International and Comparative Law Quarterly: Issue 1 for 2026

,

International & Comparative Law Quarterly Volume 75 - Issue 1 -The latest issue of the International and Comparative Law Quarterly (Volume 75, Issue 1) features two article of relevance to private international law.

Min Kyung Kim and Jonathan Harris, Arbitration versus Insolvency: Balancing Party Autonomy and Public Policy, 129-155

This article examines the tension between arbitration and insolvency in common law jurisdictions. Focusing on the divergence created by the English decision in Salford Estates and the Privy Council decision in Sian Participation Corp v Halimeda International Ltd, it critically assesses their approaches to disputes over a creditor’s standing to present a winding-up petition. Through comparative analysis, including consideration of the judgment of the courts of Singapore in AnAn Group PTE Ltd v VTB Bank, it argues that a correct understanding of the test in the Hong Kong judgment Re Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Ltd, commonly known as Lasmos, provides a more principled framework, balancing party autonomy and insolvency principles.

Sarah Paterson, A Qualified Defence of the Rule in Gibbs, 221-244

This article concerns the ‘rule in Gibbs’: a controversial principle of English private international law which provides that a debt is only discharged in a foreign insolvency proceeding if the contract is governed by the law of that proceeding. Critics of the rule consider that it undermines the foundation of corporate insolvency as a unitary process in which individual collection efforts are replaced by a collective proceeding for all creditors. This article offers a qualified defence of the rule. It suggests that it could be abandoned in ‘true’ insolvency cases, in which the company’s assets are sold to a third party and the proceeds distributed to its creditors, but only if the rule is replaced with a cross-border insolvency law framework. It also suggests, however, that Gibbs is the ‘right’ rule in a cross-border corporate restructuring, in which only some of the company’s creditors stay with the firm to benefit from any future upside that the third party would otherwise capture in a sale. It argues that European Union private international law adopts this approach to a restructuring and that the Gibbs rule is, therefore, not nearly as exceptional as it is sometimes made out to be.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Join the discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from EAPIL

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading