CHOICE OF LAW-NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT

Abstract

IT is not often that those of us who toil in one of the remotest vineyards of legal academe are rewarded. Choice of law questions over intangible property rarely seem to trouble the courts, though there are many issues of considerable intellectual interest which also raise hugely important practical implications. Maybe the area is just too difficult or perhaps all concerned are crossing their fingers that the harsh winds of a judgment will not rock the vine and bruise their fine crop (illustrated by angst following Macmillan Inc. v. Bishopsgate Investment Trust plc (No. 3) [1996] 1 W.L.R. 387). Questions such as the way in which notice must be given to an insurer when the benefit of the policy is assigned must be an everyday practicality. The consequences of giving notice improperly ought to keep some people awake at night. When so much business is done cross-border it seems astounding that the choice of law rule is almost untouched by judicial pronouncement since Le Feuvre v. Sullivan (1855) 10 Moo. P.C. 1; 14 Eng. Rep. 389, Lee v. Abdy (1886) 17 Q.B.D. 309 and the like over one hundred years ago. Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v. Five Star General Trading LLC [2000] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 897 raised precisely this issue. Is the notice to be given in the manner required by: (i) the lex fori; (ii) the law of the contract of assignment of the benefit of the insurance; (iii) the lex situs of the policy; or (iv) the law of the contract of insurance? Is this question proprietary or contractual?