国际私法英文案例VIP免费

英文案例:1.案例——反致RENVOIDenneyv.Denney(Royde-Smith)TSSala1:21May1999Applicationofarenvoiofreturninamatterofsuccession1.Appealallowed-CityofToulouseonlytrusteesordoneesofArtCollectionAfterconsideringtheevidencesubmittedonownershipofthecollectionofModernArtinToulouse,theSupremeCourtconcludedthattheCityeitherheldthecollectionastrustees,becausethepredecessorintitlehadhandeditoverinthatcondition,orasdonees,onthebasisofacceptingthedonationmadebythetestamentaryheir.TheCourtallowedthegroundsoftheappealagainsttherulingoftheProvincialCourtofAppeal,becausetheconditionsthatwouldrequiretheCityofToulousetobecalledtothecasewerenotpresent.(SeefulljudgmentLegalGrounds32.RenvoicanonlybeappliedunderlimitedconditionsInconsideringthequestionofwhichmateriallawshouldapplytothesuccessionofthedeceased.apurelyliteralapplicationofArticle12.2oftheCivilCodewouldleadtothesolutionarguedintheclaim.HowevercurrentdevelopmentsofInternationalPrivateLawinvolveaveryprecisetreatmentofrenvoiinwhichitisnotacceptedorrejectedindiscriminately,butisappliedflexiblyandsubjecttoconditionsandlimitations.(SeefulljudgmentLegalGrounds4)3.ClaimbyDenneyChildrenrejectedonfourgroundsTheclaimwasrejectedandtherulingofFirstInstancewasrevokedonfourgrounds.Firstly,thattheapplicationofrenvoiinthiscasewouldbecontrarytotheprincipleofunityofsuccession;secondly,itwouldmakeunenforceabletheguidingprincipleofEnglishLawoffreedomtotestate;thirdly,thatitwouldnotleadtoaharmonyofsolutions;andfourthly,thatitwouldnotproducegreaterjusticeforthoseinvolved.(SeefulljudgmentLegalGrounds4)4.EarlierrulingbyProvincialAppealCourtoncostsoverturnedTheorderoftheProvincialAppealCourtinBadajoz,orderingthecostsatfirstinstanceandoftheappealtobepaidbytheDenneychildren,wasoverturned.Becauseofthelegalcomplexityofthelitigiousmatter,thedoctrinalattitudesinvolved,includingthelegalprecedentsoftheEnglishCourtsandtheSupremeCourt’slackofcaselawonthesubject,nospecialordersforcostsweremaderegardingcostsforthefirstinstance,theappealclaimortheappealbeforetheSupremeCourt.(SeejudgmentLegalGrounds5.)2.案例——(非方便法院)ForumNonConveniensinFloridaByDanielTDoyleofRumberger,Kirk&CaldwellPAKinneySystem,Inc.v.TheContinentalInsuranceCo.CaseNo.84-329(Florida,January25,1996)InKinneySystem,Inc.v.TheContinentalInsuranceCo.,theSupremeCourtofFloridaaddressedtheissueofforumnonconveniens.Simplyput,forumnonconveniensdetermineswhetherFloridaisthe"convenientforum"tohearthecaseatissue.TheCourtreviewedthefollowingcertifiedquestion:Isatrialcourtprecludedfromdismissinganactiononthebasisofforumnonconvenienswhereoneofthepartiesisaforeigncorporationthat:(a)isdoingbusinessinFlorida;(b)isregisteredtodobusinessinFlorida;(c)hasitsprincipalplaceofbusinessinFlorida.Id.TheSupremeCourtansweredthequestioninthenegative.Thatis,courtscantransferacaseifcertainrequirementsaremet.ThisdecisionmayhaveadramaticimpactoninternationalcasesandthoseclaimswhereasubstantialamountoftheactsthatformabasisfortheclaimoccurredoutsideofFlorida.Previously,whereacorporationhaditsprincipalplaceofbusiness,orinsomecaseswherethecorporationwaslicensedtodobusiness(asinFlorida),thecasecouldnotbedismissedonforumnonconveniensgrounds.Thus,themerefactthatacorporationhaditsprincipalplaceofbusinessinFloridawasenoughtopreventthecasefrombeingdismissedeventhoughtheinjuryandtheaccidentoccurredoutsideofFlorida.IntheKinneycase,Continental...