Gateley Legal’s Post

Simplifying enforcement: UK ratifies 2019 Hague Enforcement Convention On 27 June the UK government ratified the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. It provides a uniform framework for the recognition and enforcement of judgments between the UK and EU. Oliver Rawkins and Natalie Hendy discuss the key features of the Convention and the much-needed clarity it should bring to enforcement of judgments between the UK and the other contracting states, including the EU. Read more: https://lnkd.in/er5KuEF9 #enforcement #HagueConvention #enforcementofjudgement

Supreme Courts latest ruling on arbitrations helps ensure that arbitrations are able to proceed quickly and smoothly.

https://lnkd.in/eahRRgPw Do you think that the #France cour de cassation & other state institutions like #autoritedelaconcurrence are in place to uphold the rule of law? No. They are here to make #French state & institutions even more powerful & overbearing. Duhh.

https://lnkd.in/dQh36yrh #Edrich; What's wrong in conducting an inquiry against a judge? What's wrong in mentioning a judge as a respondent? Judges don't have absolute immunity, they have limited immunity, it's not as if they can do just anything under the Sun, which erroneous concept is being sought to be introduced through abject fear and indoctrination, through what is called court guidelines, whether guidelines can override adjective, constitutional, procedural, substantive, statues and the principles of natural justice, further international public law. I suggest, the aggrieved advocate, take recourse to the Principles of exhaustion of local remedies, r/w clause 64 to 66, of international public law r/w, the United nations charter, who says, one will essentially have to approach courts against whom allegations are levelled?

Many thanks to @ECLRHub for this blogpost. It's the quick version of my longer article, best suited for the busy practitioner or as a taste-tester: https://lnkd.in/gZvvKw6d

#Federal Circuit Clarifies the “Dispositive” Requirement of the Foreign Antisuit-Injunction Framework #litigation #law https://bit.ly/4hVrbZ8

#Federal Circuit Clarifies the “Dispositive” Requirement of the Foreign Antisuit-Injunction Framework #litigation #law https://bit.ly/4hVrbZ8

Term- Locus Standi Translation- Place of standing Definition- The right of a party to appear and be heard before a court. Read the full #article👇 https://lnkd.in/gFbjTbbT

Now that J Assange has accepted a plea deal, we won't see a full discussion in court of what I thought was the most interesting of the points for which he was given leave to appeal against extradition in March this year. This was ground (v) of his appeal, arguing that he would be prejudiced by reason of his nationality in a US court. The two crucial points which convinced the English court to grant LTA on this ground were: 1. A US Supreme Court decision in the 2020 Open Society case in which Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the court, said that "it is long settled as a matter of American constitutional law that foreign citizens outside United States territory do not possess rights under the US Constitution." 2. The US prosecutor's admission in Assange's case that "the United States could argue that foreign nationals are not entitled to protections under the First Amendment, at least as it concerns national defense information." These principles overlap but are not quite the same. It also seems troubling to me as a matter of principle, that a rather exorbitant jurisdiction (i.e. over a foreigner for doing something abroad) can be asserted to bring someone into a country but at the same time to deny them the protections that would be available to them if the relevant things had been done by a local citizen locally. The English court also envisaged that perhaps assurances could be given by the US prosecutor to allow Assange to make First Amendment arguments on the same basis as a US citizen could. Is that correct or are there limits on the effectiveness of such assurance? Any US lawyers able to help untangle this? The English court March 2024 decision is here, and the relevant discussion starts at paragraph 164 - https://lnkd.in/eSrUsuE7

How does the Supreme People's Court support major national strategies? Observing the case of the "Foreign-related rule of law" strategy, the one and only Susan Finder found some answers. https://lnkd.in/dXSiUazv