary debates concerning party-political matters; some had even vowed individually not to speak at all in the legislative chamber: for details, Blom-Cooper, et al., op cit, at 269, and ibid, David Hope, Chap. 11, especially at 175 ff.
 
34
D Neuberger, ‘The Supreme Court: Is the House of Lords “Losing Part of Itself”’(2 December 2009), at [17].
 
35
Lord Irvine, LC, had not seen the need (2 April 2003): A Le Sueur, ‘From Appellate Committee to Supreme Court: A Narrative’, in Blom-Cooper, et al., op cit, 65 nn 6, 7); Lord Bingham had advocated such a change: Bingham, ‘The Evolving Constitution’ [2002] EHRLR 1; so too Lord Steyn, ‘The Case for a Supreme Court’ (2002) 118 LQR 382.
 
36
‘Reform! Reform! Don’t talk to me about reform. Aren’t things bad enough already?’ (Astbury J, as noted by Lord Neuberger, ‘The Supreme Court: Is the House of Lords “Losing Part of Itself”’(2 December 2009), at [13]).
 
37
D Neuberger, op cit, at [2].
 
38
(1975) 1 EHRR 524, 536, at [35].
 
39
[2003] 1 AC 681, 694, PC.
 
40
(1975) 1 EHRR 524, 536, at [35].
 
41
Ibid, at [38].
 
42
Mohammed v Ministry of Defence (No 1) (also known as Rahmatullah v MOD) [2017] UKSC 1, [2017] 2 WLR 287, at [42] to [45].
 
43
[2017] UKSC 51, [2017] 3 WLR 409.
 
44
Ibid, at [66] to [117].
 
45
Ibid, at [38], notably, Ministry of Justice, Review of the Introduction of Fees in the Employment Tribunals: Consultation on Proposals for Reform (Cmd 9373) (2017) (https://​www.​gov.​uk/​government/​uploads/​system/​uploads/​attachment_​data/​file/​587649/​Review-of-introduction-of-fees-in-employment-tribunals.​pdf).
 
46
In re K (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 543, [2015] 1 WLR 3801.
 
47
[2002] EWCA Civ 605, [2002] 1 WLR 2409, CA, at [12].
 
48
On abuse of process, Andrews ECP (2013), Chap. 16; comparative perspectives, M Taruffo (ed), Abuse of Procedural Rights: Comparative Standards of Procedural Fairness (Kluwer Publishing, The Hague, 1999).
 
49
CPR 3.4(2)(a) to (c).
 
50
Osman v UK (1998) BHRC 293; (1999) 29 EHRR 245.
 
51
Z v United Kingdom29392/95 [2001] ECHR 333 (10 May 2001); (2002) 34 EHRR 333, ECtHR, not following Osman v UK (1999) 29 EHRR 245; ACL Davies (2001) 117 LQR 52.
 
52
[2011] UKSC 13, [2011] 2 AC 398.
 
53
[2007] EWCA Civ 493, [2008] 1 Ch 1, at [26] to [38] (Longmore LJ), and at [74] (Sir Martin Nourse); noted R Moules [2007] CLJ 528.
 
54
(1996) 23 EHRR 313, at [69]; see also JB v Switzerland (1996) 23 EHRR 313, ECHR.
 
55
B Hess, Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht (CF Müller Publications, Heidelberg, 2010); A Layton and H Mercer (eds), European Civil Practice (2nd edn, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2004); E Storskrubb, Civil Procedure and EU Law: A Policy Area Uncovered (Oxford University Press, 2008); see also C Crifò, ‘Civil Procedure in the European Order: an Overview of the Latest Developments’, in D Dwyer (ed), The Civil Procedure Rules Ten Years On (Oxford University Press, 2009), chapter 19; A Ontanu and E Pannebakker, ‘Tackling Language Obstacles in Cross-Border Litigation: The European Order for Payment and the European Small Claims Procedure Approach’ (2012) 5 Erasmus LR 169.
 
56
Council Regulation (EU) 1215/2012: (Brussels I bis) ‘on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters’, of 12 December, 2012 (effective 10 January, 2015); superseding Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2001.
 
57
Council Regulation (EC) 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on ‘cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking evidence in civil or commercial matters’; Storskrubb, op cit, Chap. 7; Werynski v Mediatel 4B spólka zoo (Case C-283/09) [2012] QB 66, ECJ. See also Laddie J in Dendron GmbH v University of California [2004] EWHC 589 (Pat), [2005] 1 WLR 200.
 
58
Council Regulation (EC) 805/2004 of 21 April 2004 ‘creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims’; E Storskrubb, op cit, Chap. 9; EA Ontanu, Cross-Border Debt Recovery in the EU (Intersentia Publishing, Cambridge, 2017).
 
59
Council Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of 12 December 2006 ‘creating a European order for payment procedure’; implemented at CPR Part 78, section I (since 12 December 2008); Storskrubb, op cit, Chap. 12; C Crifò, op cit (four notes above), at 370–74; Ontanu, op cit.
 
60
Council Regulation (EC) 861/2007 of 11 July 2007 ‘establishing a European Small Claims Procedure’; implemented at CPR Part 78, section II (since 1 January 2009); Storskrubb, op cit, Chap. 13; C Crifò, op cit, at 374–8; and C Crifò (2011) 30 CJQ 283. Ontanu, op cit, note 58 above.
 
61
Council Regulation (EC) 1393/2007 of 13 November 2007 on ‘the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters’, repealing Council Regulation (EC) 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on ‘the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters’; Storskrubb, op cit, Chap. 6.
 
62
Case C-159/02 Turner v Grovit [2005] 1 AC 101, ECJ; for comment, see Neil Andrews, ‘Abuse of Process and Obstructive Tactics under the Brussels Jurisdictional System …’ (2005) European Community Private Law Review 8–15 (this journal is also entitled Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht and Revue de droit privé international). On ‘asymetrical’ jurisdiction clauses, one party being subject to exclusivity, the other having a choice of jurisdictions, Commerzbank AG v Liquimar Tankers Management Inc [2017] EWHC 161 (Comm), [2017] 1 WLR 3487 (Cranston J), at [62] to [81].
 
63
Case C-185/07 [2009] 1 AC 1138, [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 413 (noted by E Peel (2009) 125 LQR 365).
 
64
Case C-536/13 Gazprom OAO case (Grand Chamber, ECJ, 13 May 2015).
 
65
The Gazprom case (2015), ibid, was decided under the pre-2012 Jurisdiction Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000; but it is clear from the Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet (delivered 4 December 2014) that Recital 12 in the preamble to the Brussels 1 Regulation (recast) (2012) is a ‘retroactive interpretative law’, which ‘explains how [the arbitration] exclusion must be and always should have been interpreted’ (A-G Wathelet, Opinion, 4 December 2014, at [91] ff).
 
66
Case C-536/13 Gazprom OAO case (Grand Chamber, ECJ, 13 May 2015), at [32] and [33].
 
67
Ibid, at [34].
 
68
Ibid, at [35].
 
69
Ibid, at [36] (and at [28]).
 
70
Ibid, at [37].
 
71
Ibid, at [40].
 
72
Ibid, at [38].
 
73
Ibid, at [38], [41], [42], [43].
 
74
Ibid.
 
75
Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet (delivered 4 December 2014), at [130] to [152].
 
76
Council Regulation (EU) 1215/2012: (Brussels I bis) (effective 10 January, 2015); superseding Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2001.
 
77
Council Regulation (EC) 655/2014 of 15 May 2014 (effective 18 January, 2017); see also: European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Creating a European Account Preservation Order to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters, COM (2011) 445 final; (http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​justice/​civil/​files/​comm-2011-445_​en.​pdf); E Lew, Speedy Cross-Border Debt Recovery? The New Europe-Wide Freezing Order’ (2011) 11 JIBFL 699.
 
79
Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters’: Official Journal L 136, 24/05/2008 P 00030008. N Trocker and A De Luca (eds), La Mediazione Civile alla Luce della Direttiva 2008/52/CE (Firenze University Press, 2011); F Ferrand (2011) 16 ZZP Int 29 (discussion of Directive’s reception in Germany and in France); C Esplugues-Mota ‘A New General Legal Regime for Mediation in Spain’ (2011) 16 ZZP Int 95.
 
80
CPR Part 78, section III.
 
81
Directive Cross-Border Mediation (EU Directive) Regulations 2011/1133, regulation 26.
 
82
Limitation Act 1980, s 33A (where mediation proceedings are commenced before the limitation period has expired, and that period would otherwise elapse during those proceedings, the period is postponed so as to elapse eight weeks after those proceedings have ended).
 
83
Cross-Border Mediation (EU Directive) Regulations 2011/1133, regulations 9 and 10.
 
84
European Commission Recommendation of 1 June 2013 on ‘common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violation of rights granted under Union law’, OJ 2013 L201/60; EU Commission’s Communication on Collective Redress of 11 June 2013, COM(2013) 401 final.
 
85
Preamble (13) to the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the member States and of the European Union ((2013/0185 (COD)), 24 October 2014 (http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​competition/​antitrust/​actionsdamages/​damages_​directive_​final_​en.​pdf).
 
86
Case C-550/07 Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd v European Commission [2011] 2 AC 338, ECJ; noted A Higgins, (2011) CJQ 113; and L Bastin, ‘Should “Independence” of In-House Counsel be a Condition Precedent to a Claim of Legal Professional Privilege…?’ (2011) 30 CJQ 33.
 
87
[1972] 2 QB 102, 129, CA; not challenged on appeal, [1974] AC 405, 430-1, HL.
 
88
[1972] 2 QB 102, 120, CA, arguendo, citing statutes.
 
Metadaten
Titel
Principles and Transnational Dimensions
verfasst von
Neil Andrews
Copyright-Jahr
2018
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74832-0_2