This is an extract of our Van Uden 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:
VAN UDEN (1998) FACTS Those questions were raised in the context of a dispute between Van Uden Maritime BV ('Van Uden'), established at Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line and Another ('Deco-Line'), of Hamburg, Germany, concerning an application for interim relief (in kort geding proceedings) relating to the payment of debts arising under a contract containing an arbitration clause. In March 1993 Van Uden and Deco-Line concluded a 'slot/space charter agreement', under which Van Uden undertook to make available to Deco-Line cargo space on board vessels operated by Van Uden, either on its own account or in association with other shipping lines, on a liner service between northern or western parts of Europe and west Africa. In return, Deco-Line was to pay charter hire in accordance with the rates agreed between the parties. Van Uden instituted arbitration proceedings in the Netherlands pursuant to the agreement, on the ground that Deco-Line had failed to pay certain invoices submitted to it by Van Uden. Application for interim relied by Van Uden: Van Uden also applied to the President of the Rechtbank (District Court), Rotterdam, for interim relief on the grounds that Deco-Line was not displaying the necessary diligence in the appointment of arbitrators and that non-payment of its invoices was disturbing its cash flow. In those proceedings, Deco-Line objected, first, that the Netherlands court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claims. Being established in Germany, it could be sued only before the German courts. The President of the Rechtbank dismissed that objection on the ground that an order sought as interim relief must be regarded as a provisional measure within the meaning of Article 24 of the Convention. HOLDING Application of Art. 31 - Provisional measures In addition, Article 24, in Section 9 of the Convention, adds a rule of jurisdiction falling outside the system set out in Articles 2 and 5 to 18, whereby a court may order provisional or protective measures even if it does not have jurisdiction as to the substance of the case. Under that provision, the measures available are those provided for by the law of the State of the court to which application is made.
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes.