Prior to the 1999 Montreal Convention. The 1929 Warsaw Convention set forth that an action for damage can be brought, at the option of the plaintiff, before several determined fora. Article 28 of the 1929 Warsaw Convention provides that:
1. An action for damages must be brought, at the option of the plaintiff, in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, either before the Court having jurisdiction where the carrier is ordinarily resident, or has his principal place of business, or has an establishment by which the contract has been made or before the Court having jurisdiction at the place of destination.
2. Questions of procedure shall be governed by the law of the Court seised of the case.180 The draft text submitted to the 1929 Warsaw Conference was slightly different.181 As explained in 1928 by the Rapporteur, in case of death, any action should have been brought before the first Court regularly seized of 180 The French version reads: ‘1. L’action en responsabilité xxxxx être xxxxxx, au choix du demandeur, dans le territoire d’une des Hautes Parties Contractantes, soit devant le tribunal du domicile du transporteur, du siège principal de son exploitation ou du lieu où il possède un établissement par le soin duquel le contrat a été conclu, soit devant le tribunal du lieu de destination. 2. La procédure sera réglée par la loi du tribunal saisi’. 181 ICAO Doc 7838, II Conférence Internationale de Droit Privé Aérien, 4-12 Octobre 1929, Procès-Verbaux, Varsovie, 1930, p. 172: ‘L’action en responsabilité xxxxx être xxxxxx, au choix du demandeur, dans un des Etats Contractants soit devant le tribunal du siège principal de l’exploitation ou du lieu où celui-ci possède un établissement par le soin duquel le contrat a été conclu, soit devant celui du lieu de destination ou, en cas de non arrivée de l’aéronef, du lieu de l’accident. En cas de mort, toutes actions devront être portées devant le premier tribunal qui aura été régulièrement saisi. La procédure sera réglée par la loi du tribunal saisi; toutefois, aucune formalité particulière ou caution ne peut être exigée du demandeur à raison de sa nationalité’. the case.182 The issue was delicate: on the one hand, it was feared that the maximum liability limit would not be respected, if the case was brought before several jurisdictions; on the other hand, a situation where a deci- sion had been delivered but could not be enforced in another jurisdiction, needed to be avoided.183 The proposal for a single jurisdiction in the case of death was ...
Prior to the 1999 Montreal Convention. The disparity between national legislations also raised an obstacle for the development of a level playing field between carriers,34 or in other words, a legal environment that allowed carriers from different origins an equal opportunity to compete on the market, regardless of their financial strength.35 The Travaux Préparatoires of the 1925 Paris Conference are clear on this point: Il serait d’autre part utile que toutes les Compagnies de transports fussent pla- cées à ce point de vue sous un régime d’égalité.36 31 Xxxxxxxxx v. Air Canada, (2014) 3 SCR 340, at 41.
Prior to the 1999 Montreal Convention. Whereas the final Protocol to the 1925 Paris Conference provided under its Article 8 that: Au cas de décès du voyageur transporté, l’action en responsabilité pourra être exercée par les personnes auxquelles cette action appartient d’après la législation nationale du défunt, mais sous réserve de la limitation de responsabilité prévue à l’Article précédent.92 No explicit indication on the reasons behind the adoption of such an exclu- sivity clause can be found in the Travaux Préparatoires of the 1929 Warsaw Convention. During the 1971 Guatemala City Conference, the possibility of breaking the pecuniary limits was discussed and eventually rejected.93 As reproduced below, the IATA Observer underscored that the new wording of Article 24 particularly aimed to prevent this situation from happening: 89 1974 PAL, Article 14: ‘No action for damages for the death of or personal injury to a passenger, or for the loss of or damage to luggage, shall be brought against a carrier or performing carrier otherwise than in accordance with this Convention’. 90 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 11 April 1980, Vienna, UNTS, 1489, I-25567, entry in force 1 January 1988. 91 See, section 2.5.3.2. 92 Conférence Internationale de Droit Privé Aérien, 27 Octobre – 6 Novembre 1925, Paris, 1926, p. 79. 93 ICAO Doc 9040, International Conference on Air Law, Guatemala City, February-March 1971, volume I, Minutes, Montreal, 1972, p. 144. He thought, however, that the Drafting Committee might consider the insertion of a clause, perhaps in Article 24, along the following lines: ‘The liability of car- rier as established under Articles 17 to 22 of this Convention shall be the sole and exclusive liability of carrier under all circumstances in respect of damage arising out of an event giving rise to liability for the death or injury or delay of a passen- ger or destruction, loss, damage or delay of baggage.94 The same fear appeared during the 1975 Montreal Conference: The Director of the Legal Bureau, in explaining the background, said that the basic question was whether the limits should be unbreakable under all circum- stances. The Legal Committee, meeting prior to the Conference at Guatemala City by which the principle of unbreakability was enshrined in the Guatemala City Protocol, had examined up to eight different formulas for consecrating the unbreakability of limits and it was concluded that the best formula was the one that appeared in the text o...
