This is an extract of our Metal And Rushtoff 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:
METAL AND RUSHTOFF V. DONALDSON HOLDING Secondly, at a time when M. & R. instituted the present proceedings against D.L.J. and A.C.L.I. on 13 April 1987, the claim in respect of procurement of breach of contract was statute-barred under New York law and accordingly no longer actionable in that jurisdiction. Limitation period in Double Actionability Cases The Act of 1984 came into force on 1 October 1985. Section 1 provides: (1) Subject to the following provisions of this Act, where in any action or proceedings in a court in England and Wales the law of any other country falls (in accordance with rules of private international law applicable by any such court) to be taken into account in the determination of any matter - (a) the law of that other country relating to limitation shall apply in respect of that matter for the purposes of the action or proceedings; and (b) except where that matter falls within subsection (2) below, the law of England and Wales relating to limitation shall not so apply. (2) A matter falls within this subsection if it is a matter in the determination of which both the law of England and Wales and the law of some other country fall to be taken into account. In including section 1(2) in the Act of 1984 the legislature clearly had in mind a rule of our private international law relating to double actionability, which stems from the decision in Phillips v. Eyre (1870) L.R. 6 Q.B. 1 and was slightly revised by a decision of the majority of the House of Lords in Boys v. Chaplin  A.C. 356, to which we will refer in its revised form as "the rule in Boys v. Chaplin. Boys v. Chaplin - requires "civil actionability" - overruling Machado v. Fontes In Boys v. Chaplin  A.C. 356 both Lord Hodson and Lord Wilberforce, at pp. 374C and 384E, referred to rule 158 as correctly representing the existing English law. However, some doubts had arisen as to whether the rule in Phillips v. Eyre, L.R. 6 Q.B. 1, contemplated the possibility of a successful action in respect of an act done in a foreign country which gave rise to criminal but not civil liability under the law of that country. The majority of the House of Lords in Boys v. Chaplin answered this question in the negative, holding in effect that, in the application of the rule, the phrase "civilly actionable" should be substituted
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes.