|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions >> The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Royal Dutch Shell Plc & Anor  EWHC 1315 (Comm) (22 May 2020)
Cite as:  EWHC 1315 (Comm)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
B e f o r e :
| THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
|- and -
|ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC
SHELL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION AFRICA LTD
SHELL NIGERIA EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION COMPANY LIMITED
SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA LIMITED
SHELL NIGERIA ULTRA DEEP LIMITED
SHELL PETROLEUM N.V.
SHELL INTERNATIONAL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION B.V.
NIGERIAN AGIP EXPLORATION LIMITED
NIGERIAN AGIP OIL COMPANY
AGIP ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES (NIGERIA) LIMITED
MALABU OIL AND GAS LIMITED
ENERGY VENTURE PARTNERS LIMITED
Lord Goldsmith QC and James Willan (instructed by Debevoise & Plimpton LLP) for the 1st to 7th Defendants
Richard Handyside QC and Alex Barden (instructed by Allen & Overy LLP) for the 8th to 11th Defendants
Charles Fussell (Solicitor Advocate of Charles Fussell & Co LLP) for the 13th Defendant
Hearing dates: 28, 29 and 30 April 2020
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Butcher :
(1) An agreement ('the Resolution Agreement') between SNUD, SNEPCO, the Ninth Defendant ('NAE'), the FRN and NNPC, under which SNEPCO and NAE jointly acquired the equity interest in OPL 245 for US$1.3 billion. This amount was comprised of (i) a cash payment of US$1.092 billion to the Federal Government of Nigeria ('FGN') which was paid by NAE into a JP Morgan escrow account, and subsequently released by JP Morgan into the FRN's depositary account at JP Morgan; and (ii) the release to the FRN of a signature bonus in the amount of US$207.96 million. The Resolution Agreement also provided for the exercise of 'back-in' rights by the FRN.
(2) An agreement between SNUD, SNEPCO and the FRN under which all claims as between them were settled ('the Shell Settlement Agreement').
(3) An agreement between the FRN and Malabu by which the FRN agreed to pay Malabu US$1.092 billion in full and final settlement of Malabu's claims ('the Malabu Settlement Agreement').
The Italian Proceedings
(1) The corrupted party must be a public official or a person acting in the capacity of a public official of a foreign state;
(2) The public official must have received, or accepted a promise to receive, money or other benefits for himself or third parties;
(3) The public official must have omitted or delayed an official act, or performed an act contrary to official duties, in consideration for the money or benefit offered; and
(4) The corrupting party must have committed the violation in order to obtain an undue advantage for himself or other parties in a transaction or in order to maintain an economic or financial activity.
'carried out convergent actions aimed to attribute to Eni and Shell companies the 50% each of the exploration rights on block 245 in Nigeria as return for the payment of the sum of $1,092,040,000 in favor of Malabu company (referable to Dan Etete) alleged owner of the rights on the block 245, being agreed, in course of the negotiations for the purchase of the block, that such amounts, net of the sums retained by the said Etete (about $300 million used by Dan Etete for his own benefit and for the benefit of several other beneficiaries in order to purchase real estate properties, airplanes, armored cars, etc.) were destined, as confirmed in fact, to the remuneration:
- of Goodluck Jonathan, President of Nigeria, and of other members of the Nigerian government holding the offices at the time specifically the Minister of Oil Diezani Alison Madueke and the [Attorney General], Muhammed Adoke Bello
- of other Nigerian public officials such as the National Security Advisor Aliyu Gusau
- of the former [Attorney General] Christopher Bajo Oyo (sic), for his role in the rearrangement of the OPL 245 license to Malabu on November 30th, 2006 and the following activity as 'advisor'
- and in part retained by intermediaries and in part paid back in favor of Eni's and Shell's directors
" in order to extend to these liable subjects for civil obligations the requests asked by the [Declaration] and to obtain, as jointly liable with the defendants, upon verification of the criminal liability and conviction of the defendants: 1) pursuant to articles 538 and 539 Code of Criminal Procedure the sentence to the refunds and to the compensation of the damage in every its part deriving from the crime, to be paid, possibly also in an equitable way, as specified in the written conclusions of the civil party "
The English Proceedings
'By way of summary, the FRN's claims arise out of the purported acquisition by a Shell/Eni consortium in 2011 of an oil exploration licence known as OPL 245, previously owned by Malabu. That acquisition was, as more particularly set out below, part of a fraudulent and corrupt scheme (referred to in shorthand as the 'Scheme') that involved the payment of bribes (via Malabu, EVP and [International Legal Consulting Ltd ('ILCL')] to corrupt FRN officials and former officials. Shell and Eni knew of, participated in and assisted in the Scheme. It is the FRN's case that the Scheme also involved (or at least intended) the payment of bribes (via Malabu, EVP and ILCL) to Shell and/or Eni executives.'
"[63(4)(c)] Bribes were paid to at least the following Nigerian FGN officials : President Jonathan (through front companies of Abubaker Aliyu), Alison-Madueke, Adoke and Gusau. Each of these FGN officials owed duties to the FRN which would be classified as fiduciary under English law . The receipt of those bribes and the participation in the Scheme of said officials was in breach of their fiduciary duties and Nigerian criminal law "
It is further pleaded (paragraph 64) that there is an irrebuttable presumption that the FRN would not have entered into the April 2011 Agreements but for the bribes.
i) 'a declaration that the FRN is entitled to rescind the April 2011 Agreements because the same were procured by bribery and corruption and/or in breach of fiduciary duty, which breach was known to Shell and/or Eni';
ii) US$1,092,040,000 (or lesser sums) as money had and received and/or compensatory damages;
iii) Compensatory damages for the undervalue at which the OPL 245 rights were sold;
iv) An account of profits;
v) "Such further and other relief as the Court in its discretion thinks fit".
The Issues on the Applications
Application based on Article 29 of the Regulation
1. Without prejudice to Article 31(2), where proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties are brought in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seised shall of its own motion stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established.
2. In cases referred to in paragraph 1, upon request by a court seised of the dispute, any other court seised shall without delay inform the former court of the date when it was seised in accordance with Article 32.
3. Where the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established, any court other than the court first seised shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court.
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 the action in the court first seised is pending at first instance, any other court 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.'
'(i) The phrase "same cause of action" in Article  has an independent and autonomous meaning as a matter of European law; it is therefore not to be interpreted according to the criteria of national law: see Gubisch at para. 11.
(ii) In order for proceedings to involve the same cause of action they must have 'le m๊me objet et la m๊me cause'. This expression derives from the French version of the text. It is not reflected expressly in the English or German texts but the CJEU has held that it applies generally: see Gubisch at para. 14, The Tatry at para. 38 and Underwriting Members of Lloyd's Syndicate 980 v Sinco SA  2 CLC 187, per Beatson J at para 24.
(iii) Identity of cause means that the proceedings in each jurisdiction must have the same facts and rules of law relied upon as the basis for the action: see The Tatry at para. 39. As Cooke J correctly stated in JP Morgan Europe Ltd v Primacom AG  1 CLC 493 at para 42:
"The expression "legal rule" or "rule of law" appears to mean the juridical basis upon which arguments as to the facts will take place so that, in investigating "cause" the court looks at the basic facts (whether in dispute or not) and the basic claimed rights and obligations of the parties to see if there is coincidence between them in the actions in different countries, making due allowance for the specific form that proceedings may take in one national court with different classifications of rights and obligations from those in a different national court."
(iv) Identity of objet means that the proceedings in each jurisdiction have the same end in view: see The Tatry at para. 41, Gantner Electronic GmbH v Basch Exploitatie Maatschappij BV (Case C111/01)  ECR I-4207 at para 25, Primacom at para. 42 and Sinco at para. 24.
(v) The assessment of identity of cause and identity of object is to be made by reference only to the claims in each action and not to the defences to those claims: see Gantner at paras 24-32, where the CJEU said this in relation to Article 21 of the Brussels Convention:
" in order to determine whether two claims brought between the same parties before the courts of different Contracting States have the same subject-matter, account should be taken only of the claims of the respective applicants, to the exclusion of the defence submissions raised by a defendant."
See also to similar effect Kolden Holdings v Rodette Commerce Ltd  1 CLC 1, per Lawrence Collins LJ at para. 93 and Research in Motion UK Ltd v Visto Corp  2 All ER (Comm) 560, per Mummery LJ at para. 36.
(vi) It follows that Article  is not engaged merely by virtue of the fact that common issues might arise in both sets of proceedings. I would accept the submission on behalf of the CMI that this is an important point of distinction between Articles  and . Under Article  it is actions rather than claims that are compared in order to determine whether they are related.
(vii) After discussing Gubisch, The Tatry, Sarrio, The Happy Fellow and Haji-Ioannou v Frangos  CLC 1075, Rix J summarised the position clearly and, in my opinion, accurately in Glencore International AG v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co Ltd  CLC 104 at 110:
"It would appear from these five cases that, broadly speaking, the triple requirement of same parties, same cause and same objet entails that it is only in relatively straightforward situations that art 21 bites, and, it may be said, is intended to bite. After all, art 22 is available, with its more flexible discretionary power to stay, in the case of 'related proceedings' which need not involve the triple requirement of art 21. There is no need, therefore, as it seems to me, to strain to fit a case into art 21. The European Court, when speaking in Gubisch (at para 8) of the purpose, in the interests of the proper administration of justice within the European Community, of preventing parallel proceedings in different jurisdictions and of avoiding 'in so far as is possible and from the outset' the possibility of irreconcilable decisions, was addressing arts 21 and 22 together, rather than art 21 by itself.
Thus a prime example of a case within art 21 is of course where party A brings the same claim against party B in two jurisdictions. Such a case raises no problem. More commonly, perhaps, the same dispute is raised in two jurisdictions when party A sues party B to assert liability in one jurisdiction, and party B sues party A in another jurisdiction to deny liability, or vice versa. In such situations, the respective claims of parties A and B naturally differ, but the issue between them is essentially the same. The two claims are essentially mirror images of one another. Gubisch and The [Tatry] are good examples of this occurrence.
On the other hand, Sarrio v KIA is a case where the same claimant was suing the same defendant on different bases giving rise to different issues and different financial consequences, and where liability on one claim did not involve liability (or non-liability) on the other. Haji-Ioannou v Frangos illustrates the situation where even though the cause is the same, and even though there is some overlap in the claims and issues, nevertheless different claims, there the proprietary claim to trace, may raise sufficiently different issues of sufficient importance in the overall litigation for it to be concluded that the objet differs. "'
Are the proceedings 'between the same parties'?
(1) The PPM has control over the Italian proceedings.
(2) Specifically, as is uncontested, the PPM determines which crimes the individual defendants should be charged with. Only the prosecutor can change the factual or legal components of the charge; the parte civile cannot advance a different case theory from that of the PPM; and the parte civile cannot allege different facts as constituting the relevant criminal offence.
(3) Whilst the PPM cannot withdraw the charge once made, he can request that the Court should acquit the defendants with a view to abandoning the case, and if the Court grants that request the claim by the parte civile will also be discontinued.
' on a proper construction of Article 21 of the Convention, where two actions involve the same cause of action and some but not all of the parties to the second action are the same as the parties to the action commenced earlier in another contracting state, the second court seised is required to decline jurisdiction only to the extent to which the parties to the proceedings before it are also parties to the action previously commenced; it does not prevent the proceedings from continuing between the other parties.'
Do the present proceedings have the same cause as the Italian proceedings?
'It appears to us that, in the language of the European Court of Justice, the same facts and rule of law form the basis of each proceedings. Although in England the plaintiffs are asserting that the same underlying agreement gave rise to different legal consequences from which different obligations and, therefore, different legal remedies flowed, the cause would appear to be the same in both countries.'
Do the present proceedings have the same objet as the Italian proceedings?
'Accordingly, it appears that art 21 can apply to proceedings in part, and that art 22 may be applicable to a part of proceedings to which art 21 is not applicable. Although The Tatry was concerned with proceedings which involved different parties, I would infer that the same principle that art 21 can apply to proceedings in part can also apply where proceedings involve different claims. If some of the claims brought in the different proceedings were based on the same cause of action and had the same subject matter, but other claims did not, then art 21 would be engaged in respect of the former, but not in respect of the latter. In those circumstances, it appears to me that the court second seised would have to decline jurisdiction under art 21 in respect of the former claims only, although it would have to consider whether art 22 should also lead it to dismiss the latter claims (on the basis that there would be consolidation in the first court), or to assist its proceedings in order to await the outcome of the proceedings in the court first seised. I note that a similar view was expressed in The Tatry by Advocate General Tesauro, at para 18 of his opinion.'
The Applications under Article 30 or for a Case Management Stay
(1) I consider that Article 30 is in principle potentially applicable. Though it was not suggested that the present proceedings could be consolidated with the Italian proceedings, in my judgment this is not of itself a complete bar to the application of Article 30.
(2) In this regard, there was some debate as to the status of the decision of the Court of Appeal in JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky  EWCA Civ 1708,  2 WLR 993 in relation to the circumstances in which Article 30 is potentially applicable, in light of the subsequent decision of the Court of Appeal in Euroeco Fuels (Poland) Ltd v Szczecin and Swinoujscie Seaports  EWCA Civ 1932,  4 WLR 156. In the Kolomoisky case, it was decided that the word 'expedient' in the phrase 'it is expedient to hear and determine them together' which appears in Article 28.3 of the Lugano Convention (as it does in Article 30.3 of the Regulation), is more akin to 'desirable' that the actions 'should' be heard together, than to 'practicable or possible' that the actions 'can' be heard together: paras. -. In the Euroeco Fuels case, having referred to the Kolomoisky case, the Court of Appeal nevertheless appears to have proceeded on the basis that the court had no discretion to order a stay under Article 30 when there was no real possibility of the two claims being heard together in the same foreign court: paras. -, .
(3) The Court of Appeal in Euroeco Fuels did not suggest that it disagreed with the reasoning on this point in Kolomoisky or that it was not bound by it. I consider that it was not deciding that Kolomoisky was wrong. In any event, I consider that I am bound by the carefully-reasoned decision on this point in Kolomoisky, and would in any event, if I were at liberty and had to decide between the two, have followed it, as I am in respectful agreement with it.
(4) While I recognise that the impossibility of these proceedings being consolidated with the Italian proceedings is a factor militating against a stay under Article 30, I consider that in the present case it is outweighed by other considerations, and in particular by: (i) the degree of relatedness of the two proceedings; (ii) the reality of the risk of inconsistent decisions; (iii) the fact that the Italian proceedings are now considerably more advanced than the English proceedings; and (iv), which is connected with (iii), the fact that the Italian Courts and Italian legal teams are now immersed in the facts of the matter.
(5) In any event, even if not under Article 30, there should be a stay under the Court's case management powers, and in particular pursuant to s. 49(3) Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR 3.1(2)(f). Such a stay would not, in my judgment, be inconsistent with the Regulation, and is required to further the Overriding Objective in the sense of saving expense, ensuring that cases are dealt with expeditiously and fairly, and allotting to any particular case an appropriate share of the Court's resources. Given that the Italian proceedings are well advanced, and that after the determination of the Italian proceedings English proceedings may well either be unnecessary or curtailed in scope, there appear good grounds to consider that a stay of the English proceedings will result in savings in costs and time, including judicial time.
The Claim for a Declaration as to a Right to Rescind
Was there a Failure to Make Proper Disclosure?
(1) That the FRN had been under an obligation to make a full and fair disclosure of all material facts. Material facts are those which it is material for the judge to know in dealing with the application made. Materiality is to be decided by the court and not by the applicant or its advisers. The applicant must make proper enquiries and the duty therefore extends to those matters which the applicant would have known if it had made such enquiries. If material non-disclosure is established the Court should be astute to deprive the applicant of any advantage which it derived.
(2) In the present case, the presentation to Cockerill J was seriously misleading, in a respect which was material. Specifically, Mr Cary's First Witness Statement ('Cary I') was misleading, or at least failed to make full and fair disclosure, in relation to the issue of limitation. Thus, Cary I had set out the position in relation to limitation in English law, and observed that the same position would pertain under Nigerian law. The witness statement had further identified an argument that time would not start to run for so long as the claimant was under the control of the wrongdoers. It had then set out four matters of fact which it was right to acknowledge, including that in May 2012, the EFCC had begun an investigation into allegations of bribery and corruption arising out of the OPL 245 transaction; that it had been reported in the Nigerian press in May 2012 that the investigation had 'suffered a setback since the presidency got wind of [it] the report is gathering dust on the president's desk'; and that in June 2012 the House of Representatives in Nigeria had begun an investigation into OPL 245, holding hearings in December 2013, and reporting in early 2014. Cary I had then argued that the FRN had not had knowledge of the 'Scheme' (defined as 'a fraudulent and corrupt scheme that involved the payment of bribes via at least the 12th to 14th defendants to corrupt FRN officials and former officials') until October 2013. Specifically, paragraph 165 of Cary I had said:'Furthermore, it has only been in the course of the Italian Criminal investigation that the evidence of the Scheme has started to emerge As I have already noted, the Italian criminal investigation had only commenced in 2013 and the present English proceedings were issued on 12 December 2018, and so on any view within the relevant 6-year limitation period In those circumstances, I believe that the FRN has (to put it at its lowest) reasonable prospects of showing that the claims are not time-barred '
(3) A similar approach had been adopted in the skeleton argument provided by the FRN for the hearing before Cockerill J and in the oral submissions of leading counsel for the FRN on that occasion. As the Shell and Eni Defendants put it:' the thrust of the FRN's case on the facts was that evidence of the "Scheme" and, in particular, evidence of the (alleged) payment of bribes by Malabu to Nigerian public officials only started to emerge in the course of the Italian criminal investigation, which commenced in October 2013.'
(4) That presentation was misleading for two particular reasons: (1) that the statement in paragraph 165 of Cary I that it was only during the course of the Italian criminal investigation that evidence of the Scheme began to emerge was a misrepresentation; and (2) that the FRN failed to disclose the existence or contents of reports which the EFCC had prepared in March and September 2012, or the interviews which the EFCC had conducted during 2012. What the Defendants argued was that the EFCC had already, by March 2012, found that of the consideration paid by Shell and Eni some US$400 million had been paid into Malabu's account at First Bank of Nigeria and US$400 million into its account with Keystone Bank. Of the sum paid into First Bank of Nigeria, significant sums had been paid to, amongst others, A Group Construction Group Ltd ('A Group') and Novel Property and Development Ltd ('Novel'); and of the sums paid into Keystone Bank the majority had been transferred to Rocky Top Resources Ltd ('Rocky Top'). Mr Abubakar Aliyu, whose reputation for alleged involvement in the corruption of officials was a matter of public comment in 2012, was an owner of A Group, Novel and Rocky Top. Furthermore, during 2012 the EFCC conducted interviews with various individuals, which had indicated that Rocky Top may have made transfers to Bayo Ojo, a former Attorney General, and to Assunah Bureau de Change from which sums were withdrawn in cash. The Defendants say that these matters are the essential building blocks of the FRN's present case as to the occurrence of bribery, but none was disclosed to the court on the application for permission to serve out. Nor was the court told that the existence of the EFCC's investigation and findings in 2012 had been widely reported in the Nigerian press during 2012.
(1) There was no misrepresentation and no failure to make full and fair disclosure.
(2) The issue of limitation was very clearly put before the Court at the ex parte stage and the application left no doubt that limitation would be an issue at the trial. Cary I explained that the Defendants were likely to raise a limitation defence, but said that there were serious issues to be tried in this regard, both because (i) the FRN would contend that time could not have begun to run while the wrongdoers were in control, which it would contend was until May 2015 when President Jonathan lost office, and would rely on the decision of the Privy Council in Julien v Evolving Technologies  UKPC 2,  BCC 376 (the 'wrongdoers in control' point); and (ii) because there were serious issues to be tried as to whether the FRN had sufficient credible material before December 2012 to be able to plead that the Shell and Eni Defendants were involved in the fraudulent and corrupt Scheme which is now alleged to have existed (the 'statement of claim' point).
(3) The Defendants themselves now accept that the 'wrongdoers in control' point gives rise to an issue which can only be resolved at a trial.
(4) In the circumstances, the Court could see, correctly, that there would be serious issues to be tried in relation to limitation, and what it is now said should have been disclosed does not materially impact the jurisdictional analysis which the Court had to conduct in considering whether to give permission to serve out.
(5) In any event there was no misrepresentation or failure to give full and fair disclosure. The Court was told that there had been an investigation begun in 2012 into bribery and corruption. That investigation had been prompted by a different alleged fraud, namely an allegation that Mohammed Sani Abacha had originally been a part owner of Malabu but had been wrongfully side-lined by Mr Etete. The EFCC investigations in 2012 had not produced credible evidence which would have allowed the FRN to plead, even had the alleged wrongdoers not been in control, that there had been bribes paid to President Jonathan, Mr Adoke, Ms Alison-Madueke or General Gusau. What had made the difference in this regard was evidence of funds frozen in Swiss bank accounts of Mr Obi and Mr Di Nardo, text messages obtained from Mr Obi, internal Shell emails, Italian and Dutch wiretap evidence, statements from key participants and evidence of kickbacks. These had been obtained after the commencement of the Italian criminal investigation.
"It is necessary to enable the Court to fulfil its own obligations to ensure fair process under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is the necessary corollary of the Court being prepared to depart from the principle that it will hear both sides before reaching a decision, which is a basic principle of fairness. Derogation from that basic principle is an exceptional course adopted in cases of extreme urgency or the need for secrecy. If the court is to adopt that procedure where justice so requires, it must be able to rely on the party who appears alone to present the evidence and argument in a way which is not merely designed to promote its own interests, but in a fair and even-handed manner, drawing attention to evidence and arguments which it can reasonably anticipate the absent party would wish to make. It is a duty owed to the court which exists in order to ensure the integrity of the court's process."
' the court should not consider the supporting affidavit as though it were marking an examination paper, deciding one way or the other merely on the basis of the extent to which the affidavit could have been improved. The primary question should be whether in all the circumstances the effect of the affidavit is such as to mislead the court in any material respect concerning its jurisdiction and the discretion under the rule.'
' On an application without notice the duty of the applicant is to make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts, ie those which it is material (in the objective sense) for the judge to know in dealing with the application as made: materiality is to be decided by the court and not by the assessment of the applicant or his legal advisers; the duty is a strict one and includes not merely material facts known to the applicant but also additional facts which he would have known if he had made proper enquiries: Brink's Mat Ltd v Elcombe  1 WLR 1350, 1356-1357. But an applicant does not have a duty to disclose points against him which have not been raised by the other side and in respect of which there is no reason to anticipate that the other side would raise such points if it were present.
 These principles have long been applied to applications for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction: see e.g. The Hagen  P 189, 201. In that context it has been held that it would not be reasonable to expect an applicant for permission to serve out to anticipate all the arguments or points which might be raised against his case: see Electric Furnace Co v Selas Corpn of America  RPC 23, 29. A failure to refer to arguments on the merits which the defendant might raise at trial should not generally be characterised as a "failure to make full and fair disclosure", unless they are of such weight that their omission may mislead the court in exercising its jurisdiction under the rule and its discretion whether or not to grant permission: BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt  1 WLR 788, 788-789, approved in the Electric Furnace case  RPC 23, 29.'
Note 1 Of the Brussels Convention. [Back] Note 2 In the sense in which it is used in the English text of Article 29. [Back] Note 3 FRN Skeleton para. 11(4). [Back]
Note 1 Of the Brussels Convention. [Back]
Note 2 In the sense in which it is used in the English text of Article 29. [Back]
Note 3 FRN Skeleton para. 11(4). [Back]