Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.550578
Title: Remedies and international private law
Author: Rushworth, Adam
ISNI:       0000 0003 6782 7371
Awarding Body: University of Oxford
Current Institution: University of Oxford
Date of Award: 2009
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Restricted access.
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
This thesis seeks to determine how remedies inter-relate with the European rules on international private law. The thesis is broadly separated into two Parts, the first Part discussing the relationship between remedies and the general part of European international private law, and the second Part discussing the relationship between remedies and the specific parts of European international private law. From this analysis, three threads can be drawn. First, primary right, secondary right and the court order vindicating them are so closely related that, ideally, the same law ought to apply to all. They form a unit which should remain unbroken. Second, the distinction between substantive and ancillary rights is of crucial importance for remedies in the context of both jurisdiction and choice of law. Ancillary rights are those which arise by virtue of the trial process itself, whereas substantive rights are, or are perceived to be, created prior to the trial. The orthodox jurisdictional and choice of law rules only apply to substantive rights. Ancillary rights have their own, separate, rules. With one exception, the only court with jurisdiction over those ancillary rights is the court with jurisdiction over the substantive right to which they are ancillary. Furthermore, the lex fori must be applied to determine the nature of the ancillary right. Third, there exists a rule of exclusion which is of crucial importance for remedies in the context of both the enforcement of foreign judgments and choice of law. This rule of exclusion applies where the application of the foreign court order, whether applied by virtue of enforcing a foreign judgment, or applied by virtue of applying a foreign governing law under the choice of law process, would be too inconvenient for the forum court’s machinery. Under such circumstances, the forum court can disapply the foreign law and substitute the closest order it can from its own legal system.
Supervisor: Peel, Edwin Sponsor: AHRC
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.550578  DOI: Not available
Share: