Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Klomps Notes

BCL Law Notes > Conflict of Laws BCL Notes

This is an extract of our Klomps document, which we sell as part of our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

KLOMPS (1981) FACTS This case arises from an order of 27 June 1978 whereby The President of that court declared enforceable in the Netherlands, by virtue of the provisions of the convention, an order for payment and the order for its enforcement issued by German courts in the context of summary proceedings for the recovery of debts or liquidated demands, known as ''mahnverfahren''. Personal service of the order for payment (zahlungsbefehl) was not effected but in the absence of the defendant the order was lodged at the post office and written notification of the order was left at the address in the Federal Republic of Germany provided by the creditor, which, according to German law, constituted service at that address. Under the legislation in force at the time the defendant was allowed a period of not less than three days in order to submit an objection (widerspruch) to the order for payment but that period was extended until such time as the court issued an order for its enforcement (vollstreckungsbefehl). In the present case that period was six days. After service of the enforcement order, which was effected by the same method, the defendant had a second period of one week within which to lodge an objection (einspruch) to the enforcement order. However, the defendant allowed four months to pass before submitting such an objection and claimed that at the time of the summary proceedings his habitual residence was in the Netherlands. The objection was dismissed as being out of time following adversary proceedings in which the German court considered the question of habitual residence in order to establish whether service was duly effected and held that, according to German law, Mr klomps was habitually resident at the address where service was effected. It is clear from the file that under German law the objection to the order for payment might be made quite informally, without stating reasons, and even by a representative who was not required to prove that he was duly authorized for the purpose. In the course of the various proceedings before the Netherlands courts the defendant, who is the appellant in cassation, claimed that the recognition, and accordingly the enforcement, in the Netherlands, of the orders made against him by the German courts were contrary to Article 27, point 2, of the convention. HOLDING "Document instituting proceedings" - Order for payment By the first question the hoge raad asks whether, under a system like that which was in force in the Federal Republic of Germany in 1976 in accordance with which service on the defendant of an

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes.

More Conflict Of Laws Bcl Samples