Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T05:27:21.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evasion of Law and Mandatory Rules in Private International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

J. J. Fawcett
Get access

Extract

It has often been asserted that English private international law has no doctrine of evasion of the law. It is true that English law has never developed a general doctrine, like the French one of fraude a la hi, to deal with cases of evasion. Nonetheless, evasion of the law has been recognised as a problem in at least some areas of private international law, and an increasing number of specific anti-evasion measures have been introduced in response to this. The English approach towards evasion is a pragmatic one rather than being based on any broad underlying theory. In particular, the fundamental questions have not been addressed of what is wrong with evasion of the law and how it can be dealt with most effectively. The purpose of this article is to examine the present law on evasion, determine what is wrong with evasion of the law and put forward proposals for a principled approach to deal with the problem.

Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , March 1990 , pp. 44 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Graveson, (1963) II Hague Recueil Ch. 4; Graveson, Private International Law 7th ed. (1974), pp. 170–174; Collier, Conflict of Laws p. 147.

2 Audit, La Fraude à la Loi (1974); Graveson, (1963) II Hague Recueil, pp. 53–54.

3 See Regazzoni v. K.C. Sethia (1944) Ltd.,[1958] A.C. 301.

4 (1858) 3 Sin. and G. 481; affd. (1861) 9 H. L. Cas. 193.

5 See Cheshire and North, Private International Law 11th ed. (1987), pp. 578–583.

6 Ibid. Some of the early cases were arguably decided on the basis of the intended matrimonial home theory.

7 The present rule was supported, for the same reason, by the Law Commission, in Working Paper No. 89, para. 3.23. In Law Com. No. 165 it was recommended that there should be no comprehensive restatement of the choice of law rules for marriage.

8 The most recent example of which is the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986. See generally Cretney, Principles of Family Law 4th ed. (1984), pp. 47–55.

9 See, e. g., Cheni v. Cheni [1965] P. 85.

10 See Compton v. Bearcroft (1769) 2 Hagg. Con. 83.

11 Family Law Reform Act 1969, s. 1.

12 See Simonin v. Mallac (1860) 2 Sw. and Tr. 67; Ogden v. Ogden [1908] P. 46.

13 (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 55.

14 At p. 82.

15 See Indyka v. Indyka [1969] 1 A.C. 33.

16 Law Com No. 34, para. 29.

17 Qureshi v. Qureshi [1972] Fam. 173; see also R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex. p. Ghulam Fatima [1985] 1 Q.B. 190, 199.

18 Originally by section 16(1), Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973—see Hansard(H. L.) 8 June 1973 vol. 343 cols. 319–321; (H.C.) 20 July 1973 vol. 860 cols. 1086–1088; replaced by section 44(1), Family Law Act 1986, which applies to divorces or annulments obtained in any part of the British Islands.

19 Section 46(2)(c) Family Law Act 1986; formerly section 16(2)(c), Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973. If the Law Commissions' proposals had been followed this provision would have been done away with: Law Com No. 137, para. 6.30.

20 [1985] Fam. 19. There is now power to grant financial relief after a foreign divorce has been obtained: Part III, Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.

21 ChUd Abduction Act 1984; amended by Family Law Act 1986, s. 65.

22 [1939] A.C. 277.

23 See e. g. the Canadian case of Greenshields v. Johnston (1981) 119 D.L.R. (3d) 714; affd. (1982) 131 D.L.R. (3d) 234 (C. A.).

24 Section 27(2)(a).

25 Section 27(1).

26 See Morris, (1979) 95 L.Q.R. 59, 62.

27 Section 1(2), Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971.

28 [1983] A.C. 565.

29 At pp. 572–573.

30 Mann, (1978) 27 I.C.L.Q. 661, 662–663.

31 Lando, International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law, vol. Ill, Private International Law, Ch. 21, p. 33.

32 See generally Paalson, International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law, vol. Ill, Private International Law, Ch. 18, p. 65.

33 Lando, op. dt., p. 37.

34 See The Hollandia [1982] Q.B. 872 (C.A.), 881, 882; affd. [1983] A.C. 565 (H. L.). See also The Tomi [1932] P.78, 84.

35 See Graveson, (1963) II Hague Recueil pp. 53–54.

36 Law Com No. 48, para. 10.

37 Part III, Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. On the need for this legislation see: Torok v. Torok [1973] 1 W. L. R. 1066; Quazi v. Quazi [1979] 3 W. L. R. 402 (C. A.).

38 Hansard (H. C.) 20 July 1973 vol. 860 cols. 1086–1088. See also Chaudhary v. Chaudhary [1985]Fam. 19.

39 Supra.

40 Law Com No. 69, para. 211.

41 See The Hollandia [1982] Q. B. 782 (C. A.), 884; affd. [1983] A. C. 565.

42 North (1980) I Hague Recueil 9, 54; See also Law Commission Working Paper No. 89, para. 3.41, quoting Hartley, (1972) 35 M. L. R. 571, 576–577.

43 Brook v. Brook (1858) 3 Sm. and G. 481; affd. (1861) 9 H. L. Cas. 193, 226.

44 Section 48(l)(b), Marriage Act 1949.

45 (1860) 2 Sw. and Tr. 67, 76.

46 [1908] P.46, 53.

47 Section 2, Foreign Marriage (Amendment) Act 1988.

48 Vila Food Products Inc. v. Unus Shipping Co. Ltd. [1939] A.C. 277.

49 Supra, p. 49.

50 Foster v. Driscoll [1929] 1 K. B. 470; Regazzoni v. K. C. Sethia [1958] A. C. 301.

51 Supra, p. 47.

52 Article 3(3), Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations of 1980.

53 [1980] O. J. L. 266 of 9th October.

53(a) See the Contracts (Applicable Law) Bill 1989.

54 Articles 3(3); 5(2); 6(1); 7(1) and (2); 9(6).

55 1958 S. C. 494.

56 At p. 499.

57 (1964) 116 C.L.R. 124.

58 At p. 143.

59 Article 6.

60 Supra, p. 51.

61 [1969] St.R.Qd. 378.

62 At pp. 384–385.

63 Infra.

64 See generally North, Contract Conflicts (1982), pp. 18–20, 59–76.

65 See Vischer, (1974) II Hague Recueil Ch. 2.

66 See Hartley, (1979) 4 E.L.Rev. 236.

67 Article 7(2).

68 Article 7(1).

69 Supra, p. 55. ™ Article 22.

70 See clause 2(2), Contracts (Applicable Law) Bill 1989.

71 See generally: Kelly, (1977) 26I. C. L. Q. 857, 870–871.

72 See Mann, (1977) 261. C. L. Q. 903, 911.

73 [1958] A.C. 301.