Boys v Chaplin
Encyclopedia
Boys v Chaplin, [1969] 2 All ER 1085 is a leading conflict of laws
case decided by the House of Lords
.
on whether a court can assume jurisdiction over a tort
that occurred in another country by requiring "double actionability". Originally the subject matter had to be actionable in both the foreign and local jurisdiction. However, Boys v Chaplin stated that it only had to be "civilly actionable" under the law of the forum; where the lex fori had a much closer connection with the dispute, the lex loci delicti limb of the "double actionability" rule could be disapplied.
Dicey & Morris (RE: flexible exception created): “a particular issue between the parties... may be governed by the law of the country which, in respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship with the occurrence and the parties”
This exception was furthered in Red Sea Insurance v. Bouygues SA [1995] 1 A.C. 190 which provided that this exception can displace either the law of the forum or the law of the tort such that a tort may be actionable even though it is not actionable under the lex fori or lex loci delicti.
Conflict of laws
Conflict of laws is a set of procedural rules that determines which legal system and which jurisdiction's applies to a given dispute...
case decided by the House of Lords
House of Lords
The House of Lords is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the House of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminster....
.
Judgment
The Court modified the test in Phillips v EyrePhillips v Eyre
Phillips v Eyre, LR 6 QB 1 is a famous English decision on the conflict of laws in tort. The Court developed a two prong test for determining whether a tort occurring outside of the court's jurisdiction can be actionable.-Facts:...
on whether a court can assume jurisdiction over a tort
Tort
A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a wrong that involves a breach of a civil duty owed to someone else. It is differentiated from a crime, which involves a breach of a duty owed to society in general...
that occurred in another country by requiring "double actionability". Originally the subject matter had to be actionable in both the foreign and local jurisdiction. However, Boys v Chaplin stated that it only had to be "civilly actionable" under the law of the forum; where the lex fori had a much closer connection with the dispute, the lex loci delicti limb of the "double actionability" rule could be disapplied.
Dicey & Morris (RE: flexible exception created): “a particular issue between the parties... may be governed by the law of the country which, in respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship with the occurrence and the parties”
This exception was furthered in Red Sea Insurance v. Bouygues SA [1995] 1 A.C. 190 which provided that this exception can displace either the law of the forum or the law of the tort such that a tort may be actionable even though it is not actionable under the lex fori or lex loci delicti.
See also
- List of House of Lords cases
- Red Sea Insurance Co Ltd v Bouygues SA [1995] 1 AC 190