Zhen Chen, ‘Tort conflicts rules in cross-border multi-party litigation: Which law has a closer or the closest connection?’

ABSTRACT
This article compares Owen v Galgey under Article 4 Rome II Regulation and YANG Shuying v British Carnival Cruise under Article 44 Chinese Conflicts Act in the context of cross-border multi-party litigation on tort liability. The questions raised in these two cases include how to interpret the tort conflicts rules of lex loci delicti, lex domicilii communis and the closer/closest connection test when determining the applicable law. In particular, as regards the meaning of lex loci delicti, the notion of ‘damage’, the common habitual residence of the parties and the criteria to determine the closer/closest connection, different interpretations were provided in these two cases. In order to clarify certain ambiguity of tortious applicable law rules in cross-border multi-party litigation, a comparative study of Chinese and European tort conflicts rules is conducted. This article does not intend to reach a conclusion as to which law is better between the Rome II Regulation and the Chinese Conflicts Act, but rather highlights a common challenge faced by both Chinese courts and English courts in the field of international tortious litigation on personal injury and how to tackle such challenge in an efficient way under current legislation.

Zhen Chen, Tort conflicts rules in cross-border multi-party litigation: Which law has a closer or the closest connection? Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211034103. First Published August 4, 2021.

First posted 2021-08-05 17:00:47

Leave a Reply