Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.338735
Title: Judicial remedies in English private international law
Author: Elias, Olusoji O. A.
ISNI:       0000 0001 3444 1494
Awarding Body: University of London
Current Institution: University College London (University of London)
Date of Award: 1996
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Please try the link below.
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
The dissertation considers the existing English forum classification of remedies in actions in personam as typically procedural in the context of private international law. It addresses the current law because of the central role of remedies in the processes of litigation and adjudication. Several other typically procedural matters have recently been reconsidered or been the subject of significant suggestions for re-examination. The current law on remedies and the several cognate procedural matters is encapsulated in Dicey and Morris' Rule 17 which states: All matters of procedure are governed by the domestic law of the country to which the court wherein any legal proceedings are taken belongs (lex fori). This is referred to in the dissertation as the single reference thesis; because it prescribes exclusive reference to forum domestic law. The single reference thesis is compared and contrasted with the objectivity thesis offered in the dissertation, both based on forum convenience-derived justiciability. The latter demonstrates that neither the justification for the application by the former of principles governing the availability of any given remedy nor the position thus justified by which the only applicable principles are those of the domestic lex fori is conceptually sound for all types of conflict case, and that forum remedies have an objective conflictual context. Observable themes and the matter of forum efficacy are central to the advancement of the objectivity thesis, and are sufficiently self-contained for individual depiction. They are (i) extraterritorial jurisdictional competence, (ii) the concept of substantive relief, (iii) finality, recognisability and enforceability of judgments, and (iv) expediency and policy (including judicial discretion). Arguments derived from their consideration are applied to the existing law in producing a clearer delocalised consideration of remedies in the conflict of laws than as it stood on 31st December 1994.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.338735  DOI: Not available
Keywords: Law
Share: