Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Mulox Ibc Notes

BCL Law Notes > Conflict of Laws BCL Notes

This is an extract of our Mulox Ibc 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:

MULOX IBC (1993) FACTS Proceedings between Mulox IBC Ltd, a company incorporated under English law whose registered office is in London (hereinafter "Mulox"), and one of its former employees, Hendrick Geels, a Netherlands national residing in Aix-les-Bains, France, following termination of his contract of employment by his employer. It is apparent from the documents before the Court that Mr Geels, who had been employed by Mulox as international marketing director since 1 November 1988, established his office in France and sold Mulox products initially in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries, to which he travelled frequently. As from January 1990, Mr Geels worked in France. Following termination of his contract of employment, Mr Geels sued his former employer before the Conseil de Prud' Hommes, Aixles-Bains (France), for compensation in lieu of notice and for damages. QUESTION Does the application of the jurisdiction rule under Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 require the obligation characterizing the employment contract to have been performed wholly and solely in the territory of the State of the court seised of the dispute, or is it sufficient for its operation that part of the obligation - possibly the principal part - has been performed in the territory of that State?
HOLDING Relevant obligation is the obligation of the employee It is true that, with regard to the rule in Article 5(1) of the Convention on special jurisdiction, the Court has already held (Case 12/76 Tessili v Dunlop [1976] ECR 1473) that, for contracts in general, "the place of performance of contractual obligations", within the meaning of that provision, cannot be understood otherwise than by reference to the law which governs the obligations in question under the conflict rules of the court before which the matter is brought. However, no such problem arises in relation to contracts of employment. The Court has consistently held that, in view of the specific nature of contracts of that kind (Case 133/81 Ivenel v Schwab [1982] ECR 1891, paragraph 20, Case 266/85 Shenavai v Kreischer [1987] ECR 239, paragraph 11, and Case 32/88 Six Constructions v Humbert [1989] ECR 341, paragraph 10), the obligation to be taken into consideration for the purposes of

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