text:
Tag: Forum non conveniens
TWR v Panasonic. Obiter consideration of A34 Brussels Ia forum non light. Hamburg court likely to have to take up that baton in some form.
TRW Ltd v Panasonic Industry Europe GmbH & Anor [2021] EWHC 19 (TCC) adds to the slowly developing case-law on Article 34 Brussels Ia's forum non conveniens light, on which I have reported at each occasion the Article to my knowledge has been applied (most recently in Ness Global Services).
The defendant Panasonic companies are based in Germany. Panasonic's Group headquarters are in Japan. TRW is the English subsidiary, based in Solihull, of a German group of companies, ZF Group. The defendants say the parties agreed to German law and exclusive jurisdiction of the Hamburg court over any claim by TRW arising from supply of the resistors. TRW says the parties agreed to English law and jurisdiction.
There are related proceedings in Michigan, with judgment expected in about April 2021.
Kerr J decides at 55 ff here was valid A25 choice of court and hence jurisdiction for the courts at Hamburg, following the usual discussion on whether and if so which choice of court has been agreed in to and fro messages, purchase orders, invoices, references to general terms and conditions and the like. The kind of housekeeping complications which I discuss ia here.
Then follows obiter the Article 34 discussion. Parties agree that if jurisdiction under A25 BIa is established by neither party, TRW was at liberty to sue in England as the place of delivery of the goods, under A7(1) BIa; and that for A34 purposes there is a related lis alibi pendens in Michigan. The discussion turned on whether the word "expedient" in A34(1)(a) bears the meaning "desirable, even if not practicable" or "both practicable and desirable", given the inconsistent case-law in JSC Commercial Privatbank v. Kolomoisky, SCOR v Barclays, Municipio de Mariana, Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Royal Dutch Shell plc. and of course EuroEco.
At 94 Kerr J seems to side with Kolomoisky and with not reading EuroEco as a rejection of same, however he does not take definitive sides or does not attempt to reconcile the judgments. At 95 he says he would have not exercised his discretion for a stay, for the reasons earlier listed by counsel for claimants: these were (at 92-93)
Mr Caplan strongly opposed any stay. He submitted that, assuming I have any discretion to grant a stay (contrary to his reserved position), I should not exercise it. The risk of irreconcilable judgments could not be eliminated, he argued. The Michigan case would shortly produce a judgment binding on neither party to the present claim and, probably, applying Michigan law.
There was no scope for issue estoppel or abuse of process because the parties were different and the law could be different. Neither party in this case had opted for Michigan as the chosen forum and Michigan law as the choice of law. If the outcome of the Michigan litigation helped to promote settlement of the present claim, that could happen anyway, without a stay, since this claim is still at an early stage; the first case management conference has yet to take place.
At 98 Kerr J summarises
I would refuse a stay. The first condition in article 34(1)(a) – the expediency condition – may well be met, subject to clarification of the test emerging from the case law. The second condition is met. The third is not. I am far from satisfied that a stay is necessary for the proper administration of justice.
Kerr J concludes at 99
defendants have undertaken to submit to the jurisdiction of the Hamburg court, subject to seeking a stay of proceedings in Hamburg to await the outcome of the Michigan proceedings.
The Hamburg court is likely to see A34 arguments return, lest of course the Michigan proceedings will be concluded, in which case res judicata, recognition, and irreconcilability of judgment might be a core concern.
We have fairly little, if growing (*makes a note to now really really finish that paper*) authority to work with on A34. All bits help.
European Private International, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.15.3.2, para 2.539 ff
Jurisdiction dismissed on the basis of A25 BIa choice of court. A7 and A34 forum non conveniens light considered obiter (A34 stay dismissed).
Hamburg court is likely to have to entertain the A34 arguments. https://t.co/dwAbpXLGun
— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 8, 2021
Ness Global Services: A33-34 BIa's forum non conveniens-light applied to the Scarlet Pimpernel of BIa: non-exclusive choice of court.
Ness Global Services Ltd v Perform Content Services Ltd [2020] EWHC 3394 (Comm) engages Articles 33-34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation, its so-called forum non conveniens light regime. I reported on it before of course, most recently re Municipio de Mariana in which the judge arguably failed to engage with BIa properly (making A33-34 a carbon copy of abuse and /or forum non arguments in my view is noli sequi).
Perform and Ness are UK-registered companies with offices in London. Perform are defendants in the UK action. Ness Global Services and its parent Ness Technologies Inc are defendants in parallel proceedings in New Jersey. Both sets of proceedings are based on the same facts and matters. These are said to constitute the basis for termination by both sides of a written agreement.
Ness argue application of A33-34 must be dismissed for there is non-exclusive choice of court in favour of England which, it argues, makes the A33-34 threshold very high. (The clause reads '"Governing Law and Jurisdiction. The Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and the parties hereby irrevocably submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of England and Wales as regards any claim, dispute or matter arising under or in connection with this Agreement.")
Houseman J introduces BIa's scheme clearly and concisely, using the excellent Adrian Briggs' suggestion of there being a hidden hierarchy in the Regulation – which in my Handbook I have also adopted (clearly with reference to prof Briggs) as the 'jurisdictional matrix'. Houseman J at 39 notes that non-exclusive jurisdiction is hardly discussed in the Regulation. and concludes on that issue 'If the internal hierarchy is "hidden" then is fair to say that the concept of non-exclusive prorogated jurisdiction is enigmatic and elusive. It is The Scarlet Pimpernel of the Regulation.' Later non-EJA is used as shorthand for non-exclusive jurisdiction agreement.
At 62 after consideration of the reflexive application of exclusive jurisdictional rules, including choice of court, the text of A33-34, and recital 24, the judge considers that the recital
focusses upon connections with the 'first seised' Non-Member State, rather than the 'second seised' Member State which is applying Article 33 or Article 34. This is conspicuous notwithstanding the fact that the jurisdictional gateway language presupposes some connection between either the defendant (domicile) or the circumstances of the case (special jurisdiction) and the 'second seised' forum. Further, there is no obvious room in this wording for accommodating or giving effect to a Non-EJA in favour of the courts of the latter forum, and no warrant for affording it the significance that it would receive under English private international law principles, as noted below. In contrast, the second paragraph of the recital appears to contemplate the conferral of exclusive prorogated jurisdiction (albeit reflexively) in favour of the 'first seised' Non-Member State, as noted above.
At 80, Houseman J emphasises that in his view the internal hierarchy of the Regulation (the matrix) has no direct role to play in interpreting or applying the gateway language in A33-34. Those articles are themselves part of such hierarchy and are themselves a derogation from the basic rule of domiciliary jurisdiction. He then refers in some support to UCP v Nectrus (reference could also have been made to Citicorp) to hold at 95 that
where Article 25 operates to confer prorogated jurisdiction upon the courts of the 'second seised' Member State, whether exclusive or non-exclusive, Articles 33 and 34 are not applicable. In such a case it cannot be said that the court's jurisdiction is "based upon" Article 4.
A suggestion at 96 that in such case A33-34 can apply reflexively is justifiably rejected.
At 109 application of A33-34 had they been engaged is declined obiter as being not in the interest of proper administration of justice. At 107 mere reference, neither approving nor disapproving was made ia to Municipio de Mariana which effectively places the Articles on a forum non footing. At 112 it is held obiter
Without engaging in a full granular balancing exercise, given that this is a hypothetical inquiry in the present case, I am not persuaded that it is or would have been necessary for the proper administration of justice to stay these proceedings in favour of the NJ Proceedings. The parties bargained for or at any rate accepted the risk of jurisdictional fragmentation and multiplicity of proceedings by agreeing clause 20(f). That risk has manifested, largely through the tactical choice made by Perform to commence proceedings pre-emptively in New Jersey. The continuation of these proceedings, notwithstanding the existence of the NJ Proceedings, is a foreseeable consequence of the parties' free bargain and a risk that Perform courted by suing first elsewhere.
An interesting addition to the scant A33-34 case-law, in an area this time of purely commercial litigation.
European Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.539 ff.
Application (dismissed) for a stay on the basis of Articles 33-34 Brussels Ia, 'forum non conveniens light'. https://t.co/gwl3B5y3hl
— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) December 11, 2020
Napag Trading v Gedi. A right Italian tussle on libel over the internet, leads to jurisdictional dismissal on good arguable case grounds.
Napag Trading Ltd & Ors v Gedi Gruppo Editoriale SPA & Anor [2020] EWHC 3034 (QB) engages (and refers to) the issues I previously reported on in inter alia Bolagsupplysningen, Saïd v L'Express,
It is worthwhile to list both claimants and defendants.
On the claimants side, Napag Trading Limited ("the First Claimant") is an English-domiciled company. Napag Italia Srl ("the Third Claimant") is an Italian-domiciled subsidiary of the First Claimant. Sgr Francesco Mazzagatti ("the Second Claimant"), an Italian national with his main residence in Dubai, is the CEO and sole director of, and 95% shareholder in, the First Claimant. The First Claimant trades, and the Third Claimant has traded, in petroleum-based products.
On the defendants side, Gedi Gruppo Editoriale S.p.A. ("the First Defendant") is the publisher amongst other things of L'Espresso which is a weekly Italian-language political and cultural magazine available both in print and online in England and Wales. Società Editoriale Il Fatto S.p.A. ("the Second Defendant") is the publisher of Il Fatto Quotidiano ("Il Fatto"), a daily Italian-language newspaper published in England and Wales only on the internet.
An earlier Brexit-anticipatory forum non conveniens challenge was waived away by Jay J at 7: 'Only the Second Defendant saw fit to raise a forum non conveniens challenge in advance of 1st January 2021 and the relevant EU regulation no longer applying. I would have been very reluctant to rule on this sort of application on an anticipatory basis.'
Identifying a centre of interest in England and Wales, leading to full jurisdiction there for damages, per CJEU e-Date and Bolagsupplysningen and also a precondition to apply for injunctive relief (see also Bolagsupplysningen: only courts with full jurisdiction may issue such relief) is of course a factual assessment.
The Second Claimant is an entrepreneur, born in Calabria but now living in Dubai. He founded the Third Claimant in 2012. Initially, it traded in oil and petroleum products from offices in Rome. The Third Claimant dealt in particular with the Italian oil company Eni S.p.A. ("Eni"), headquartered in Rome and in part state-owned, and Eni Trading & Shipping S.p.A. ("Ets") which is based in Rome and has a branch in London. Second Claimant incorporated the First Claimant in April 2018. His evidence is that London was a better base from which to conduct and grow his business because he was encountering resistance from some banks and financial institutions who were diffident about working with an Italian company. More specifically, the strategy was to hive off the Third Claimant's oil and gas business into the First Claimant, and the former would devote itself to trading in petrochemicals. Additionally, the idea was to invest in an "upstream" development in the UK Continental shelf, and the first discussions about this were in November 2018.
Justice Jay revisits the CJEU's instructions re centre of interests for natural persons per e-Date. At 29:
First, other things being equal, and certainly in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a natural person's "centre of interests" will match his or her habitual residence. Whether or not this may accurately be described as an evidential presumption does not I think matter (in my view, no legal presumption is generated); in any case, the CJEU – subject to my second point – is not purporting to assist national courts as to the rules of law that should govern the exercise of ascertainment. Secondly, general considerations of predictability and the need for clarity militate in favour of straightforward and readily accessible criteria rather than any microscopic examination of the detail.
At 32 follows an interesting discussion of para 43 of the CJEU Bolagsupplysningen judgment
"43. It is also appropriate to point out that, in circumstances where it is not clear from the evidence that the court must consider at the stage when it assesses whether it has jurisdiction that the economic activity of the relevant legal person is carried out mainly in a certain member state, so that the centre of interests of the legal person which is claiming to be the victim of an infringement of its personality rights cannot be identified, that person cannot benefit from the right to sue the alleged perpetrator of the infringement pursuant to article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 for the entirety of the compensation on the basis of the place where the damage occurred."
After a reference to what Justice Jay calls Bobek AG's 'masterly opinion', in particular the burden of proof issues are discussed which Jay J justifiably holds are not within the scope of Brussels Ia (not at least in the sense of deciding the procedural moment at which proof must be furnished). I agree with his finding that the CJEU's meaning of para 43 is simply that
in the event that the national court concluded that it could not identify the "centre of interests" because the evidence was unclear, article 7(2) of the RBR could not avail the claimant.
Conclusion of the factual consideration follows (probably obiter: see 150) at 161: first Claimant has the better of the argument that its "centre of interests" is in England and Wales.
Jay J then discusses at 35 ff that whether there actually is damage within E&W as a matter of domestic law to decide to good arguable case standard, that the case may go ahead. That discussion shows that the actual concept of 'damage' within the meaning of Brussels Ia and indeed Rome II is not quite so established as might be hoped, and it is held at 141 that no serious damage has occurred within E&W for there to be jurisdiction.
The case is a good illustration of the hurdle which national rules of civil procedure continue to form despite jurisdictional harmonisation under EU private international law rules.
(Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.2.
Third ed. forthcoming February 2021.
Jurisdiction, libel over the internet.
Consideration of centre of interests per #CJEU Bolagsupplysningen (found to be E&W at good arguable case level). https://t.co/VOi2KS5qFb
— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 13, 2020
Qatar Airways v Middle East News (Al Arabiya). On forum non and determining lex causae for malicious falsehood and locus damni for conspiracy.
Forum non conveniens featured not just in Municipio de Mariana at the High Court yesterday but also in Qatar Airways Group QCSC v Middle East News FZ LLC & Ors [2020] EWHC 2975 (QB).
Twenty Essex have good summary of the background and decision. Context is of course the blockade on Qatar, led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Qatar Airways Group (QAG) sue on the basis of tort, triggered by a rather chilling clip aired by Al Arabiya which amounted to a veiled threat against the airline.
Saini J at 27 notes what Turner J also noted in Municipio de Mariana and what Briggs LJ looked at in horror in Vedanta, namely the spiralling volume and consequential costs in bringing and defending a jurisdictional challenge. (Although at least for Vedanta and Municipio de Mariana the issues discussed are matters of principle, which may eventually settle once SC (and indeed CJEU) authority is clear).
The judgment recalls some principles of international aviation law under the Chicago Convention (with noted and utterly justifiable reference a 77 ff to an article on the opiniojuris blog by prof Heller) which is important here because (at 61) it is the starting point of QAG's case that anyone who had taken steps to inform themselves of the legal position would have known that contrary to what (it argues) is the message of the Video, there was no real risk of any internationally legitimate interception, still less legitimate shooting at or down, of a QAG scheduled service in flight along one of the defined air corridors. At 88 Saini J concludes on that issue that there is an arguable case as to meaning and falsity.
On good arguable case, reference is to Kaefer v AMS, Goldman Sachs v Novo Banco, and Brownlie.
At 164 ff the judge discusses the issue of pleading foreign law at the jurisdictional threshold of making a good arguable case. Here, Saini J holds on the basis of the assumption that malicious falsehood is not covered by Rome II, which is the higher threshold for the purposes of establishing jurisdiction. He does suggest that it is likely that in fact malicious falsehood is covered by Rome II and not by the exception for infringement of personality rights (at 166: 'Malicious falsehood is not a claim for defamation, and what is sought to be protected is not Qatar Airways' reputation or privacy rights, but its economic interests').
As for applicable law for conspiracy, that is clearly within the scope of Rome II and poses the difficulty of determining locus damni in a case of purely economic loss. Here, at 169 Saini J suggests preliminarily that parties agreed "damage" for the purposes of Article 4(1) of Rome II to have been suffered in the place where the third parties (that is, potential passengers) failed to enter into contracts with QAG (which they otherwise would have done) as a result of the video. Location of purely economic damage under Rome II as indeed it is under Brussel Ia is however not settled and I doubt it is as simple as locating it in the place of putative (passenger) contract formation.
Of long-term impact is the judge's finding that for jurisdictional threshold purposes, he is content for claimant to proceed with a worldwide claim for tort on the basis of any foreign law that might be applicable having the same content as English law.
Of note in the forum non analysis is that not just the obvious alternative of the UAE was not good forum, but neither would the DIFC be. At 374:'the UAE is not an appropriate forum is what I would broadly call "access to justice" considerations in what has clearly become a "hostile environment" for Qataris in the UAE.' And at 379, re the DIFC: 'The DIFC courts are a sort of "litigation island" within the UAE, created to attract legal business by their perceived superior neutrality, and higher quality, compared to the local courts. But as such, they have no superiority compared to the English courts, also a neutral forum. The English courts have the other connections to the case, which the DIFC courts do not.'
409 paras of jurisdictional challenge based on serious issue to be tried and forum non conveniens.
Dismissed (with summary judgment re one of the defendants).
Discussion of international aviation law (with reference to article on @opiniojuris). https://t.co/Qz2GpqgLoF
— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) November 9, 2020
High Court declines jurisdiction in Municipio de Mariana. An important (first instance) #bizhumanrights marker.
I am instructed for claimants in the case hence my post here is a succinct report, not a review and it must not be read as anything else.
Turner J yesterday struck out (not just: stayed) the case against the companies jointly operating the facilities that led to the 2015 Brazilian dam break and consequential human and environmental loss in Município De Mariana & Ors v BHP Group Plc & Anor [2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC). I reported on the case before here.
Eyre J's earlier Order had identified the threefold jurisdictional challenge: 1. Forum non conveniens for non-EU defendants; 2. Article 34 Brussels IA for the EU-based defendants; 3. Abuse of process, case management for both.
In his judgment Turner J makes abuse of process the core of the case, hinging his subsequent obiter analysis of forum non and of Article 34 on his views viz abuse. At the centre of his abuse analysis is his interpretation of AB v John Wyeth & Brother (No.4), also known as the benzodiazepine litigation, with the points he takes from that judgment (even after the subsequent CPR rules wre issued) summarized at 76.
At 80 ff is a discussion (see e.g. my earlier review of Donaldson DJ in Zavarco) on the use of case-management powers, including abuse, against EU-domiciled defendants post CJEU Owusu (the 'back-door analogy per Lewison J in Skype technologies SA v Joltid Ltd [2009] EWHC 2783 (Ch) ).
At 99 ff Turner J pays a lot of attention to the impact of accepting jurisdiction on the working of the courts in England, discusses some of the practicalities including language issues, and decides at 141 in an extract which has already caught the attention of others, that 'In particular, the claimants' tactical decision to progress closely related damages claims in the Brazilian and English jurisdictions simultaneously is an initiative the consequences of which, if unchecked, would foist upon the English courts the largest white elephant in the history of group actions.'
At 146 ff follow the obiter considerations of the remaining grounds, Article 34 Recast, forum non conveniens and case management stay. On Article 34 viz BHP Plc, the issue of 'relatedness' is discussed with reference of course to Euroeco and the tension between that case and Privatbank, as I flag ia here, holding at 199 in favour of Privatbank as the leading authority (hence focus on desirability of hearing cases together rather than on practical possibility). On relatedness, Turner J does not follow the approach of either Zavarco or Jalla, both of course first instance decisions.
At 206 Turner J takes the instructions of recital 24 Brussels Ia's 'all circumstances of the case' to mean including circumstances which would ordinarily be part of a forum non consideration, despite Owusu, and at 231 Jalla is distinguished (at least practically; Jalla is not authority for the judge here) and i.a. at 221 Turner J lists his reasons for allowing an Article 34 stay (again: these are obiter views). As already noted, these echo his findings on abuse of process.
The forum non conveniens analysis viz BHP Ltd at 235 ff, applying Spiliada, delivers inter alia on an inherent implication of Lord Briggs' suggestions in Vedanta: that a commitment of defendants voluntarily to submit to the foreign alternative jurisdiction, hands them the key to unlock forum non. At 241: 'In this case, both defendants have offered to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of Brazil. Thus the force of any suggestion that there may be a risk of irreconcilable judgements against each defendant is attenuated.'
Conclusions, at 265:
(i) I strike out the claims against both defendants as an abuse of the process of the court;
(ii) If my finding of abuse were correct but my decision to strike out were wrong, then I would stay the claims leaving open the possibility of the claimants, or some of them, seeking to lift the stay in future but without pre-determining the timing of any such application or the circumstances in which such an application would be liable to succeed;
(iii) If my finding of abuse were wrong, then I would, in any event, stay the claim against BHP Plc by the application of Article 34 of the Recast Regulation;
(iv) If my finding of abuse were wrong, then I would, in any event, stay the claims against BHP Ltd on the grounds of forum non conveniens regardless of whether the BHP reliance on Article 34 of the Recast Regulation had been successful or not;
(v) If my findings on the abuse of process point were wrong, then a free-standing decision to impose a stay on case management grounds would probably be unsustainable.
Appeal is of course being considered.
(Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 8, Heading 8.3.
3rd ed. forthcoming February 2021.
Jurisdiction denied in core #bizhumanrights case on the basis of abuse of process, Article 34 Brussels Ia and /or forum non conveniens.
For background to the case see https://t.co/CzkMFH98yH https://t.co/h9AjvJ6JIR
Shenzen Senior Technology Material v Celgard. On Rome II's rule applicable law rule for unfair competition, distinguishing 'direct' from 'indirect' damage, and the Trade Secrets Directive.
Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co Ltd v Celgard, LLC [2020] EWCA Civ 1293 concerns an appeal against service out of jurisdiction (the judgment appealed is [2020] EWHC 2072 (Ch)). Celgard allege that the importation and marketing by Senior of battery separator film involves the misuse of Celgard's trade secrets.
Senior (of China) contend that the judge fell into error in concluding, first, that Celgard (incorporated in Delaware) had established a serious issue to be tried (here part of the jurisdictional threshold) assuming that English law applies to its claims and, secondly, that England is the proper forum to try the claims. As to the latter the core argument is that in limiting its claims to remedies in respect of acts in the UK, Celgard could not establish the requisite degree of connection to England. As for the former, they argue the law applicable to Celgard's claims is Chinese law, which would count against jurisdiction.
Strategically, Celgard's case against Senior is not based on breach of the NDA applicable between Celgard and one of its former employees, Dr Zhang who, when he left Celgard, told its then COO that he was going to work for General Electric in California, which does not compete with Celgard in the field of battery separators. It later transpired that he had in fact joined Senior in China, where he was using the false name "Bin Wang". This element of the facts triggers the question whether Senior is liable for the acts of another, even if that other is its employee.
The Celgard – Zhang NDA is governed by the law of South Carolina, application of which would also have triggered A4(3)(b) or (c) of the Trade Secrets Directive 2016/943. Celgard do rely on the NDA as supporting its case that the trade secrets were confidential. Rather Celgard claim that Senior's employee acted in breach of an equitable obligation. This engages Rome II, specifically Article 6(2) because Celgard's claims are concerned with an act of unfair competition affecting exclusively the interests of a specific competitor, namely Celgard. In such circumstances, Article 6(2) provides that "Article 4 shall apply".
Of note is that this is one of those cases that show that Rome II applies to more than just tortious obligations: as Arnold LJ notes at 51, as a matter of English law, claims for breach of equitable obligations of confidence are not claims in tort.
Celgard's case, accepted by Trowe J at the High Court, is that A4(1) leads to English law because the 'direct damage' (per Rome II and CJEU Lazard indirect damage needs to be ignored) caused by the wrongdoing it complains of has occurred (and will, if not restrained, continue to occur) in the UK, that being the country into which the infringing goods (namely the shipment to the UK Customer and any future shipments of the same separator) have been (and will be) imported, causing damage to Celgard's market here.
Senior's case is that confidential information is intangible property and that damage to intangible property is located at the time and place it became irreversible (support is sought in extracts from Andrew Dickinson's Rome II volume with OUP). At 58 ff Arnold LJ gives 7 reasons for rejecting the position. I will not repeat them all here. Of note is not just the (most justifiable) heavy leaning on the travaux but also the support sought in secondary EU law different from private international law (such as the Trade Secrets Directive 2016/943) as well as in the consistency between Brussels Ia and the Rome Regulations [on which Szpunar AG has written excellently in Burkhard Hess and Koen Lenaerts (eds.), The 50th Anniversary of the European Law of Civil Procedure]. This is not an easy proposition however given the lack of detail in Rome I and the need for autonomous EU interpretation, understandable.
The Trade Secrets Directive is further discussed at 65 ff for in A4(5) it makes importation of infringing goods an unlawful use of a trade secret "where the person carrying out such activities knew, or ought, under the circumstances, to have known that the trade secret was used unlawfully within the meaning of paragraph 3". One of the possibilities embraced by paragraph 3 is (a), the person "having acquired the trade secret unlawfully". Arnold LJ then asks: what law is to be applied to determine whether it was acquired "unlawfully"? Is A4(5) read together with A4(3)(a) an implicit choice of law rule pointing to the law of the place where the trade secret was acquired? Arnold LJ suggests this is not acte clair and may need CJEU clarification however not at this stage for his provisional view (with an eye on the jurisdictional threshold test) is that the Directive is not an implicit choice of law rule and that per Rome II, English law applies.
Plenty applicable law issues to discuss at the merits stage.
(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 4, Heading 4.6.2. Third ed. forthcoming February 2021.
Service out of jurisdiction with core role for applicable law considerations: Article 6 junto 4 Rome II, unfair competition. https://t.co/BUUjFlzY9P
— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) October 9, 2020
Traxis: on forum non and burden of proof.
Traxys Europe SA v Sodexmines Nigeria Ltd [2020] EWHC 2195 (Comm) concerns the alleged dishonest substitution by Sodexmines Nigeria Limited in Nigeria in 2018 of a virtually worthless product in place of a valuable tin product which it had agreed (with choice of court and law pro England) to sell to the Claimant, Traxys Europe SA. Second defendant is the beneficial owner and alter ego of the First Defendant (note at 31 Teare J's insistence that they are legally separate and distinct persons). Permission to serve Mr. Ali out of the jurisdiction was granted on the basis that he was a necessary and proper party to the claim against First Defendant and that England is the proper place in which to bring the claim.
Mr Ali has applied for a stay (oddly not: an application to set aside the service order) on forum non conveniens grounds, which would ordinarily per Lord Goff in Spiliada (see discussion at 9 ff) with Teare J here at 11 holding he
'should have regard to the substance of the matter, namely, that this is a case where the Claimant was not entitled to commence proceedings against Mr. Ali "as of right" (the expression used by Lord Goff at p.481 E) but needed to persuade the court, not only that there was a jurisdictional gateway permitting service out, but also that England was the forum conveniens for the claim against Mr. Ali. Thus, notwithstanding that as a matter of form and language Mr. Ali is seeking a stay, I consider that once battle lines were drawn as to whether England was the forum conveniens the burden lay on the Claimant to establish that England was the forum conveniens.'
At 16-17 arguments for both are listed, summarily discussed (per Lord Briggs' instruction in Vedanta) with conclusion at 38
the claim against him lies in tort. The events which have given rise to those claims took place (in the main) in Nigeria. The witnesses upon whom the Claimant will rely to establish their claim against Mr. Ali are in Nigeria. In truth this is a Nigerian case, not an English case. The centre of gravity of the case is in Nigeria, not in England. To use the phrase used in one of the cases to which I was referred "the fundamental focus of the litigation" is on Nigeria, not England.
Of note is that the contractual and in all likelihood tort case against the first defendant will go ahead. I am not au fait whether leave to appeal was granted. On burden of proof, Teare J's findings are quite relevant and must be I imagine subject to differences of view.
Forum non and infringing copyright in the air: The Performing Rights Society v Qatar Airways.
Performing Right Society Ltd v Qatar Airways Group QCS [2020] EWHC 1872 (Ch) concerns the infringement or not of copyright via Qatar Airways' inflight entertainment system known as "Oryx One". Holding on an application for a stay on grounds of forum non conveniens or alternatively on case management grounds, Birss J on Friday first of all noted the relevance of Lucasfilm Limited v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39 that the English court can have jurisdiction over claims for infringement of copyright by non-UK acts and under non-UK law where there is a basis for in personam jurisdiction. Which there is because of the presence of the aircraft on the ground or in the territorial airspace of the UK – the airline was served at the London address of the UK branch (defendant, QATAR Airways Group Q.C.S.C. is not domiciled in the UK, I gather). Lucasfilm did not itself deal with forum non.
I flag this case for Birss J gives a good summary of the approach to forum non, building of course on Spiliada but also with reference to Vedanta, Okpabi etc., all reviewed on the blog. Note at 16-17 claimant's and defendant's alternative formulations of the Stage 1 cq 2 tests following Spiliada.
The defendant has summarised the test in Spiliada as follows:
"(1) Is there another available forum which is clearly and distinctly the natural forum, that is to say, the "forum with which the action has the most real and substantial connection"?
(2) If there is, is England nevertheless the appropriate forum, in particular because the court is not satisfied that substantial justice will be done in the alternative available forum?"
At: claimant's rival formulation is:
"Stage 1: Qatar Airways bears the burden of satisfying the Court that the Qatari court is an available forum with competent jurisdiction to determine PRS's claim and is clearly or distinctly a more appropriate forum than England for the trial of the issues. If it fails to satisfy the Court of these matters, a stay should be refused.
Stage 2: If the Court determines that the Qatari court is prima facie more appropriate, it must nevertheless refuse to grant a stay if PRS demonstrate that, in all the circumstances of the case, it would be unjust for it to be deprived of the right to trial in England."
The distinctions may seem trivial. However they relate to, firstly, burden of proof and secondly, which factors need to be considered in which stage (and therefore, proven by whom). In particular, it is suggested that issues such as the location of witnesses arose at the first stage yet that at least aspects of the points which were debated about expert witnesses (of foreign law) arose at the second stage not the first.
Birss J ends up summarising Stage 1 as entailing the following headings:
i) the personal connections the parties have to the countries in question; ii) factual connections which the events relevant to the claim have with the countries; iii) applicable law; iv) factors affecting convenience or expense such as the location of witnesses or documents.
I will leave readers to digest the arguments under the various headings themselves, Birss J concludes that Qatar is not clearly a more appropriate forum and does not therefore consider Stage 2.
Readers will remember that the CJEU in Owusu objected to forum non on the basis of its unpredictability. Now, I am not one for arguing that following Spiliada and Vedanta, and given the authority rule to which common lawyers and judges are attuned, forum non be unpredictable. Neither can one posit however, seeing the intensity of the discussion here and in many other cases, that it is an entirely clear exercise.
Application (dismissed) for stay of a claim of worldwide infringement of #copyright, on grounds of forum non conveniens or alternatively on case management grounds.
References of course UKSC Lucasfilm. https://t.co/sXPxUgpbdH
— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) July 17, 2020
Bundeszentralamt Fur Steuern v Heis. On comity, staying proceedings, and the 'public /private' divide in international litigation.
Bundeszentralamt Fur Steuern (Being the Federal Central Tax Office of the Federal Republic of Germany) & Ors v Heis & Ors [2019] EWHC 705 (Ch) was held in March 2019 bit only came unto BAILII recently and had not caught my attention before.
The primary question raised is whether appeals by the applicants, the German Federal Tax Office ("the GTA") and by Deutsche Bank AG ("DB") against the rejection by the Joint Special Administrators ("the Administrators") of MF Global UK Limited ("MFGUK") of their respective proofs of debt, to allow the underlying claim which forms the subject of the proof to be resolved by the specialist German tax or fiscal courts, which both the applicants (for different reasons) contend are the natural forum for the determination of the claims and the forum in which they can be resolved most efficiently.
The underlying issue concerns German withholding tax.
The GTA has at all times maintained that its claim should be determined in Germany by the German tax courts, per the UK-Germany double taxation Treaty, based on the OECD model convention (for those in the know: it is Article 28(6) which the GTA has suggested exclusively reserves its GTA Claim to the German Courts). However it felt compelled to submit a proof in MFGUK's UK administration proceedings in order to preserve its rights.
Under German law, it is within the GTA's power to give a decision on MFGUK's objection to relvant Amended Tax Assessment Notices. If and when it did so, it would then be for MFGUK, if it wished to pursue the matter further, to file an appeal against that decision by the GTA with the Fiscal Court of Cologne. The Fiscal Court of Cologne is one of the 18 fiscal courts in Germany which are the courts of first instance for tax matters. That seems a natural course to take however here the GTA is caught in a conundrum: at 18: the GTA has not yet formally rejected MFGUK's objection. This is because such objection would establish proceedings in Germany, and there is a procedural rule of German law that, in order to prevent parallel proceedings, a German court will automatically defer to the court first seized of a matter. Accordingly, it seems likely that if the GTA were to reject MFGUK's objection before the Stay Application has been decided by the UK Court, on any appeal by MFGUK, the Fiscal Court of Cologne might as a matter of comity defer to this Court in order to avoid parallel proceedings.
At 57: Brussels Ia is not engaged for the case concerns both the insolvency and the tax exclusion of Articles 1.1 and 1.2.b. At 56 Hildyard J considers the issues under English rules on the power to stay, with a focus on the risk of irreconcilable judgments.
At 84 Hildyard J holds that the GTA read too much into A28(6) and that there is no exclusive jurisdiction, leaving the consideration of whether a stay might be attractive nevertheless (at 89 ff the issue is discussed whether German courts could at all entertain the claim). This leads to an assessment pretty much like a stay under Brussels Ia as 'related' (rather than: the same, to which lis alibi pendens applies) cases. Note at 87(6) the emphasis which the GTA places on the actual possibility of consolidating the cases – similar to the arguments used in BIa A33-34 cases such as Privatbank and later cases).
At 115 the impact of this case having public law impacts becomes clear: 'It seems to me that, despite my hunch that there will also be considerable factual enquiry, and a factual determination of the particular circumstances may determine the result …, the legal issues at stake are not only plainly matters of German law, but controversial and complex issues of statutory construction of systemic importance and substantial public interest in terms of the legitimate interests of the public in the protection of its taxation system from what are alleged to be colourable schemes.'
And at 116, referring ia to VTB Capital v Nutritek, 'the risk of inconsistent decisions in concurrent proceedings in different jurisdictions, is the more acute when in one of the jurisdictions the issue is a systemic one, or may be decided in a manner which has systemic consequences. Especially in such a context, there is a preference for a case to be heard by the courts of the country whose law applies.' Reference to VTB is made in particular with resepect to the point that Gleichlauf (the application by a court of its own laws) is to be promoted in particular (at [46] in VTB per Lord Mance: "it is generally preferable, other things being equal, that a case should be tried in a country whose law applies. However, this factor is of particular force if issues of law are likely to be important and if there is evidence of relevant differences in the legal principles or rules applicable to such issues in the two countries in contention as the appropriate forum.'
At 117: 'even if the factual centre of gravity may be London, the jurisdiction likely to be most affected by the result is Germany: and even if the US approach of 'interest analysis' is not determinative in this jurisdiction it does not seem to me to be an impermissible consideration.'
Held, at 121, there is here 'a sufficiently "rare and compelling" reason for granting the stay sought by the GTA, provided that the German Fiscal Court are an available forum in which to determine the substance of the disputes.' At 122 Hildyard J seeks assurances 'insofar as the parties' best endeavours can secure it, resolution of both the GTA Claim and the Later MFGUK Refund Claim as expeditiously as possible. That seems to me necessary in order to safeguard this jurisdictions' insolvency processes and for the protection of the interests of the body of creditors as a whole.'
Then follows at 131 ff extensive analysis of the impact of this stay decision on the related case of Deutsche Bank, with at 190 a summary of the issues to be decided. Held at 218: 'By careful selection of potentially dispositive issues, I consider that there is some prospect of that process enabling a determination without recourse to the intricacies of German tax law which are to be decided in the context of the GTA Claim; whereas an immediate stay guarantees a long delay before this court can determine the matter, based on presently hypothetical claims, after a long wait for non-binding guidance from the German court which may result from other cases to which DB is not a party.' However at 219 the prospect of a stay after all is held out, should a quick resolution of those issues not be possible.
Most interesting.
A fine example of the public /private divide, and forum conveniens in international litigation.
Application for a stay to allow underlying claim to be resolved by DE fiscal courts.
BIa not engaged: tax and insolvency exemption.
Engages OECD rules and double taxation treaty. https://t.co/Z4WA1h4Dtq
— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 15, 2020
Villiers v Villiers. 'Divorce tourism' at the UKSC. An undisputed rejection of forum non; and a contentious discussion of 'related action'.
Mr Villiers reacted to Villiers v Villiers [2020] UKSC 30 with a letter in the FT on Monday, set against the general background of 'divorce tourism' said to have been encouraged by the Supreme Court ruling last week. Ms Villiers now lives in England however the majority of the marriage was spent in Scotland which is also where divorce proceedings were issued.
Sales J for the majority summarises the legislative background at 8:
The national legislation governing jurisdiction in cross-border cases is primarily contained in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 ("the CJJA 1982"). That Act gave effect in domestic law to the [1968] Brussels Convention… [which] was amended on the association of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom in 1978. It was replaced as the principal instrument governing jurisdiction in cross-border cases between member states of the European Union by [Brussels I] which in large part replicated the provisions of the Brussels Convention. The CJJA 1982 was amended to refer to and give effect in domestic law to the Brussels Regulation. The Brussels Regulation has been replaced by [Brussels Ia].
The Brussels Convention did not apply to issues of the status of natural persons, including marriage, nor to rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship (article 1(1)), but it did apply in respect of claims for maintenance. This was later carved out and titled into a separate Regulation, the Maintenance Regulation 4/2009. The UK until Brexit day chose to apply the Regulation intra-State, too, i.e. between the constituent parts of the Kingdom.
Lord Sales posits that all in all, the application of the jurisdictional rules is 'straightforward' (at 25) however his needing 32 paras to set out the test somewhat belies that statement, as does Lord Wilson's and Lady Hale's lengthy dissent at 93 ff. (and Lady Black's at 58 ff).
There is no forum non conveniens rule in the Maintenance Regulation. The CJEU held so in C-468/18 R v P and Lord Sales refers to that judgment.
The only viable route to a stay of the jurisdiction in principle of the English courts, the place of habitual residence of Mrs Villiers, the maintenance creditor, is via the 'related actions' gateway of A13 of the Regulation.
1. Where related actions are pending in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seised may stay its proceedings.
2. Where these actions are pending at first instance, any court other than the court first seised may also, on the application of one of the parties, decline jurisdiction if the court first seised has jurisdiction over the actions in question and its law permits the consolidation thereof.
3. For the purposes of this Article, actions are deemed to be related where they are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.
Are the husband's divorce proceeding in Scotland a "related action" for the purposes of A13? And, pursuant to that provision, should the English court decline jurisdiction in respect of the wife's maintenance claim? At 45 Sales LJ holds that to be related actions, they must refer
'primarily to maintenance claims of the kind to which the special regime in the Regulation applies. If the position were otherwise, and the word "actions" meant legal proceedings of any kind whatever, that would undermine the fundamental object of the Maintenance Regulation that a maintenance creditor has the right to choose in which jurisdiction to claim maintenance. On such a reading, there would be a substantial risk that this object of the Maintenance Regulation would be undermined by the commencement of proceedings by the maintenance debtor according to the jurisdictional provisions of instruments other than the Maintenance Regulation, laid down in pursuance of entirely different jurisdictional policies than that reflected in the Maintenance Regulation.'
At 48 he adds obiter (for the husband's suit in Scotland here concerned the divorce and the divorce only) that contra to the likely position in Moore v Moore [2007] EWCA Civ 361, even a maintenance debtor's claim for distribution of family property with an impact on maintenance, cannot be a related action for the purposes of A13: for it would hand the debtor a torpedo against the creditor's Regulation-protected choice.
It is on the issue of related actions that Lord Wilson and Lady Hale disagree at 147 ff., with Lord Wilson adding an arguably stinging postscript at 172 ff. At 162 Lord Wilson refers to A13(2) as 'the dog. The reference to "irreconcilable judgments" is no more than the tail.' A wide interpretation therefore of A13 (Lady Black, consenting with Sales, at 85 puts more emphasis on the irreconcilability of the judgments).
A most interesting to and fro of arguments and one which post Brexit will be recommended reading for the continuing application of the Maintenance Regulation in the EU.
Maintenance regulation Brussels II, applied intra-State (UK) by incorporation by that Member State.
Application of lis alibi pendens. Non-existence of forum non conveniens. Distinction with matrimonial Regulation. https://t.co/AllsUqm05Q
— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) July 1, 2020

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
The Joykiller is the 1995 eponymous debut album by American punk supergroup The Joykiller.

The cover art is by Frank Kozik.

Track listing

CD issue

References

1995 debut albums
The Joykiller albums
Epitaph Records albums

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Indian-beginning businessman Sunil Chopra elected as mayor in UK
Chopra turned into the mayor of the London Borough of Southwark in 2014-2015, and deputy mayor in 2013-2014, the primary Indian-beginning character to keep the celebrated workplace withinside the Borough.
Indian-beginning businessman Sunil Chopra has been elected because the mayor of London Borough of Southwark for the second one time.
Delhi-born Chopra took the oath on Saturday at Southwark Cathedral, Montague Close in Central London. Chopra turned into the mayor of the London Borough of Southwark in 2014-2015, and deputy mayor in 2013-2014, the primary Indian-beginning character to keep the celebrated workplace withinside the Borough.
UK's Labour Party has won victory over the Liberal Democrats in London Bridge and West Bermondsey seats beneathneath Chopra's leadership. These seats had been held with the aid of using the competition celebration for a long time. This victory is crucial because the London Borough of Southwark Council has handiest 2 in keeping with cent Indian-beginning people.
Chopra entered UK politics in 2010 and turned into elected because the mayor of the London Borough of Southwark for the primary time in 2014. He has additionally served because the Deputy mayor 3 times. His political adventure commenced lengthy earlier than that withinside the Seventies in Delhi.
He have become the primary president of the College of Vocational Studies, Delhi University in 1972. While pursuing LL.B. in 1973-74, he held the location of Supreme Councillor at Delhi University. Later, he additionally have become NSUI (National Students Union of India) president for New Delhi.
Chopra has been residing in London for over 4 a long time and is actively worried in neighborhood network work. In 1979, after shifting to the United Kingdom, Chopra commenced a retail agency save that grew right into a wholesale commercial enterprise of children's clothes and toddler products.
Alongside, he took the possibility to sell Indian way of life with the aid of using establishing cultural activities and network work. He co-based an organisation, the Southwark Hindu Centre, for the Indian Community withinside the area.
Chopra additionally envisions the strengthening of monetary and cultural ties among the United Kingdom and India. He is eager to sell Southwark domestically and globally, and is passionate to deliver various groups together.


It should not be necessary to have to manually stop remote jobs using end_detached_job_run.
This suggests that in your setup the agent is not able to contact the database. Perhaps you have a firewall in front of your database. To check this you can look inside the agent.log file which is located under $ORACLE_HOME/data/agent.log (in the agent install).


text:
Q: How to merge proxy list in imacros I want to merge proxy list into imacros code , without doing manually .
Here is imacros code
VERSION BUILD=7601105 RECORDER=FX
PROXY ADDRESS=109.175.8.38:8080
TAB T=1
URL GOTO=http://example.com
WAIT SECONDS= 8
TAB CLOSEALLOTHERS
PROXY ADDRESS=113.36.36:80
TAB T=1
URL GOTO=http://example.com
WAIT SECONDS= 8
TAB CLOSEALLOTHERS
PROXY ADDRESS=111.45.57:80
TAB T=1
URL GOTO=http://example.com
WAIT SECONDS= 8
TAB CLOSEALLOTHERS

And here is my proxy list
109.175.8.38:8080
113.36.36:80
111.45.57:80

Actually I Have very long list so it would bit hard to replace manually

A: You can use the DATASOURCE command that macroscripts alluded to along with Javascript to pull in the values from your file.
You save a DATASOURCE file (csv, txt) in a directory and then point iMacros to that directory by going to the Manage Pane in the sidebar -> Settings -> Paths.  Now you can reference the DATASOURCE in scripts or macros.

Here is a small example that will take you to different websites that are stored in a csv file.
    var macro, i, retCode;
    // Initialize variables
    i = 0;
    retCode = 0;
    macro = "";
    // loop until error
    do
    {
            i++;
            macro = "CODE:"
            macro += "SET !DATASOURCE sites.csv\n";
            // # of columns in the datasource
            macro += "SET !DATASOURCE_COLUMNS 1\n";
            // datasource line to pull data
            macro += "SET !DATASOURCE_LINE " + i + "\n";
            // reference to datasource value
            macro += "URL GOTO={{!COL1}}\n";
            // run the macro
            retCode = iimPlay(macro);
    // stop when error is encountered
    } while (retCode === 1);

This script iterates through all the rows in the sites.csv.

A: This maybe a little late, but for anybody else with a similar issue:
You could create an iMacro generator in something like Python or PHP that would take a base script and proxy list as an input, then it would output the base script with rotating proxies in the script where specified.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Mackenzie BD Series is most suitable for supplying steam for most industrial plant application. We offer our customers comprehensive solution to generate steam for power generation and fruits processing purposes. This is the same as the WD Series except for the furnace tubes are of tube and tile construction.
The boiler capacity can be ranging from 15 tph until 70 tph and operating at the pressure of 15 barg to 70 barg and at high superheater temperature up to 420°C.


Bernard Ilsley (The London Medium) is one of the most gifted psychics this century. His amazing ability enables him not only to see the future, but also to make contact with loved ones, ancient spirits, aliens and angels. Bernard also by means of tapping into your subconscious mind, can reveal your past lives. He appears regularly in the media, on Radio and TV where people have seen and heard him in the millions, in both the UK and the USA. He can be contacted through email or phone. Make contact with Bernard today it could change your life for ever!
Carried out by tapping into the subconscious mind, the subconscious sometimes holds unexpected obstacles or barriers that can be effective to your present day or future. This can be termed as Karma, you can analyze your Karma in this way, overcoming obstacles and also preparing your self for future Karmic lessons or debts.
This reading also will explain and identify any possible soul mates and any difficulties, connected with them. It is quite common for a past life reading to describe your time and place of living and often how you ended that particular life, this sometimes explains phobias, etc. and can help with them.
mp3 downloads, Meditation recordings, help with grief and visualization of abundance, can also be ordered from the 'Private readings' page on this site.
This sort of reading is ideal for email, and enables you to get answers without having a full reading, it is designed for a relatively fast and inexpensive way to get psychic information.
Bernard Ilsley is a third generation psychic, and was born with the gift leaving most people who witness his ability astounded. He works with spirit guides and he is able to consult each different spirit guide depending on which specialized subject he is working on for the individual consulting him. For example, for his Clairvoyance work he consults his North American Indian guide "Silver Cloud" and for spiritual healing he consults his Chinese spirit guide "Dr Chan" both of which from time to time give Bernard philosophy to channel through, which in its own right is quite a phenomenon. His third spirit guide Master 'Chow' is purely a door keeper, for protection. Pictures of these spirit guides can be found in his book 'Divinus Spiritus'. You can order the book from the private readings page on this site.
His first connection with his spirit guides occurred when he was eight, whilst painting an egg, he found he could tune out to tune in and his spirit guide painted an ancient Chinese pattern.
He joined a development circle in his late teens, run by his grandmother, whom herself was a medium of standing in the media, often in news papers and on BBC radio, her name 'Edith Cole'. As a member of the original Birmingham psychic research society, Edith was the only designated Medium, the other investigators came from a variety of other different backgrounds. His grandfather 'Edward Cole' sat in circles and studied spiritual philosophy for over fifty years, influencing the young Bernard, in his early formative years.
Bernard went on, to his first sell out Theater and Town hall tour at twenty three.
He has also performed mantras and meditations on stage, teaching and lecturing on spiritual philosophy throughout the world.
His recording's now play on every continent in the world, they now run into the millions.
He is the only medium to have been invited to the private Theater at Chatsworth house in 2010, by the current Duke and Duchess of Devonshire. Whilst there, he wrote and performed the poem given to him in a dream, from Mary Queen of Scots, named 'Mary Queen of Scots'.
He has walked in the private grounds at Chatsworth House, with Lady Elizabeth Georgiana Alice Cavendish, a childhood friend of Queen Elizabeth II and lady-in-waiting to Princess Margaret, from the late-1940s until the latter's death in 2002.
He visited the home of the late Deborah Cavendish, Dowager, Duchess of Devonshire, known to her family as "Debo" where they had conversations about Elvis and writing, he also arranged a meeting of a long lost friend of hers, in the last year of her life.
He had dinner with friends in a private club in London, with Julian Alexander Kitchener-Fellowes, and his wife Lady Kitchener Fellows. Emma Joy Kitchener was a Lady-in-Waiting to HRH Princess Michael of Kent. Baron Fellowes of West Stafford, is an English actor, novelist, film director and screenwriter, and a Conservative peer of the House of Lords and last but not least, writer of Downton Abbey.
He was in 'Hello magazine' photographed, with Princess Beatrice of York, the elder daughter of Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and Sarah, Duchess of York.
He visited and held meditation circles in the home of the rock legend, 'Robert Plant' of 'Led Zeppelin' fame, as well as attending several parties, including his daughters 21st birthday party, where 'Page & Plant' got up on stage to perform for the guests. One of his meditation tracks on the CD Prima Luce, was recorded in the barn of is home.
He appeared as himself, with a tongue in cheek performance, in the hit comedy series, 'High Spirits' with 'Marc Wooten' which was narrated by 'Patrick Stewart' and produced by Tiger aspects.
He has written, produced and published the book, 'Divinus Spritus' & the CD, 'Prima Luce' and has featured in many publications, including the New York Times and the book 'Octopus'.
He has been interviewed on the TV show This Morning and been on many radio & TV stations in the UK and the USA.
He was on the BBC Radio Late show, every month for two years and had his own studio at the BBC.
He was contacted by a news paper and asked about what he thought about Princess Dianna and Dodi Fayed. Bernard predicted before the accident, that she would live on a small Island and that there would be many tears and of course shortly after, she was buried within weeks on a small Ilsand.
At the time of 9/11 he recieved a call from the White house, as the code alarms rang out in the background, he was asked if the plane would reach and hit there.
He predicted the time and place of the capture of Sadam Hussain, live on BBC Radio.
He connected from spirit with the teacher, who put her self in front of the the children, in the Sandy hook school shooting and gave here grieving parents, a message of proof of survival beyond her death.
Last but not least, he has received a gift from Donald Trump and predicted he would be president.
Bernard, was tapped in, tuned in, and turned on to his "channels" and Spirit Guides last night at The New Vic Theater! Man, oh man, oh man! He walked onto the stage, visually took in his audience as he said hello, and immediately started doing open clairvoyant readings. He explained later, that he could see bouncing light above people's head's. He received more and more information just hearing the sound if their voice audibly say "yes". The Energy frequencies he receives are so amazing! I have never been in the presence of anything like this in my life. Health and healing, legal counsel, compassion from a mother, brother, father. Answers to lifelong questions, and names he could never know! A Gifted Being, a Receiver. Thank you to you, dear Bernard!


A stylish and fantastic set of glasses could make a great distinction.
Warby Parker warranty transfer form Not specifically can an unbelievable suit of glasses look fantastic, yet they could rest simple, enable you to see above anything you ever have, and also could affect you to ignore that also you are using them. However, there are, clearly, a whole lot of eyeglasses brands available as well as they're not all comparable.
Warby Parker warranty transfer form That, as well as eyeglasses, could obtain fairly expensive so you'll probably have to think about the glasses you buy prior to you obtain them.
Parker Warby eyeglass frames provide single-vision as well as bifocal focal points. It does not usually provide trifocal focal factors, so you'll should bear in mind that Warby Parker warranty transfer form .
Warby Parker warranty transfer form Parker Warby eyeglass frames have a large amount placing everything on the line consisting of sharp retro-hip casings, a smooth site, incredible solution highlighting a house attempt the program, free sending and also returns, and anarchical buzz that has actually been benefiting a substantial length of time.
An additional indisputable offering factor for buyers is value: by far the majority of Warby Parker glasses supplies a reasonable as well as inquisitively at a price of $95.
Warby Parker warranty transfer form One of the finest things regarding Warby Parker Sunglasses is that it brags an effort on-at-home program. Warby Parker warranty transfer form The program basically enables you to pick a strong 5 frameworks, after which you'll get 5 days to check them out.
Warby Parker warranty transfer form Identifying the dimension is the least demanding component due to the reality that the most critical estimation is the size of the structure. When you understand where you remain within the range of thin to vast, you should certainly have a number of choices. A few of which could be rather balanced.
The glasses it provides are of good and high quality. Every set of glasses comes with anti-glare and anti-scratch coverings together with UV protection at no additional price, which is a remarkably good choice.
Looking via the cases on deal at the site is truly easy.
Next, you require to ensure you're picking a shape that compliments your face. A rounder face may should attempt a square shape and the other way around.
A distinction in the shade of a side can influence the shape to look absolutely readjusted. It's crucial to try a pair of hues in the form as well as size that fits you finest. Concentrating on the tone of your skin is vital because a few hues could be excessively rough, or in reality laundry you out.
Consider your very own design while picking a covering. On the occasion that you incline toward quirkier attire, you can likely draw off a crazy edge. In spite of the truth that no matter whether your style is consistently exemplary – loco glasses could be an awesome technique to produce an impression!
Various designers can place you out lots of bucks; however, Parker Warby eyeglass frames are extremely cost effective.
They're concentrated on bringing you eyeglasses at a practical price, no matter whether your remedy is extra knotted compared to many.
With concerns to glasses layouts, Warby Parker is a genius. They deliver a wide variety of designs, including retro, classic, aviator, vintage as well as cat-eye.
From metal to pastels, the layout comes in a selection of colors. Two-tone and also tortoise varieties are in addition available.
The structures are light and thin. You could obtain the excellent fit utilizing Warby Parker's net estimating tools.
Attempt not to offer the sensible expenses a chance to deceive you. These eyeglasses are not effectively made. Warby Parker uses simply the ideal materials accessible. No matter whether they're making the structures from Japanese titanium or Italian cellulose acetic acid derivation, the developers visit the world to bring customers the best top quality product. Warby Parker warranty transfer form Amidst the development procedure, every acetic framework is cleaned by hand with a German wax compound prior to being rolled for at the very least 3 days.
Warby Parker's sites make glasses on order as well as are offered online. Parker Warby eyeglass frames are similarly used free delivery and also returns.
At Warby Parker, their motto is purchased a pair and also provides a pair. The act of basically providing glasses is regularly a short-term solution.
Spectacles have made some amazing progress because the troublesome frameworks you put on as a kid or the specifications your grandfather can never ever appear to discover. Substantial as well as square or wonderfully rounded casings in tortoiseshell, dark or perhaps great colors have actually proceeded toward becoming a trend and not only for stylish individuals and collection sweeties.
The best qualities Warby Parker sunglasses are moderate as well as smart; along with they are quickly available online. Along these lines, not solely will you look fantastic in your new Warby Parker styles; however you'll in addition realize that your cash is being used to terrific motivations also.
A trendy and also remarkable pair of glasses could make an excellent distinction.
Warby Parker warranty transfer form Not exclusively could an unbelievable match of glasses look wonderful, yet they can relax very easy, enable you to see premium to anything you ever have, as well as can affect you to neglect that also you are using them. All the same, there are, undoubtedly, a great deal of glasses brand names around and they're not all equivalent.
Warby Parker warranty transfer form That, in addition to eyeglasses, can get fairly costly so you'll most likely should take into consideration the glasses you acquire prior to you get them.
Parker Warby eyeglass frames supply single-vision in addition to bifocal centerpieces. It doesn't generally supply trifocal prime focus, so you'll should keep in mind that Warby Parker warranty transfer form .
Warby Parker warranty transfer form Parker Warby eyeglass frames have a lot placing all of it on the line consisting of sharp retro-hip cases, a smooth site, impressive solution highlighting a residence try the program, complimentary sending as well as returns, as well as insurgent buzz that has been working for a substantial size of time.
An additional indisputable offering point for buyers is worth: without a doubt the majority of Warby Parker glasses uses a practical and inquisitively at a price of $95.
Warby Parker warranty transfer form Among the most effective features of Warby Parker Sunglasses is that it boasts an attempt on-at-home program. The program essentially enables you to pick a solid 5 frameworks, after which you'll obtain 5 days to evaluate them out. After the 5 days, stand out the glasses back in the casing with the label of shipping and you're ready.
Warby Parker warranty transfer form Finding out the dimension is the least requiring part due to that the most vital estimate is the size of the frame. When you make sense of where you stay within the range of slim to broad, you should have a few choices. Several of which could be somewhat well balanced.
The glasses it supplies are of excellent and also premium quality. Every pair of glasses includes anti-glare and also anti-scratch finishings in addition to UV security at no additional expense, which is an incredibly decent alternative.
Looking through the casings on offer at the website is truly basic too.
Next, you should ensure you're picking a shape that compliments your face. A rounder face might have to attempt a square form as well as the other way around.
A difference in the shade of a side could affect the form to look entirely changed. It's important to try a number of tones in the shape as well as size that fits you ideal. Concentrating on the tone of your skin is essential given that a few shades can be excessively harsh, or in reality laundry you out.
Consider your very own style while picking a housing. On the occasion that you incline towards quirkier attire, you could likely drain an insane side. Regardless of the reality that despite whether your design is consistently excellent – loco glasses can be a remarkable approach to produce an impression!
Different developers can place you out lots of bucks; nevertheless, Parker Warby eyeglass frames are very affordable.
They're concentrated on bringing you spectacles at a practical cost, despite whether your treatment is much more entangled than most.
When it come to glasses layouts, Warby Parker is a genius. They supply a wide variety of designs, including retro, traditional, pilot, vintage and also cat-eye.
From metallic to pastels, the style comes in a range of shades. Two-tone as well as turtle ranges are furthermore easily accessible.
Warby Parker's spectacles are understandable. The structures are light and slim. Meant to secure your eyes, the centerpieces are made using UV defense, hostile to scrape, as well as against glow technology.
You can obtain the ideal fit using Warby Parker's net estimating tools as well. There's a casing for each and every face create! They run in size from slim, tool, as well as broad, in enhancement, to choosing among conventional as well as reduced nose connect fits.
Try not to provide the practical prices a possibility to deceive you. These spectacles are not successfully made. Warby Parker uses simply the very best products accessible. Regardless of whether they're making the frameworks from Japanese titanium or Italian cellulose acetic acid derivation, the developers see the globe to bring clients the finest high quality thing. Warby Parker warranty transfer form Amidst the advancement treatment, every acetic framework is cleaned up manually with a German wax substance before being rolled for at the very least three days.
Warby Parker's websites make glasses on order as well as are readily available online. Parker Warby eyeglass frames are furthermore used free delivery as well as returns.
At Warby Parker, their motto is acquired a set and also gives a set. Consistently, they figure exactly what variety of glasses has actually been cost that factor coordinate that number as a gift to their non-benefit accomplices. The act of generally providing eyeglasses is frequently a short-term remedy. Preparing group participants to disperse eyeglasses has long-haul advantages. By providing these individuals function capacities, they've been allowed to have an enduring result.
Spectacles have actually made some amazing progression considering that the burdensome structures you wore as a kid or the specs your grandfather can never ever show up to find. Massive as well as square or wonderfully round coverings in tortoiseshell, dark or perhaps great shades have advanced towards coming to be a fad as well as not just for trendy individuals and also collection sweethearts.
The very best qualities Warby Parker sunglasses are moderate as well as smart; in addition to they are easily offered online. Along these lines, not solely will you look remarkable in your new Warby Parker styles; however you'll furthermore realize that your cash money is being used to fantastic inspirations.
A fashionable and fantastic set of glasses could make a wonderful difference.
Warby Parker warranty transfer form Not specifically could an incredible suit of glasses look fantastic, yet they can relax very easy, enable you to see above anything you ever before have, and also can affect you to neglect that even you are wearing them. However, there are, clearly, a great deal of eyeglasses brand names available and they're not all equal.
Warby Parker warranty transfer form That, along with eyewear, can obtain fairly expensive so you'll probably require to consider the glasses you acquire prior to you get them.
Parker Warby eyeglass frames supply single-vision along with bifocal prime focus. It does not usually provide trifocal centerpieces, so you'll require to keep in mind that Warby Parker warranty transfer form .
Warby Parker warranty transfer form Parker Warby eyeglass frames have a lot placing it all on the line consisting of sharp retro-hip cases, a smooth site, remarkable solution highlighting a home try the program, totally free sending and also returns, and anarchical buzz that has actually been functioning for a considerable length of time.
Another indisputable offering factor for customers is worth: by much many of Warby Parker glasses provides a reasonable and inquisitively at a price of $95.
Warby Parker warranty transfer form One of the finest points about Warby Parker Sunglasses is that it brags an effort on-at-home program. Warby Parker warranty transfer form The program basically allows you to pick a solid five structures, after which you'll obtain five days to evaluate them out.
Warby Parker warranty transfer form Figuring out the size is the least demanding part taking into account that the most crucial estimate is the size of the structure. When you understand where you continue to be within the scope of thin to large, you should certainly have a number of selections. A few of which can be somewhat well balanced.
The glasses it offers are of good as well as premium quality. Every set of glasses comes with anti-glare and also anti-scratch layers along with UV protection at no extra expense, which is a remarkably good choice.
Next off, you have to guarantee you're picking a shape that compliments your face. A rounder face may require to attempt a square form and also the other way around.
A distinction in the color of an edge could affect the shape to look absolutely changed. It's vital to try a few colors in the form and dimension that fits you finest. Concentrating on the tone of your skin is essential since a couple of hues can be excessively severe, or in actuality clean you out.
Consider your own style while picking a casing. On the occasion that you incline towards quirkier attire, you can likely drain a crazy edge. In spite of the truth that no matter whether your style is frequently excellent – loco glasses can be an outstanding method to create an impact!
Various designers can put you out numerous dollars; however, Parker Warby eyeglass frames are really cost effective.
They're focused on bringing you spectacles at a sensible expense, regardless of whether your solution is extra entangled compared to the majority of.
When it come to glasses designs, Warby Parker is a genius. They supply a vast array of styles, consisting of retro, traditional, aviator, vintage and cat-eye.
From metallic to pastels, the layout comes in a range of shades. Two-tone and tortoise ranges are in addition accessible.
The frameworks are light as well as thin. You can get the ideal fit making use of Warby Parker's net estimating tools.
Warby Parker makes use of just the ideal materials easily accessible. Regardless of whether they're making the frames from Japanese titanium or Italian cellulose acetic acid derivation, the designers see the globe to bring customers the finest high quality item.
Warby Parker's sites make glasses on order and are readily available online. All you require is a brand-new solution from an eye doctor. You can search online for Warby Parker areas in the USA. Parker Warby eyeglass frames are likewise provided complimentary delivery as well as returns. Just ensure that you keep the initial invoice.
At Warby Parker, their slogan is purchased a set and also gives a pair. The act of primarily offering spectacles is regularly a short-term solution.
Eyeglasses have actually made some impressive progression since the challenging frames you wore as a child or the specs your grandpa can never ever appear to locate. Huge and square or wonderfully round casings in tortoiseshell, dark or perhaps dazzling colors have progressed towards becoming a trend as well as not just for trendy individuals as well as collection sweethearts.
The best top qualities Warby Parker sunglasses are small and also smart; along with they are easily offered online. Along these lines, not exclusively will you look fantastic in your brand-new Warby Parker designs; nevertheless you'll additionally recognize that your cash money is being utilized to wonderful inspirations.


Welcome to the Ford EcoSport review page.
As you can see, this page provides you with all our user generated reviews of Ford EcoSport cars. AA Cars provide our users with the best feedback on all car makes and models all across the uk to give you the best possible information, to help you make your decision when buying a new used car. We break each vehicle review down into five categories (preformance, running cost, comfort, reliability and space practicality) making it very easy to understand, giving you feedback directly form the vehicle owner. This provides you with all the information you need to make the decision of which car is perfect for you.
Very comfortable and roomy car. The engine consistently wins awards for its efficiency. For such a small engine it has a quick acceleration and can hold its own against more powerful engines.
Comfortable car with good performance but running cost slightly on high side. Fault with handbrake due to poor quality material used in manufacture.


text:
Ladenbergia paraensis är en måreväxtart som beskrevs av Adolpho Ducke. Ladenbergia paraensis ingår i släktet Ladenbergia och familjen måreväxter. Inga underarter finns listade i Catalogue of Life.

Källor

Måreväxter
paraensis


text:
Grilled cheese gazette
Meet Joanne Sumner!
Jo Sumner recently retired from her role as co-founder and COO of The Beech Group. She grew up in the UK and has lived on 3 continents. She met her husband Michael 33 years ago, whilst living in Johannesburg South Africa and moved to Scottsdale Arizona in 2009, via 21 years in London. Jo is an entrepreneur at heart. She has owned and operated many businesses including a Seafood Restaurant, JMS Products which sold Heat Pads across the UK, Ancient Art a costume jewelry company, BeechNursing and Care Agency in Surrey, England (a domiciliary care company) and The Beech Group in Arizona.
How did you first become involved with Swift Youth Foundation?
I heard about SWIFT through a good friend of mine - I attended visitors day at camp - it was so lovely to see the kids having so much fun.
Why did you decide to more deeply support Swift and join the Swift Board?
I recently retired after working for the past 18 years with seniors and was looking for an opportunity to work with children - after hearing about SWIFT, their mission and visiting camp I wanted to get involved and help SWIFT in any way I can, I am excited to help SWIFT grow and achieve their goals for the future.
When talking about Swift, what are you most excited to tell others about?
How Swift is impacting young lives with their after school programs, summer camps, through mentorship programs and especially the mission to reach more children.
What is your favorite Swift program and why?
Not sure yet, but excited to find out!
At Camp Swift, are you Team Grilled Cheese or Team Tomato Soup?
Definitely Grilled 🧀
More about Jo...
She has spent the last 18 years helping seniors stay at home staying healthy and safe. She has been married for 31 years and has three children and two grandchildren. Her eldest son lives in Boston, her daughter in Chicago and her youngest is at ASU. She loves to travel, this year she did a tour of Normandy in France and a nature trip to Costa Rica. One of her best travel adventures was a rural tour of Japan. Eating a raw fish from head to tail was quite an experience. She joined Toastmasters in 2012 to improve her public speaking skills – she readily admits that although she is quite a talker, speaking to large groups can be a challenge and her experiences at Toastmasters has enabled her to better master this skill. Jo is passionate, optimistic and excited about the future, she truly believes that the next generation is vital to our future, she has a lot of love, experience and fun to share and as her 4-year-old granddaughter can attest – she tells great stories. As she enters this next stage of her life she is looking forward to more travel, spending time with her family, finding ways to give back that are purposeful and meaningful and working on interesting projects such as helping her best friend publish an authentic Sicilian Cookbook.
The Grilled Cheese Gazette features blog posts from Swift staff, volunteers, and community members! Contact Us if you're interested in contributing to our blog!