Huber v Steiner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Huber v Steiner (1835) 2 Bing (NC) 202 was a judicial decision of the English Court of Common Pleas relating to choice of law issues in connection with a promissory note.[1][2][3][4]
Huber v Steiner | |
---|---|
Court | Court of Common Pleas |
Full case name | Huber v Steiner |
Decided | 17 June 1835 |
Citation(s) | (1835) 2 Bing (NC) 202 1 Hodg 206 2 Scott 304 132 ER 80 |
Transcript(s) | StuDocU |
Court membership | |
Judge sitting | Tindal CJ |
Keywords | |
Huber brought a claim against Steiner in England on a promissory note which had been issued in France. Under French law, the relevant limitation period had expired. The court accepted that the proper law of the promissory note was French law, but the issue was whether the limitation bar was a substantive rule or a procedural one.
The court held that the French limitation period was a procedural rule, and as matters of procedure were determined by the laws of the forum (ie. English law in this case) then irrespective of the fact that the promissory note was governed by French law, the French limitation period would not apply to a case before the English court.[1][2]
Although the decision in the case is regarded as correct and the precedent is sound, a different result would follow today as a result of the statutory changes brought about by the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 and the Rome I Regulation.