SMARTLEGAL Schmidt & Partners updates

Supreme Court rules on whether legal successors can be sued at place of performance of contract
SMARTLEGAL Schmidt & Partners
  • Litigation
  • Hungary
  • 21 July 2020

Due to the protective measures of the EU Recast Brussels I Regulation, persons domiciled in an EU member state can be sued in another member state only in limited cases. One of these exceptions is the jurisdiction granted by the regulation to the courts of the place of the performance of a contract. However, does this exception apply in cases of legal succession or subrogation? The Supreme Court recently addressed this issue, although its decision is doubtful for several reasons.

Common law on horizon? New law reforming litigation enters into force
SMARTLEGAL Schmidt & Partners
  • Litigation
  • Hungary
  • 19 May 2020

While COVID-19 has been dominating the headlines, a new act, which entered into force on 1 April 2020 and fundamentally reforms the role of judge-made law in Hungary, has received less attention. This article examines why this landmark bill was passed, the extent to which it means the adoption of common law and what its potential impact will be on litigation in Hungary.

Supreme Court judgment: choice of law by conduct in litigation?
SMARTLEGAL Schmidt & Partners
  • Litigation
  • Hungary
  • 07 April 2020

Can parties' conduct during litigation amount to an implied choice-of-law agreement based on EU Regulation 593/2008? This article analyses a recent Supreme Court judgment concerning this question. The court's decision indicates a shift from the well-settled case law concerning the conclusion of contracts by conduct.

Optional jurisdictional clauses: limited effect in Hungary?
SMARTLEGAL Schmidt & Partners
  • Litigation
  • Hungary
  • 10 March 2020

Can a party commence litigation in Hungary despite a jurisdictional agreement in favour of a court of a non-EU state which is optional for one of the parties? The Supreme Court recently answered this question in a case which highlights the negative effects of such asymmetric choice-of-court agreements.

Penalty claim without prior reservation? Supreme Court confirms estoppel-based practice
SMARTLEGAL Schmidt & Partners
  • Litigation
  • Hungary
  • 18 February 2020

Is a penalty for delayed performance enforceable if the purchaser fails to reserve its rights immediately? Or is enforceability excluded only if the purchaser expressly waives its right? This article analyses the Supreme Court's judgment in a recent construction dispute, in which the court appears to have maintained its estoppel-based practice despite recent legislative changes.

Current search