Choice of Law for Unjust Enrichment/Restitution and the Rome Ii Regulation

Chong, Adeline

doi:10.1017/s0020589308000614

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The category of unjust/unjustified enrichment is preferable in the context of a legal instrument that aims to apply across the civilian/common law divide. 200 Unjust/unjustified enrichment is a well-established concept in civilian legal systems 201 and the autonomous nature of this field of law has also been recognised in England. 202 The more difficult question is whether there is any connecting factor that can possibly be used in a special jurisdiction rule for unjust enrichment that would attract international acceptance.…”

Section: A New Rule Of Special Jurisdiction?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Unjust Enrichment and the Brussels I Regulation

Grušić¹

2019

ICLQ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines how the jurisdictional rules of the recast of the Brussels I Regulation, namely the rules of exclusive jurisdiction for immovable property and company law and governance matters and the rules of special jurisdiction for contracts and torts, deal with unjust enrichment claims and issues concerning unjust enrichment. It also asks whether a new special jurisdiction rule for unjust enrichment should be added to the Regulation.

show abstract

Section: A New Rule Of Special Jurisdiction?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Unjust Enrichment and the Brussels I Regulation

Grušić¹

2019

ICLQ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…111 The 2000s saw the relentless process of the Europeanization of private international law continue and articles and shorter pieces to reflect this appeared on the Brussels II Regulation 112 the European payment order and small claims Regulations; 113 and the Rome II Regulation. 114 Especially welcome have been the views of continental writers on EU private international law. 115 Comparative pieces are always popular and none more so when they relate to tort choice of law in Australia, Britain and Canada.…”

Section: Years Of Public International Law In the International And Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

60 Years of Legal Scholarship in the International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Redgwell

2012

ICLQ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This issue of the Quarterly marks 60 years of its publication, since 1958 under the auspices of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law. To mark the occasion the editorial board has taken the opportunity to reflect on the contribution the Quarterly has made in the key areas of legal scholarship represented in its pages (and accordingly in the composition of the editorial board), namely, public international law, private international law, comparative law, EU law and human rights law.

show abstract

Torts

2015

International Commercial Litigation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Choice of Law for Unjust Enrichment/Restitution and the Rome Ii Regulation

Cited by 3 publications

References 1 publication

Unjust Enrichment and the Brussels I Regulation

Unjust Enrichment and the Brussels I Regulation

60 Years of Legal Scholarship in the International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Torts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About