We in a citing index:
Derivative Action and «Related» Procedural Means of Protection of Rights and Legitimate Interests (on Example of English Law and American Law)
T.A. VASILEVA,
Postgraduate Student, Assistant of the Department of Civil Procedure
of the Law Institute of the Siberian Federal University
DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2017-7-2-182-201
The article analyzes question about historical foundation of a derivative action, representative action, class action and group action in Anglo-Saxon law and question about the relation of these types of actions. The author concluded that a derivative action, representative action, class action and group action are independent types of actions. The criteria for differentiation are given in support this point of view. Also attention is paid to the analysis of the doctrine about the legal nature of group and class actions (definition of relation with joinder of parties, representation, aggregative litigation). The question of the relationship between a derivative action, representative action, class action and group action is explored in the context of access to justice, focus on protecting rights and legitimate interests of a certain number of persons. The author’s conclusions are made with reference to the American and English court practice and the doctrine of common-law countries.
Keywords: civil procedure; arbitration procedure; derivative action; representative action; group action; class action.
References
Abolonin G.O. Massovye iski [Mass Claims]. Moscow, 2011. (In Russian)
Abolonin G.O. Prakticheskoe primenenie gruppovykh iskov v nekotorykh stranakh mira [Practical Using of Group Actions in Some Countries]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa = Herald of Civil Procedure, 2015, no. 4. (In Russian)
Alexander J.C. An Introduction to Class Action Procedure in the United States. In Presented Conference: Debates over Group Litigation in Comparative Perspective. Geneva, Switzerland, July 21–22, 2000.
Andrews N. Fundamentals of Multi-Party or Collective Litigation: Reflections From Representative of England (http://www.google.ru/url?url=http://www.ca.milano. giustizia.it/allegato_corsi.aspx%3FFile_id_allegato%3D1318&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sa =U&ved=0ahUKEwiEi5PQlMTPAhXLXSwKHa9OCjYQFggUMAA&usg=AFQjCN E__VUu0iPWu5-CGIcRmqBtUBKDtA).
Andrews N. Multi-Party Proceedings in England: Representative and Group Actions. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 2001, vol. 11.
Andrews N.H. Multi-Party Litigation in England. University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research, 2013, Paper No. 39.
Basset D.L. Constructing Class Action Reality. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2006.
Bronsteen J., Fiss Ow. The Class Action Rule. Notre Dame Law Review, 2003, vol. 78.
Cappelletti M. (ed.). Access to Justice and Welfare State. European University Institute, 1981.
Endrius N. Sistema grazhdanskogo protsessa Anglii. Sudebnoe razbiratel’stvo, mediatsiia, arbitrazh [System of English Civil Procedure. Procedure, Mediation, Arbitration]. Moscow, 2012. (In Russian)
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Cornell University Law School, 2015. Garth B., Cappelletti M. Access to Justice: The Newest Wave in the Worldwide Movement to Make Rights Effective. Articles by Maurer Faculty, 1978, Paper 1142.
Garth B., Cappelletti M., Trocker N. Access to Justice – Variations and Continuity of a World-Wide Movement. Articles by Maurer Faculty, 1985, Paper 1064. Greer M.H. (ed.). A Practitioner’s Guide to Class Actions. American Bar Association, 2010. Hazard G., Gedid J.L., Sowie St. An Historical Analysis of the Binding Nature of Class Suits. Faculty Scholarship Paper 1423. 1998.
Hazard G.S.Jr. Indispensable Party: The Historical Origin of a Procedural Phantom. Colum. L. Rev., 1961, vol. 61. Hensler D.R. et al. Class Action Dilemmas: Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain. RAND, 2000.
Joffe QC V., Drake D., Richardson G., Lightman D., Collingwood T. Minority Shareholders: Law, Practice, and Procedure. Oxford University Press, 2011. Jolowicz J.A. On Civil Procedure. Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Kolesov P.P. Gruppovye iski v SShA [Group Actions in the USA]. Moscow, 2004. (In Russian)
Kolesov P.P. Protsessual’nye sredstva zashchity prava [Procedural Means of Right’s Protection]. Velikii Novgorod, 2004. (In Russian)
Resnik J. From «Cases» to «Litigation». Law and Contemporary Problems, 1991, vol. 54. Sakhnova T.V. Kurs grazhdanskogo protsessa [The Course of Civil Procedure]. Moscow, 2014. (In Russian)
Scarlett A.M. Shareholder Derivative Litigation’s Historical and Normative Foundations. Buffalo Law Review, 2013, vol. 61. Shapiro D.L. Class Actions: The Class as Party and Client. Notre Dame L. Rev., 1998, vol. 73.
Taruffo M. Some Remarks on Group Litigation in Comparative Perspective. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 2001, vol. 11.
Vafin Ya. Osobennosti sudoproizvodstva po gruppovym iskam v Anglii [The Peculiarities on Group Litigation in England]. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess = Arbitral and Civil Procedure, 2000, no. 8. (In Russian)
Valdes Fr. Procedure, Policy and Power: Class Actions and Social Justice in Historical and Comparative Perspective. Georgia State University Law Review, 2007, vol. 24.
Wrbka St., Uytsel St.V., Siems M. Collective Actions: Enhancing Access to Justice and Reconciling Multilayer Interests? Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Information about the author
Vasileva T.A. (Krasnoyarsk, Russia) – Postgraduate Student, Assistant of the Department of Civil Procedure of the Law Institute of the Siberian Federal University (660075, Krasnoyarsk, Maerchaka St., 6, room 2-05; e-mail: civil.law.process@gmail. com).
Recommended citation
Vasileva T.A. Kosvennyj isk i «smezhnye» protsessual’nye sredstva zashchity prav i zakonnyh interesov (na primere prava Anglii i SShA) [Derivative Action and «Related» Procedural Means of Protection of Rights and Legitimate Interests (on Example of English Law and American Law)]. Вестник гражданского процесса = Herald of Civil Procedure, 2017, no. 2, p. 182–201. (In Russian) DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2017-7-2-182-201
T.A. Vasileva
Advertisement
Our partners
