Category Archives: Jurisdiction

Empresa Exportadora de Azucar -v- Industria Azucarera Nacional S.A, The Playa Larga; CA 1983

The effect of disregarding a provision of foreign law as manifestly contrary to public policy may be to render enforceable in England a contract which is not enforceable by its proper law. The court considered the measure of damages in relation to the non-delivery of goods sold by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that the damages recoverable should be related to the highest price prevailing at any time between the date of the breach and the date of the arbitration award. This contention was rejected.
Ackner LJ said: ‘Mr. Rix, in his cross-appeal, argued that the damages recoverable by Iansa in contract should be related to the highest price prevailing at any time between the date of the breach and date of the award. Mr. Justice Mustill rejected this submission and has set out his reasons most fully, which we are happy to adopt. We would, however, venture to suggest that the matter can be put more simply. Iansa, as complainants, must establish what damage they have suffered. Mr. Rix had to accept: (a) That after the date when Iansa could have bought in to cover their loss there was no evidence at all that the fluctuations in the sugar market made the slightest financial difference to them. There was no evidence that they could have sold at the highest price. On the contrary, the reasonable inference was that the goods would have been resold for domestic or other consumption in Chile, (b) Although theoretically Cubazucar was capable of selling the sugar at the highest price, there is no evidence that it did so.
Accordingly, to the plaintiffs’ contention that Cubazucar should not profit from its own wrong comes the simple reply: they have not shown that Cubazucar have done so. We cannot, therefore, see any basis upon which Iansa can seek to achieve a windfall in the form of an extra $1,200 per tonne over and above the price which was prevailing when they should have bought in the market.’

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1983
Judges: Ackner LJ, Stephenson LJ, Sir Segab Shaw
References: [1983] 2 Lloyds Rep 171,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Contract, Jurisdiction, Transport

I Congreso del Partido; HL 1983

The House restricted the doctrine of state immunity so as to exclude trading and commercial activities from immunity. The doctrine should be upheld as a modern application of the principle of ‘par in parem non habet imperium.’

Court: HL
Date: 01-Jan-1983
Judges: Lord Wilberforce
References: [1983] 1 AC 244,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Vava and Others -v- Anglo American South Africa Ltd; QBD 16-Jul-2012

Court: QBD
Date: 16-Jul-2012
Judges: Silber J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] EWHC 1969 (QB), [2013] BUS LR D48

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction, Personal Injury

Petter -v- EMC Europe Ltd and Another; QBD 22-May-2015

‘Two applications before the Court: (i) the Second Defendant (EMC Corporation) applies to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction over the claimant’s (Mr Petter’s) claim against it (the Part 11 Application); and (ii) Mr Petter applies for an interim anti-suit injunction against EMC Corporation restraining, pending determination of Mr Petter’s claim, further prosecution of its proceedings against him in Massachusetts (the Massachusetts Proceedings) (the Anti-Suit Application). ‘

Court: QBD
Date: 22-May-2015
Judges: Cooke J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWHC 1498 (QB),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Deutsche Schachtbau-und Tiefbohrgesellschaft mbH -v- Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd; HL 1990

The case concerned a garnishee order absolute made in respect of a debt situated in England, and the House was not called upon to consider the position where foreign debts were in issue.
Held: (Majority) The court has a ‘discretionary power to make a garnishee order absolute’ and concluded that it would be ‘inequitable where the payment by the garnishee under the order absolute will not necessarily discharge his liability under the attached debt, there being a real risk that he may be held liable in some foreign court to pay a second time.

Court: HL
Date: 01-Jan-1990
Judges: Lord Goff of Chieveley
References: [1990] 1 AC 295,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Regina -v- Grossman; CA 1981

An application was made against Barclays Bank in London to obtain inspection of an account held at a branch of the bank in the Isle of Man.
Held: The Civil Division of the Court of Appeal which determined the application was later held to have lacked jurisdiction to do so (Bonalumi) but no doubt was thrown on the opinions expressed at pages 308-309 of the judgment. The Manx branch was a different entity from the bank’s head office in London and any order in respect of the production of the books should be made by the Manx court and not the English court. Otherwise there was a risk of jurisdictional conflict which must be avoided.

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1981
Judges: Lord Denning MR, Shaw and Oliver LJJ
References: (1981) 73 Cr App R 302,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Crime, Jurisdiction

Shannon -v- Global Tunneling Experts UK Ltd and Others; QBD 7-May-2015

Defendants argued thst the court had no jurisdiction over them

Court: QBD
Date: 07-May-2015
Judges: Jay J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWHC 1267 (QB),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Trust Risk Group Spa -v- AmTrust Europe Ltd; CA 30-Apr-2015

‘This appeal concerns a jurisdiction dispute arising from the breakdown of a business relationship about the placement of medical malpractice insurance in the Italian market.’

Court: CA
Date: 30-Apr-2015
Judges: Elias, Beatson, Christopher Clarke LJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWCA Civ 437,
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Insurance, Jurisdiction

Allen and Others -v- Depuy International Ltd; QBD 1-Apr-2015

The claimants (from New Zealand) alleged personal injury after hip implants supplied by the defendants proved faulty.

Court: QBD
Date: 01-Apr-2015
Judges: Simler DBE J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWHC 926 (QB),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction, Personal Injury

Erste Group Bank Ag London Branch -v- J VMZ Red October and Others; CA 17-Apr-2015

Appeal by the third defendant Rosteckhnologii, and by the fifth defendant, D3 and D5 against orders by which Flaux J dismissed applications made by D3 and D5 pursuant to CPR Part 11, challenging the jurisdiction of the English court and seeking to set aside service of the proceedings upon them outside the jurisdiction in Russia.

Court: CA
Date: 17-Apr-2015
Judges: Aikens, Gloster, Briggs LJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWCA Civ 379,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Donohue -v- Armco Inc and others; HL 13-Dec-2001

The appellant had sought injunctions against the respondent US companies to restrain their commencing proceedings in the US against him. The parties had negotiated for the purchase of the run-off liabilities of a defunct insurance company. Allegations included conspiracy to defraud. The agreements included exclusive jurisdiction clauses, requiring matters to be tried in England. The defendants asserted that the matters at issue did not arise from the agreements, and so were not subject to the clauses.
Held: The court could decline to follow such a course where the interest of third parties might be adversely affected. The right as to jurisdiction is a substantial, not a technical one. The need in this case to assess the honesty of witnesses, required all matters to come before one court. That was only possible in New York, despite the clause.

Court: HL
Date: 13-Dec-2001
Judges: Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough Lord Scott of Foscott
Links: House of Lords, Bailii,
References: [2001] UKHL 64, [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 425, [2002] CLC 440, [2002] 1 All ER 749, [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 97
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Google Inc -v- Vidal-Hall and Others; CA 27-Mar-2015

The claimants sought damages alleging that Google had, without their consent, collected personal data about them, which was resold to advertisers. They used the Safari Internet browser on Apple products. The tracking and collation of the claimants’ BGI was contrary to the defendant’s publicly stated position that such activity could not be conducted for Safari users unless they had expressly allowed it to happen. The defendants denied that the allegation amounted to a tort, and that therefore the court had no jurisdiction, appealing against a refusal to strike out the claim.
Held: Google’s appeal failed, and the action should proceed. The court was not bound by the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hello!. The misuse of private information could work as a tort: ‘Misuse of private information is a civil wrong without any equitable characteristics. We do not need to attempt to define a tort here. But if one puts aside the circumstances of its ‘birth’, there is nothing in the nature of the claim itself to suggest that the more natural classification of it as a tort is wrong.’
Claimants may recover damages under the 1998 Act for a non-material loss.

Court: CA
Date: 27-Mar-2015
Judges: Lord Dyson MR, McFarlane, Sharp LJJ
Statutes: Data Protection Act 1998, Civil Procedure Rules, Directive 95/46/EC
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWCA Civ 311,
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information, Jurisdiction, News, Torts - Other

Metall und Rohstoff AG -v- Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette Inc and another; QBD 29-Mar-1988

The plaintiff had suffered damage when given negligent advice. It obtained a judgment but the company became insolvent, and it now sought to sue the US parent company in conspiracy. The defendant said that to establish conspiracy it was necessary that the dominant aim had been to cause injury or loss to the plaintiff.
Held: The defence failed. It was based on a misinterpretation of Lonhro.

Court: QBD
Date: 29-Mar-1988
Judges: Gatehouse J
Links: Gazette,
References: [1990] QB 391,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction, Torts - Other

Connelly -v- RTZ Corporation Plc; CA 29-Sep-1995

Availability of legal aid to a party is not a relevant consideration to rules of forum non conveniens.

Court: CA
Date: 29-Sep-1995
Links: Independent, Times,
References:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction, Legal Aid, Litigation Practice

Waterford Wedgwood Plc and Another -v- David Vagli Ltd and Another, Haughton Third Party; ChD 13-May-1998

The sellers had supplied counterfeit Waterford crystal to a buyer in New York, arranging for the goods to be shipped from Ireland to Spain and then from Spain to Felixstowe, where they were transhipped and sent to New York. The question was whether the sellers had infringed the Waterford trade mark in the United Kingdom by importing the goods into Felixstowe, and whether the English court had jurisdiction.
Held: The defendant had imported the goods into the United Kingdom. The buyer had not imported them into the United Kingdom. He had imported them into New York. The passage of the goods through Felixstowe was entirely the act of the seller and he was therefore the importer in relation to the United Kingdom. A third party claim by defendant against person domiciled in a convention country did not just because of that fall within the convention though satisfied Order 16 requirement as ‘any other third party proceedings.’

Court: ChD
Date: 13-May-1998
Judges: Sir Richard Scott V-C
Statutes: Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968
Links: Times,
References: [1998] FSR 92,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property, Jurisdiction

In re Compania Merabello San Nicholas SA; ChD 1973

A petition to wind up a one-ship Panamanian company was brought by a claimant cargo-owner who had ‘an unliquidated claim against the company for breach of [a] contract of carriage in respect of the shortages and for damages based on [the vessel] being unseaworthy’ The court was asked whether jurisdiction existed to wind up a foreign (Panamanian) company if it had no place of business within England or Wales and had never transacted business here.
Held: Jurisdiction did exist if there were one or more assets within the jurisdiction and if there were one or more persons, concerned in the proper distribution of the assets, over whom the jurisdiction was exercisable. The relevant asset was the insolvent shipowner’s chose in action in the form of an available claim under the relevant insurance policy made with an English insurance company. Once a winding-up order was made the 1930 Act would apply automatically and ‘the company’s claim against [its insurers] will vest in [the claimant cargo-owners] and could be pursued by [the claimant cargo-owners] against [the insurers], though as to the costs only after they have been quantified by taxation.’ The claimants’ petition was opposed by the insurers who were themselves creditors of the company and did not wish the insurance proceeds to go directly to the owners of the cargo. ‘It will be seen that there is an automatic transfer of the rights of the insured company to the third party upon the making of a winding up order in respect of the insured company. [The plaintiff] accepted that for the purposes of his argument before me the insurance . . . fell within the Act . . .’

Court: ChD
Date: 01-Jan-1973
Judges: Megarry J
Statutes: Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930
References: [1973] Ch 75,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Insurance, Jurisdiction

Don -v- Lippmann; HL 1837

An action was brought in Scotland in 1829 on two French bills of exchange accepted in 1810.
Held: The defendant was able to rely on the Scottish 6 year period of prescription because: ‘Whatever relates to the remedy to be enforced, must be determined by the lex fori, the law of the country to the tribunals of which appeal is made.’

Court: HL
Date: 01-Jan-1837
Judges: Lord Brougham
References: (1837) 5 Cl & F 1,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:
  • Harding -v- Wealands, HL, Cited, (Times 06-Jul-06, Bailii, [2006] UKHL 32, [2006] 3 WLR 83, [2006] 2 CLC 193, [2006] RTR 35, [2006] 4 All ER 1)

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction, Scotland

Marzillier, Dr Meier & Dr Guntner Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft Mbh -v- AMT Futures Ltd; CA 26-Feb-2015

Claims were to be made against the execution only broker defendant by the claimants who were based in Germany.

Court: CA
Date: 26-Feb-2015
Judges: Laws, Tomlinson, Clarke LJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWCA Civ 143,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Beck -v- Value Capital Ltd (No 2); CA 1976

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1976
References: [1976] 2 All ER 102, [1976] 1 WLR 572
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament -v- The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Others; QBD 17-Dec-2002

The applicant sought an advisory order from the court to interpret the meaning of United Nations Security Council resolution no 1441 with regard to steps to be taken under the resolution in the event of the failure of Iraq to comply.
Held: A review was granted, but the court then declined to allow itself jurisdiction to interpret an international resolution of this sort, when necessarily the issues at stake were not ones of British law. A domestic court sought to assert itself as to the application of English law within the jurisdiction, but not outside it. An attempt to do so would be likely also to damage public interest in the field of international law. An order was made limiting the costs to £25,000. The court considered the principle ‘whereby the court has no jurisdiction to declare the true interpretation of an international instrument which has not been incorporated into English domestic law and which it is unnecessary to interpret for the purposes of determining a person’s rights and duties under domestic law’.

Court: QBD
Date: 17-Dec-2002
Judges: Lord Justice Simon Brown, Mr Justice Maurice Kay, Mr Justice Richards
Links: Bailii,
References: Times, 27-Dec-2002, [2002] EWHC 2759 (QB)
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Constitutional, Costs, International, Judicial Review, Jurisdiction

Holmes -v- Holmes; CA 1989

Purchas LJ said: ‘the phrase ‘substantial ground for the making of an application for such an order’ is clearly central to the issues in this application . . [i]n particular when the court comes to consider such an application, it will have to take into account under s. 16(1) whether in all the circumstances of the case it will be appropriate for such an order to be made by a court in England and Wales. If it is not satisfied that it would be appropriate (and that is a positive onus), the court shall, as a matter of mandatory instruction, dismiss the application.
In my judgment that section reflects the fundamental rule of comity as between competent courts dealing with matters of this kind. Of course s. 16 is to be considered on the application itself. Mr. Bond very properly drew the distinction between the criteria which the court should take into account if it decides to entertain the application and those which the court has to consider on the application for leave to make the application. Nevertheless, if on the application for leave to apply it is clear that if leave were given the application must founder at the first hurdle of s. 16(1), then it would clearly be wrong for the court to grant leave to apply in the first instance. So it is not possible to isolate the considerations which arise under this group of sections’ and
‘the purpose of this Act is generally apparent, namely, that it is there to remit hardships which have been experienced in the past in the presence of a failure in a foreign jurisdiction to afford appropriate financial relief. The obvious cases are those jurisdictions where there simply are not any provisions to grant financial relief to wives or children or, maybe husbands and children. In such cases, although the dissolution of the marriage has taken place in a foreign jurisdiction according to foreign laws, then the courts in this country are empowered by Parliament to step in and fill the gap. For my part I do not believe that the intention of Parliament in passing this Act was in any way to vest in the English courts any power of review or even correction of orders made in a foreign forum by a competent court in the whole matter had been examined in a way exactly equivalent to the which examination which would have taken place if the application had been made in the first instance in the courts here. That is not the object of this legislation at all’.

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1989
Judges: Purchas LJ
References: [1989] Fam 47,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Family, Jurisdiction

Watson -v- Daily Record Ltd; CA 1907

The court considered what was necessary to justify the court taking jursdiction against a non-resident defendant in a defamation action. Cozens-Hardy LJ said: ‘Now it seems plain that the Court has a discretion, and that a plaintiff cannot acquire a right to serve a defendant out of the jurisdiction by the mere fact that his writ claims an injunction. The Court must at least be satisfied that the claim for an injunction is made in good faith. This was decided by the Divisional Court in De Bernales v. New York Herald, where Lopes LJ. said: ‘I do not believe the claim for an injunction is made bona fide, but merely to bring the case within Order XI. There is no evidence of any apprehended repetition of the libel, and indeed, having regard to the circumstances, it is most improbable that it will be repeated . . The giving leave to serve notice of writs out of the jurisdiction is a matter of judicial discretion.’ It must not be inferred from the language used by Lopes LJ in that case that want of good faith is a complete or exhaustive statement of the grounds for refusing to order service out of the jurisdiction. If the Court is satisfied that, even assuming the plaintiff to have a good cause of action, there is no reasonable probability that he will obtain an injunction, the Court ought not to consider the insertion of a claim for an injunction as sufficient to justify service on a person resident out of the jurisdiction. The Court is bound to consider all the circumstances disclosed by the affidavits, and to take care that a Scotchman, or it may be a foreigner, is not improperly made amenable to the orders of an English tribunal.’

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1907
Judges: Cozens-Hardy LJ
References: [1907] 1 KB 853,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Defamation, Jurisdiction

Holland -v- Lampen-Wolfe; HL 20-Jul-2000

The US established a base at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire, and provided educational services through its staff to staff families. The claimant a teacher employed at the base alleged that a report on her was defamatory. The defendant relied on state immunity.
Held: A claim in libel was defeated by a claim of sovereign immunity. Such provision was part of its Acts as a state, and attracted sovereign immunity. A report which was defamatory of the plaintiff as to her teaching skills and which report was prepared as part of the provision of such services was something done by the armed forces of the US: “the performance of her teaching obligations under the contract between the University and the American Government involved the public function of the state in the provision of instruction to the American forces and their families. The supervisory functions required of the respondent were correspondingly involved in that same enterprise. “
Lord Millett : “state immunity is not a “self-imposed restriction on the jurisdiction of its courts which the United Kingdom has chosen to adopt” and which it can, as a matter of discretion, relax or abandon. It is imposed by international law without any discrimination between one state and another. It would be invidious in the extreme for the judicial branch of government to have the power to decide that it will allow the investigation of allegations of torture against the officials of one foreign state but not against those of another. “

Court: HL
Date: 20-Jul-2000
Judges: Lord Millett, Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Clyde, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Statutes: State Immunity Act 1978, European Convention on Human Rights 6
Links: Gazette, House of Lords, Times, Gazette, Bailii,
References: [2000] 1 WLR 1573, [2000] UKHL 40, [2000] 3 All ER 833
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Defamation, Human Rights, Jurisdiction

PCL and Others -v- The Y Regional Government of X; ComC 23-Jan-2015

The Defendant, YRG applied to set aside without notice orders permitting the Claimants to serve an arbitration claim form and other documents on YRG at the address of their solicitors in the jurisdiction and setting down an expedited timetable for the determination of the arbitration claim, and abridging the time for filing an acknowledgment of service to 3 business days. YRG contended that the court had no power to make the Orders by reason of the mandatory provisions of s.12 of the 1978 Act. Further or alternatively, that the Orders should be set aside for failure to make full and fair disclosure. The application succeeded, and the orders were set aside.

Court: ComC
Date: 23-Jan-2015
Judges: Hamblen J
Statutes: State Immunity Act 1978 12
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWHC 68 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Arbitration, International, Jurisdiction

Moloobhoy and Another -v- Kanani; CA 23-Apr-2013

The court considered a case about the interplay between CPR 11 and CPR 24.

Court: CA
Date: 23-Apr-2013
Judges: Longmore, Lloyd, Kitchin LJJ
Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 11 24
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] EWCA Civ 600,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

House of Spring Gardens -v- Waite; CA 1991

The principle of abuse of process is capable of applying where the relevant earlier proceedings have taken place before a foreign court (Ireland). In this case the defendants argued that the judgment obtained in Ireland had been obtained fraudulently. The defendant was estopped from mounting what was in effect a collateral challenge to the decision of Egan J. It was an abuse of process.
Stuart Smith LJ said: ‘The question is whether it would be in the interests of justice and public policy to allow the issue of fraud to be litigated again in this court, it having been tried and determined by Egan J. in Ireland. In my judgment it would not; indeed, I think it would be a travesty of justice. Not only would the plaintiffs be required to re-litigate matters which have twice been extensively investigated and decided in their favour in the natural forum, but it would run the risk of inconsistent verdicts being reached, not only as between the English and Irish courts, but as between the defendants themselves. The Waites have not appealed Sir Peter Pain’s judgment, and they were quite right not to do so. The plaintiffs will no doubt proceed to execute their judgment against them. What could be a greater source of injustice, if in years to come, when the issue is finally decided, a different decision is in Mr. McLeod’s case reached? Public policy requires that there should be an end of litigation and that a litigant should not be vexed more than once in the same cause.’

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1991
Judges: Stuart Smith LJ
References: [1991] 1 QB 241,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Loucks -v- Standard Oil Co of New York; 1918

An English court will exclude a foreign decree only when it ‘would violate some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of the common weal’

Date: 01-Jan-1918
Judges: Judge Cardozo
References: [1918] 120 NE 198,,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Impala Warehousing and Logistics (Shanghai) CoLtd -v- Wanxiang Resources (Singapore) Pte Ltd; ComC 15-Jan-2015

Application for final order in anti suit action.

Court: ComC
Date: 15-Jan-2015
Judges: Teare J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWHC 25 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Contract, Jurisdiction

Robinson -v- G4S International Employment Services Ltd and Another; NIHCM 29-Aug-2013

Court: NIHCM
Date: 29-Aug-2013
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] NIMaster 16,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction, Northern Ireland

Sarrio SA -v- Kuwait Investment Authority; CA 12-Aug-1996

Court: CA
Date: 12-Aug-1996
Links: Bailii,
References: [1996] EWCA Civ 575, [1997] 1 Lloyd's Rep 113, [1997] CLC 280, [1997] IL Pr 481, Independent, 03-Oct-1996
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Sarrio SA -v- Kuwait Investment Authority; CA 14-Nov-1996

Court: CA
Date: 14-Nov-1996
Links: Bailii,
References: [1996] EWCA Civ 965,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Nilon Ltd and Another -v- Royal Westminster Investments Sa and Others; PC 21-Jan-2015

(British Virgin Islands) The primary questions which were the subject of argument were (1) whether a claimant (A) can bring proceedings for rectification of the share register of a company (D1) when the reason for rectification is an untried allegation that a defendant (D2) has agreed to allot shares in D1 to A; and (2) if so, whether D2 is a necessary and proper party to A’s claim against D1 and whether the BVI is an appropriate forum for A’s claim against D.

Court: PC
Date: 21-Jan-2015
Judges: Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Toulson, Lord Collins
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKPC 2,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth, Company, Equity, Jurisdiction

Peer International Corporation Southern Music Publishing Company Inc Peermusic (Uk) Limited -v- Termidor Music Publishers Limited Termidor Musikverlag Gmbh & Co Kg -And-Editoria Musical De Cuba; CA 30-Jul-2003

Peer sought declarations that they were the owners, or licensees, of the UK copyright in musical works composed by Cuban nationals, relying on assignments in writing by the composers and in some instances by their heirs. The defendants claimed under other titles. In Cuba laws had been passed to to recover copyrights assigned abroad.
Held: English law recognises no exceptions to the rule that a foreign law is not recognised to apply to goods situated here. The property right created by the equitable assignment survived the abrogation of the contracts.

Court: CA
Date: 30-Jul-2003
Judges: Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Latham
Links: Bailii,
References: [2003] EWCA Civ 1156, Times, 11-Sep-2003, Gazette, 02-Oct-2003, [2004] 2 WLR 849, [2004] Ch 212
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property, Jurisdiction

The El Condado; SCS 1939

Lord Aitchison said: ‘The penal laws of foreign countries are strictly local, and affect nothing more than they can reach and can be seized by virtue of their authority; a fugitive who passes hither, comes with all his transitory rights; he may recover money held for his use, stock, obligations and the like; and cannot be affected in this country, by proceedings against him in that which he has left, beyond the limits of which such proceedings do not extend.
Does that rule apply equally to legislation which is not confiscatory or penal in the full sense, but the effect of which is to subject the owner of moveable property in his use and control of that property, to the overriding control of the State where, as in this case, the property is requisitioned by the State for public purposes? There is no direct authority upon the point. The nearest case is perhaps the Jupiter (No. 3), [1927] P. 122. It was there held that the nationalisation decrees of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics did not operate on moveable property outside the territory of the Republic, whether such property belonged to a Russian citizen or not. It was a fact in that case that the Jupiter was not at the date when the decrees were promulgated within Russian territory. In this case it is expressly conceded that at the date of the requisition the El Condado was not within Spanish territorial waters and she was in the port of Greenock when the de facto possession was taken. In the Jupiter, Hill, J., pointed out that no distinction could be drawn between ships and other chattels and that the same principles were applicable to both, and he reached the conclusion that the decree of nationalisation was ineffectual to transfer the property in the ship, which was not within the jurisdiction at the date of the decree. His judgment both as regards fact and law was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
The case is not on all fours, but in my opinion the principle of Hill J.’s, judgment applies to the present case. The test to be applied is this: Supposing the Spanish Consul, instead of taking possession of the El Condado brevi manu, had sued the owners in the Courts for the delivery of the ship, could the action have succeeded? I am satisfied it could not. It could no more have succeeded than an action for recovery of moneys belonging to the Spanish owners in a bank in this country and requisitioned for the temporary use of the Spanish Government to finance the war. The conclusive answer would be that it was moveable property that was outwith the territory and jurisdiction of the foreign Sovereign State, and having been so at the date of the decree, it was not capable of being affected by the requisition. That is the ground of the Lord Ordinary’s judgment, and in my opinion he was right in dismissing the action, because if no wrong was committed by the owners of the ship in respect that the Spanish Government had no lawful possession of her, notwithstanding that they could not be impleaded, no liability can attach to the defenders under their bond of caution.’

Lord Mackay: ‘The question of extra-territoriality arises doubly. It is for us a question to be decided on Scots law (in the absence of any averment of a differing Spanish law) whether we are to hold that a decree of a de jure Government (issued in Barcelona or Madrid) can have extra-territorial effect upon (a) a ship situated in our harbours and (b) registered and belonging to a company domiciled under General Franco’s de facto Government’s jurisdiction.
I am of opinion that such extraterritorial validity is not recognised by Scots law. The sealed document exhibited in the former case and lying before us bears in its terms to have ‘requisitioned’ all ships of certain registration. That means, in my opinion, by Scots law, that a requisition of full property was intended in the full sense of the word ‘requisition’ as so well known to our Courts during the years 1914 to 1918.
I am prepared to hold, therefore, that the pretended title of the pursuers was, in fact and in law bad; and that the original owner’s right of ownership was never lost or adversely affected. Hence, no judicial wrong was ever done to the pursuers. I agree on these fuller grounds with the results of the Lord Ordinary, and I agree we should adhere to his judgment.’
Lord Pitman:
‘Requisition is not a legal method in this country of transferring property or rights of user of property, except at the instance of the Crown. It is the prerogative of the Crown in times of imminent national danger to take any steps necessary to secure the defence of the realm, and in 1914 by virtue of that power regulations were made by His Majesty in Council providing (inter alia) for the requisitioning of ships by the competent naval authority. It would be strange, indeed, if a foreign State were allowed to exercise similar powers and by its officials take forcible possession of property requisitioned.’

Lord Wark:‘This means further that they must show that the decree of law enacted on June 28, 1937, was valid and effectual according to the law of the forum to which they applied, namely, Scotland, to entitle them to the possession and control of a ship lying in a Scottish port, and which admittedly at the date of the decree and continuously thereafter had been outwith Spanish territory and territorial waters. I say ‘according to the law of the forum,’ because they make no averments of Spanish law on that matter.
I agree with the Lord Ordinary and with your Lordships that the decree is of no effect outwith Spanish territory and territorial waters, and gave the pursuers no right to requisition the El Condado or to take forcible possession of her as they did. On such a matter as this there is no difference between the law of England and the law of Scotland, and the decisions of the English Courts to which the Lord Ordinary refers, especially the case of the Jupiter (No. 3), [1927] P. 122 and 250, appear to me to be sufficient authority to support his decision. I refer to the judgment of Hill, J., at pp. 138 and 144, and of Atkin, L.J., and Lawrence, L.J., in the Court of Appeal at p. 255. It is true that that case dealt with the question of transfer of property, but the ratio upon which it proceeds is that the decree of a foreign Government has no effect whatever upon moveable property, including ships, outwith the territory. This doctrine rests upon the principle that jurisdiction is limited by effectiveness. It is recognised in several recent cases, notably in Sedgwick, Collins & Co. v. Rossia Insurance Company of Petrograd [1926] 1 K.B. 1, by Sargant, L.J., at p. 15, and by the Lord Chancellor in that case in the House of Lords, [1927] A.C. 95, at p. 102, and in Russian Commercial and Industrial Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Comptoir d’Escompte de Mulhouse, &c. [1925] A.C. 112, by Lord Chancellor Cave at p. 125, and Viscount Finlay at p. 137. ‘A State’s authority,’ says Professor Dicey in his Introduction to his treatise on the Conflict of Laws, 5th ed., at p. 20, in the eyes of other States and the Courts that represent them is speaking very generally, coincident with, and limited by, its power. It is territorial. It may legislate for, and give judgments affecting, things and persons within its territory. It has no authority to legislate for, or adjudicate upon, things or persons (unless they are its subjects) not within its territory.’

Court: SCS
Date: 01-Jan-1939
Judges: Lord Aitchison, Lord Mackay
References: [1939] 63 L1L Rep 330,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction, Scotland

FKI Engineering Ltd and Another -v- Stribog Ltd; ComC 21-May-2010

The defendant sought a stay under the Regulation, saying that the matter was already being litigated in Germany.

Court: ComC
Date: 21-May-2010
Judges: Burton J
Statutes: Council Regulation (EC) No 44/200
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] EWHC 1160 (Comm),
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Jurisdiction

Stribog Ltd -v- FKI Engineering Ltd; CA 25-May-2011

The defendants sought a stay of the proceedings on the ground that there were related actions already in existence in Germany.
Held: Rix LJ said:
As to article 27, Rix LJ said: ‘where the ‘same cause of action’ or the ‘same parties’ are introduced only by way of service, or amendment, the relevant proceedings are only ‘brought’ at the time of such service or amendment, not at the time of institution of the original, unamended, proceedings . . It is possible that the introduction of entirely new causes of action or parties is to be recognised as the bringing of entirely new proceedings, so that the timing of seisin . . has to be looked at from that point of view, as occurs for the purposes of Article 27.’
. . And ‘Even so, it is not clear to me that in this connection article 27 and article 28 work in the same way: for article 27 is worded in terms of the bringing of actions with the same parties and the same cause of action . . whereas Article 28 is worded in terms of the pendency of related actions . . That emphasises that the article 28 question is asked with relation to pending actions, and not, as the article 27 question is asked, with relation to the bringing of actions. In any event, the judge is . . mistaken to think that any amendment is analogous to the bringing of new causes of action or the addition or substitution of new parties.’

Court: CA
Date: 25-May-2011
Judges: Mummery, Rix, Wilson LJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2011] EWCA Civ 622, [2011] 2 Lloyd's Rep 387
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Aoot Kalmneft -v- Glencore International Ag and Another; ComC 27-Jul-2001

The court considered its practice in supervising arbitrations where one or more of the parties were foreign.

Court: ComC
Date: 27-Jul-2001
Judges: Colman J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2001] EWHC 464 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Arbitration, Jurisdiction

FKI Engineering Ltd and Another -v- Dewind Holdings Ltd and Another; ComC 25-Jan-2007

Application for declaration that court has no jurisdiction.

Court: ComC
Date: 25-Jan-2007
Links: Bailii,
References: [2007] EWHC 72 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Company, Jurisdiction

Erich Gasser GmbH -v- MISAT Srl; ECJ 9-Dec-2003

The claimant Austrian company had for many years sold goods to the defendant an Italian company. Eventually it presented a claim before the court in Italy. Having obtained judgement, it later sought to enforce the order through the Austrian court relying upon a choice of forum term to that effect in the trading terms.
Held: The country first seised of the matter retained jurisdiction in preference to a country of choice under the contract. A national court could refer to the European court a request for interpretation of the Brussels Convention where it thought this necessary, and even though it had not yet made an assessment of the merits of the case. Such Conventions are based on the mutual trust and confidence which each contracting state accords to the legal systems and judicial institutions of the other contracting states. A court of a Member State on which exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred pursuant to article 23 cannot issue an injunction to restrain a party from prosecuting proceedings before a court of another Member State if that court was first seised of the dispute.

Court: ECJ
Date: 09-Dec-2003
Judges: V Skouris, P
Statutes: Brussels Convention 17
Links: Bailii,
References: C-116/02, Times, 12-Dec-2003, [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep 222, [2003] EUECJ C-116/02, [2005] 1 QB 1, [2003] ECR I-14693, [2003] ECR 14, [2004] 3 WLR 1070, [2004] ILPr 7, [2005] All ER (EC) 517, [2005] 1 All ER (Comm) 538
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Contract, European, Jurisdiction

Turner -v- Grovit and others; CA 28-May-1999

A court has an inherent power to injunct a party not to institute or continue proceedings abroad, where they appear intended purely to harass another party in proceedings here. The two actions here were based upon the ‘same contractual relationship’ and concerned the ‘same subject matter’. This is not limited to cases of exclusive jurisdiction or under article 21 of the Convention.

Court: CA
Date: 28-May-1999
Statutes: Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1968) (Cmnd 7395) Art 21
Links: Times,
References: [1999] EWCA Civ 1532, [2000] 1 QB 345
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Teco Europe Limited -v- Trans India Lamps Limited; CA 2-Oct-1996

Challenge to leave given to allow service of proceedings abroad.

Court: CA
Date: 02-Oct-1996
Links: Bailii,
References: [1996] EWCA Civ 633,
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Turner -v- Grovit and Others; ChD 15-Apr-1999

It is recognised to be improper for a court in one jurisdiction to declare that a foreign court does not have jurisdiction, when acting under its own rules and procedures, and in the absence of a contract clause specifying the jurisdiction.

Court: ChD
Date: 15-Apr-1999
Links: Times,
References:
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Sarrio SA -v- Kuwait Investment Authority; ComC 12-Oct-1995

cw Conflict of laws – Brussels Convention – articles 21-22 – right to invoke – independent of domicile – forum conveniens – defendant domiciled in non-Contracting State – exclusion of common law rules – same cause of action – meaning – jurisdiction – related actions – meaning

Court: ComC
Date: 12-Oct-1995
Judges: Mance J
Statutes: Brussels Convention 21 22 23
References: [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep 650, [1996] CLC 211
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Underwriting Members of Lloyds Syndicate 980 and others -v- Sinco Sa; ComC 29-Jul-2008

The defendants had requested a stay fo proceedings under the Regulation

Court: ComC
Date: 29-Jul-2008
Judges: Beatson J
Statutes: Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] EWHC 1842 (Comm), [2009] Lloyd's Rep IR 365

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Insurance, Jurisdiction

Lorentzen -v- Lydden; 1942

The Norwegian Government decreed that all ships registered in Norway were requisitioned. The defendants, a London firm had agreed to charter a Norwegian vessel for the carriage of pulp from Oslo to Grangemouth or Leith. The curator sued for damages, alleging that the defendants had repudiated the contract. The defendants contended that the situs of the debt was England and that by English law the Norwegian decree did not pass ownership of that debt.
Held: ‘It seems to me that the English courts are entitled to take into consideration the following matters: that this is not a confiscatory decree, see art. 5 of the decree, that England and Norway are engaged together in a desperate war for their existence, and that public policy demands that effect should be given to this decree. To suggest that the English courts have no power to give effect to a decree making over to the Norwegian Government ships under construction in this country seems to me to be almost shocking. At any rate; following that judgment and the judgments referred to therein I am entitled to give effect to this decree. It is not confiscatory, it is in the interests of public policy, and it is in accordance with the comity of nations. Therefore I determine this issue in favour of the plaintiff.’

Date: 01-Jan-1942
Judges: Atkinson J
References: [1942] KB 202,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Amtrust Europe Ltd -v- Trust Risk Group Spa; ComC 10-Dec-2014

The parties disputed sums said to be due under arrangements selling medical malpractice insurance in Italy.
Held: ATEL had a “good arguable case” that the ToBA continued as an agreement and was not superseded by the “Framework Agreement”, and that the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction in relation to disputes arising out of that agreement.

Court: ComC
Date: 10-Dec-2014
Judges: Blair J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 4169 (Comm),
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Contract, Insurance, Jurisdiction

Jong -v- HSBC Private Bank (Monaco) and Another; ChD 28-Nov-2014

The defenda nt sought to have set aside permission given for the service of the claim against it out of the jurisdiction.

Court: ChD
Date: 28-Nov-2014
Judges: Purles QC HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 4165 (Ch),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

ISG Construction Ltd -v- Seevic College; TCC 3-Dec-2014

Application for summary judgment by the Claimant to enforce an adjudicator’s decision, the defendant arguing lack of jurisdiction.

Court: TCC
Date: 03-Dec-2014
Judges: Edwards-Stuart J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 4007 (TCC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Arbitration, Jurisdiction

Nissan -v- The Attorney General; HL 11-Feb-1969

The plaintiff was a British subject with a hotel in Cyprus taken over by British troops on a peace-keeping mission. At first the men were there by agreement of the governments of Cyprus and the United Kingdom. Later they became part of a United Nations peace-keeping force. The plaintiff claimed compensation for the occupation of his hotel and damage allegedly done to his property by the British troops billeted there. Preliminary issues were tried which included the question whether the alleged actions of the British troops were acts of state so that no claim lay against the UK government.
Held: The defence of act of state was not available. While the making of the treaty (agreement) between the Cyprus government and the British, Greek and Turkish governments was an act of state and some acts done in performance of the treaty might be acts of state, the occupation of the hotel and the damage allegedly done to it were not sufficiently closely connected to the making of the treaty to fall within the scope of the doctrine.
The House considered the meaning of the phrase ‘act of state’. The way in which the government exercises its prerogatives in relation to foreign affairs and in its relations with foreign states does not give rise to rights which are cognisable by the domestic courts: ‘As regard such acts it is certainly the law that the injured person if an alien cannot sue in an British Court and can only have resort to diplomatic protest. How far this rule goes and how far it prevents resort to the courts by British subjects is not a matter on which clear authority exists.’
Lord Wilberforce cited the following definition of Crown acts of state: ‘An act of the executive as a matter of policy performed in the course of its relations with another state, including its relations with the subjects of that state, unless they are temporarily within the allegiance of the Crown.’ However: ‘This is less a definition than a construction put together from what has been decided in various cases; it covers as much ground as they do, no less, no more. It carries with it the warning that the doctrine cannot be stated in terms of a principle but developed from case to case.’

Court: HL
Date: 11-Feb-1969
Judges: Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Pearce, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Pearson
Links: Bailii,
References: [1970] AC 179, [1969] UKHL 3
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Constitutional, Jurisdiction, Torts - Other

Brinkibon Ltd -v- Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH; HL 1982

Brinkibon, based in London wanted to buy steel from the defendants who were in Austria. They accepted Stahag’s offer by Telex to Vienna. Brinkibon wanted to sue Stahag and in order to have leave to serve out of the jurisdiction, had to establish that the contract had been formed in England.
Held: The contract had been formed in Austria. In the case of instantaneous communication, which included telex, the contract is normally formed in the jurisdiction where the acceptance is received.
Lord Wilberforce said: ‘Since 1955 the use of Telex communication has been greatly expanded, and there are many variants on it. The senders and recipients may not be the principals to the contemplated contract. They may be servants or agents with limited authority. The message may not reach, or be intended to reach, the designated recipient immediately: messages may be sent out of office hours, or at night, with the intention, or on the assumption that they will be read at a later time. There may be some error or default at the recipient’s end which prevents receipt at the time contemplated and believed in by the sender. The message may have been sent and/or received through machines operated by third persons. And many other variants may occur. No universal rule can cover all such cases; they must be resolved by reference to the intentions of the parties, by sound business practice and in some cases by a judgement where the risks should lie.’

Court: HL
Date: 01-Jan-1982
Judges: Lord Wilberforce
References: [1983] 2 AC 34,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Contract, Jurisdiction

In re Seagull Manufacturing Co Ltd; ChD 1992

The court considered the power of an English court over a foreign resident under section 133.
Held: In contrast with the private examination provisions, on its true construction section 133 applies to those who are within the class of persons specified in subsection (1), namely those who have voluntarily participated in the affairs of the company, whether or not they are British subjects and whether or not they are within the jurisdiction at the relevant time, even though they cannot be served with the necessary summons within the jurisdiction of the English court.

Court: ChD
Date: 01-Jan-1992
Judges: Mummery J
Statutes: Insolvency Act 1986 133(1)
References: [1992] Ch 128,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Insolvency, Jurisdiction

The Fehmarn; 1957

Willmer J said: ‘Clearly it requires a strong case to satisfy the court that the agreement [an express agreement to submit to a foreign tribunal] should be overridden.’

Date: 01-Jan-1957
Judges: Wilmer J, Denning LJ
References: [1957] 1 WLR 815, [1957] 2 Lloyd's Rep 551, [1957] 2 All ER 707
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings -v- Unitech Ltd and Others; ComC 11-Nov-2014

The court was asked whether an English court has jurisdiction to make a freezing order in aid of enforcement of a London arbitration award against subsidiaries of the award debtor against whom no substantive claim is asserted and who have no presence or assets within the jurisdiction.

Court: ComC
Date: 11-Nov-2014
Judges: Males J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 3704 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

The Fehmarn; 1958

The effect of an agreement prorogating a foreign jurisdiction is to confer on the English court a discretion to stay the English proceedings.

Date: 01-Jan-1958
Judges: Lord Bingham
References: [1958] 1 WLR 159,
Cases Cited:
  • The Fehmarn, , Appeal from (Approved), ([1957] 1 WLR 815, [1957] 2 Lloyd's Rep 551, [1957] 2 All ER 707)

Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Mahme Trust -v- Lloyds TSB Bank plc; ChD 29-Jul-2004

The claimant began an action in England. The defendant sought a stay, saying the appropriate forum was Switzerland.
Held: The defendant was a truly multi-national orgaisation and had branches in many countries. The choice of forum belongs to the claimant not the court, and it was not for the court to fetter that choice. The convention made specific provision for certain types of contracts. No special provision was made for banks, and therefore they had no such special position.

Court: ChD
Date: 29-Jul-2004
Judges: Sir Andrew Morritt VC
Statutes: Lugano Convention
References: Times, 25-Aug-2004,
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Alliance Bank JSC -v- Aquanta Corporation and Others; ComC 14-Dec-2011

The defendants applied to have set aside the leave to serve proceedings on them out of the jurisdiction.

Court: ComC
Date: 14-Dec-2011
Judges: Burton J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2011] EWHC 3281 (Comm),
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Masri -v- Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others; ComC 13-Jul-2011

Several of the defendants argued that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the claims brought against them.

Court: ComC
Date: 13-Jul-2011
Judges: Burton J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2011] EWHC 1780 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

SCF Finance Co Ltd -v- Masri (No 3); 1987

The court accepted that in a case where the garnishee was not indebted within the jurisdiction that might be relevant to the exercise of the court’s discretion. Since, in this case, the debt in question was an English debt, the court’s jurisdiction in relation to foreign debts did not fall for decision. The legislation has from the beginning stipulated that the third party or garnishee should be within the jurisdiction but not that the debt to be attached should be within the jurisdiction.

Date: 01-Jan-1987
Judges: Slade and Ralph Gibson LJJ and Sir John Megaw
References: [1987] QB 1028,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

The Carron Iron Company Proprietors -v- Maclaren, Dawson, Stainton; PC 23-Jul-1855

If the circumstances of a case are such as would make it the duty of one court in this country to restrain a party from instituting proceedings in another court here, they will also warrant it in imposing on him a similar restraint with regard to proceedings in a foreign court.
The fact of a foreigner having property in this country, enables the Court here to make effectual an injunction issued to him; but, especially in the case of a foreigner who seeks no assistance from the courts here, the issuing of such injunction ought clearly to be shown to be required as conducive to justice.

Court: PC
Date: 23-Jul-1855
Judges: Lord Cranworth LC
Links: Commonlii, Bailii,
References: [1855] EngR 700, (1855) 5 HLC 416, (1855) 10 ER 961, (1855) HL Cas 416, [1855] UKPC 1
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth, Company, Jurisdiction

Assuranceforeningen Gard Gjensidig -v- The International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund; ComC 17-Oct-2014

Challenge to jurisdiction.

Court: ComC
Date: 17-Oct-2014
Judges: Hamblen J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 3369 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Standard Bank Plc and Another -v- Just Group Llc and Others; ComC 10-Oct-2014

The eighth defendant sought to have service of the proceedings set aside for want of jurisdiction.

Court: ComC
Date: 10-Oct-2014
Judges: Walker J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 2687 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Banking, Jurisdiction

Surrey (UK) Ltd -v- Mazandaran Wood & Paper Industries; ComC 6-Oct-2014

Application to set aside leave to serve the defendant out of the jurisdiction

Court: ComC
Date: 06-Oct-2014
Judges: Eder J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 3165 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

S and W Berisford plc -v- New Hampshire Insurance Co; 1990

Power to order stay for forum non conveniens when conflicting with mandatory jurisdiction. Hobhouse J said: ‘Further the Convention does not preclude the courts of a contracting state from applying principles such as those stated in the Aratra Potato Co, case (The El Amria) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 119 where its jurisdiction is being sought to be excluded in favour of a non-contracting state. Professor Schlosser says, at para 176: ‘If a court within the Community is applied to despite such an agreement, its decision on the validity of the agreement depriving it of jurisdiction must be taken in accordance with its own lex fori.”

Date: 01-Jan-1990
Judges: Hobhouse J
References: (1990) 2 QB 631, [1993] 1 Lloyd
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

British American Tobacco Switzerland Sa and Others -v- Exel Europe Ltd and Others; ComC 23-Mar-2012

Defendants (companies registered in Holland) denied that the UK court had uridiction to try the claim against them.

Court: ComC
Date: 23-Mar-2012
Judges: Cooke J
Statutes: Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965
Links: Bailii, WLRD,
References: [2012] EWHC 694 (Comm), [2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep 1, [2013] 1 WLR 397, [2012] WLR(D) 98, [2012] 1 CLC 549

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Global 5000 Ltd -v- Wadhawan; ComC 5-Apr-2011

Application to set aside service of the proceedings out of the jurusdiction.

Court: ComC
Date: 05-Apr-2011
Judges: Beatson J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2011] EWHC 853 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

V -v- V; FD 20-May-2011

The court was asked as to its jurisdiction to hear a divorce petition under the Regulation Brussels II Revised.

Court: FD
Date: 20-May-2011
Judges: Peter Jackson J
Statutes: Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003
Links: Bailii,
References: [2011] EWHC 1190 (Fam), [2011] 2 FLR 778
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Family, Jurisdiction

Rapisarda -v- Colladon (Irregular Divorces); FC 30-Sep-2014

The court considered applications to set aside some 180 petitions for divorce on the grounds that they appeared to be attempts to pervert the course of justice by wrongfully asserting residence in order to benefit from the UK jurisdiction.
Held: It had been asserted that the English court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition in accordance with the Council Regulation on the basis that the petitioner was habitually resident and had been resident in England and Wales. In all but one case there was in fact no reason to think there had been any UK residence. The English court was deceived; the English court was induced by fraud to accept that it had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. It was apparent that an Italian had been offering a service providing UK divorces to Italian nationals.
Petitions not having reached the stage of decree had now been dismissed. The decrees must be set aside as being void for fraud. In each case the underlying petition must be dismissed. This is not a matter of judicial discretion; it is the consequence which follows inexorably as a matter of law from the facts as I have found them. It made no difference if one or other or both of the parties have re-married or even had a child.
Sir James summarised the law: “i) perjury without more does not suffice to make a decree absolute void on the ground of fraud;
ii) perjury which goes only to jurisdiction to grant a decree and not to jurisdiction to entertain the petition, likewise does not without more suffice to make a decree absolute void on the ground of fraud;
iii) a decree, whether nisi or absolute, will be void on the ground of fraud if the court has been materially deceived, by perjury, forgery or otherwise, into accepting that it has jurisdiction to entertain the petition;
iv) a decree, whether nisi or absolute, may, depending on the circumstances, be void on the ground of fraud if there has been serious procedural irregularity, for example, if the petitioner has concealed the proceedings from the respondent.”

Court: FC
Date: 30-Sep-2014
Judges: Sir James Munby P FD
Statutes: Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 5(2), Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Family Procedure Rules 2010 7.5(1), Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 8
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWFC 35,
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Family, Jurisdiction, News

Berezovsky and Another -v- Forbes Inc and Another; CA 27-Nov-1998

Where a defamatory article was published in many jurisdictions, there is no rule preventing a plaintiff recovering in those jurisdictions where a remedy is given. Not confined by restriction to most appropriate jurisdiction.

Court: CA
Date: 27-Nov-1998
Links: Times, Bailii,
References: [1998] EWCA Civ 1791,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Defamation, Jurisdiction

Shevill, Ixora Trading Inc., Chequepoint SARL and Chequepoint International Ltd -v- Presse Alliance SA; ECJ 7-Mar-1995

On a proper construction of the expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic, the victim of a libel by a newspaper article distributed in several Contracting States may bring an action for damages against the publisher either before the courts of the Contracting State of the place where the publisher of the defamatory publication is established, which have jurisdiction to award damages for all the harm caused by the defamation, or before the courts of each Contracting State in which the publication was distributed and where the victim claims to have suffered injury to his reputation, which have jurisdiction to rule solely in respect of the harm caused in the State of the court seised. The criteria for assessing whether the event in question is harmful and the evidence required of the existence and extent of the harm alleged by the plaintiff in an action in tort, delict or quasi-delict are not governed by the Convention but are determined in accordance with the substantive law designated by the national conflict of laws rules of the court seised on the basis of the Convention, provided that the effectiveness of the Convention is not thereby impaired. The fact that under the national law applicable to the main proceedings damage is presumed in libel actions, so that the plaintiff does not have to adduce evidence of the existence and extent of that damage, does not therefore preclude the application of Article 5(3) of the Convention.
The Court considered jurisdiction in relation to an action for defamation under article 5(3), observing: ‘In the area of non-contractual liability, the context in which the questions referred have arisen, the sole object of the Convention is to determine which court or courts have jurisdiction to hear the dispute by reference to the place or places where an event considered harmful occurred.
It does not, however, specify the circumstances in which the event giving rise to the harm may be considered to be harmful to the victim, or the evidence which the plaintiff must adduce before the court seised to enable it to rule on the merits of the case.
Those questions must therefore be settled solely by the national court seised, applying the substantive law determined by its national conflict of laws rules, provided that the effectiveness of the Convention is not thereby impaired.’

Court: ECJ
Date: 07-Mar-1995
Statutes: Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 5(3)
Links: Bailii,
References: C-68/93, [1995] ECR I-415, [1995] EUECJ C-68/93
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Jurisdiction

Okretowe -v- Rallo Vito & C. Snc & Another; ComC 14-Sep-2009

The defendants applied for a declaration that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.

Court: ComC
Date: 14-Sep-2009
Links: Bailii,
References: [2009] EWHC 2249 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Bata -v- Bata; CA 1948

The defendant wrote a circular letter in Zurich libelling the plaintiff, who was chairman of a company in England, but who personally lived in Ontario, Canada. That circular letter was addressed to the deputy manager and managing director of the company in England.
Held: A tort occurrs in the place where the last ingredient necessary to complete the tort happened. The publication of a defamation therefore occurs at the place where the statement is seen or received by another person: “It was the publication of the contents of a defamatory document to a third party which constituted the tort of libel and which alone justified the libelled party in issuing his Writ.” The English court therefore had jurisdiction to hear the case as the libels were published to persons living in England.

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1948
Judges: Scott, LJ
References: [1948] WN 366, (1948) 92 Sol Jo 574
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Defamation, Jurisdiction

Shevill and Others -v- Presse Alliance SA; HL 26-Jul-1996

A libel case against a French paper was rightly brought in UK despite the small (250 copies nationally and 5 in the plaintiff’s local area (Yorkshire)) circulation here. The Brussels Convention allows a claim for defamation in UK though the main public was abroad. Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle said: ‘Where English law presumes the publication of a defamatory statement is harmful to the person defamed without proof of special damage thereof that is sufficient for the application of article 5(3). An award of even nominal damages is recognition of some harm having been suffered by the plaintiff.’
However, where a court has jurisdiction over a foreign publisher it should award damages only for the harm suffered within its own jurisdiction.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: One of the plaintiffs was a trading corporation and the presumption of damage in libel cases was treated as part of our national substantive law. Under the current law of England and Wales a trading company with a trading reputation in this country may recover general damages without pleading or proving special damage if the publication complained of has a tendency to damage it in the way of its business.

Court: HL
Date: 26-Jul-1996
Judges: Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Statutes: Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
Links: Gazette, Times,
References: [1996] AC 959,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Defamation, Jurisdiction

Greene Wood & Mclean -v- Templeton Insurance Ltd; ComC 10-Jul-2008

Application to set aside order permitting service outside jurisdiction in Isle of Man.

Court: ComC
Date: 10-Jul-2008
Judges: Teare J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] EWHC 1593 (Comm),
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Williams -v- Central Bank of Nigeria; QBD 8-Apr-2011

The claimant had been defrauded by a customer of the defendant bank. He brought a claim against the bank, saying that they knew or ought to have known of the fraudster’s activities, and were liable. The Bank denied that the UK courts had jurisdiction saying in particular that no claim arose because it would be out of time, and denying forum conveniens.

Court: QBD
Date: 08-Apr-2011
Judges: Supperstone J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2011] EWHC 876 (QB),
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Deripaska -v- Cherney; CA 31-Jul-2009

The court considered where the trial of the action should take place.
Held: The defendant’s appeal failed. Even though the rights sought to be protected were of a proprietory nature, where the rights could properly be said to have arisen under an English contract, the English court could use its discretion to assert jurisdiction. Though Russia might otherwise be the natural place for the trial of the action, the claimant had proper concerns for the risks he would face if he returned there for the case.
Waller LJ set out some of the elements required for jurisdiction under forum conveniens: ‘In my view the summary in the notes on page 22 of the White Book under CPR 6.37(4) Forum Conveniens summarises the position correctly:-
‘Subject to the differences set out below, the criteria that govern the application of the principle of forum conveniens where permission is sought to serve out of the jurisdiction are the same as those that govern the application of the principle of forum non conveniens where a stay is sought in respect of proceedings started within the jurisdiction. Those criteria are set out in The Spiliada . .:
(i) The burden is upon the claimant to persuade the court that England is clearly the appropriate forum for the trial of the action.
(ii) The appropriate forum is that forum where the case may most suitably be tried for the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice.
(iii) One must consider first what is the ‘natural forum'; namely that with which the action has the most real and substantial connection. Connecting factors will include not only factors concerning convenience and expense (such as the availability of witnesses), but also factors such as the law governing the relevant transaction and the places where the parties reside and respectively carry on business.
(iv) In considering where the case can be tried most ‘suitably for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice’ ordinary English procedural advantages such as a power to award interest, are normally irrelevant as are more generous English limitation periods where the claimant has failed to act prudently in respect of a shorter limitation period elsewhere.
(v) If the court concludes at that stage that there is another forum which is apparently as suitable or more suitable than England, it will normally refuse permission unless there are circumstances by reason of which justice requires that permission should nevertheless be granted. In this inquiry the court will consider all the circumstances of the case, including circumstances which go beyond those taken into account when considering connecting factors with other jurisdictions. One such factor can be the fact, if established objectively by cogent evidence that the claimant will not obtain justice in the foreign jurisdiction. Other factors include the absence of legal aid or the ability to obtain contribution in the foreign jurisdiction.
(vi) Where a party seeks to establish the existence of a matter that will assist him in persuading the court to exercise its discretion in his favour, the evidential burden in respect of that matter will rest upon the party asserting it.’

Court: CA
Date: 31-Jul-2009
Judges: Waller, Moore-Bick LJJ, Sir John Chadwick
Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 6.37(4)
Links: Bailii, Times,
References: [2009] EWCA Civ 849, [2009] CP Rep 48
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Cherney -v- Deripaska; ComC 3-Jul-2008

Renewed application for leave to serve proceedings out of jurisdiction. The court considered a submission that a fair trial would not be possible in Russia: “An English court will approach with considerable circumspection any contention that a potential claimant cannot obtain justice or a fair hearing in a foreign court and will require “positive and cogent” evidence to persuade it to the contrary: The Abidin Daver [1984] AC 398, 411c. Assertions to that effect are relatively easily made by generalised statements and may be difficult comprehensively to refute. I further accept that research of Russian law may suffer from what Professor Stephan describes as an “echo chamber effect” where one commentator states an impression which is swapped with the impression of another commentator, each citing the other as authority supporting their own thesis without any systematic study of data. It is, however, right to have some regard to any consensus of academic opinion, based on research and personal familiarity, particularly when backed by specific instances . . or determinations of the ECHR or other courts.
In the absence of cogent evidence to the contrary the Court will start with the working assumption, for which comity calls, that courts in other judicial systems will seek to do justice in accordance with applicable laws, and will be free from improper interference or restriction. As this case indicates, where there is evidence to the contrary it may be hotly in dispute and difficult to evaluate. Such evidence is likely, insofar as it derives from reports and articles, to consist of “broad and conclusory allegations, founded on multiple levels of hearsay” and, if so, to be unacceptable as an indictment of a legal system or part of it . . .But the Court is not blind to the fact that unfairness or partiality may arise from that which occurs behind the scenes rather than centre stage.”

Court: ComC
Date: 03-Jul-2008
Judges: Christopher Clarke J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] EWHC 1530 (Comm), [2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 333
Cases Cited:
  • The Abidin Daver, HL, Cited, ([1984] AC 398, [1984] 1 All ER 470, [1984] 1 Lloyds Rep 339, [1984] 2 WLR 196)

Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Harms Offshore AHT Taurus Gmbh & Co KG -v- Bloom and Others; CA 26-Jun-2009

The court had granted to the liquidators of a company a mandatory injunction requiring the appellant German companies to attempt to obtain the release of assets from attachment by the court in new York.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The statutory prohibition against creditors bringing proceedings against a company being wound up by the court is not extra-territorial. The protection of the assets of a company in administration is not to be regarded by the Court as differing in substance from the protection of the assets of a company in compulsory liquidation. In both cases, the assets of the company are dealt with by an officer appointed by the Court in accordance with statutory duties.
The conduct of the Appellants and the circumstances of the attachments brought it into the exceptional category in which the grant of injunctive relief is justified, notwithstanding comity and notwithstanding the outstanding application of the Administrators in New York.

Court: CA
Date: 26-Jun-2009
Judges: Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton and Sir John Chadwick
Statutes: Insolvency Act 1986
Links: Bailii, Times,
References: [2009] EWCA Civ 632, [2009] Bus LR 1663, [2010] 1 Ch 187, [2010] 2 WLR 349
Cases Cited:

Comments Off on Harms Offshore AHT Taurus Gmbh & Co KG -v- Bloom and Others; CA 26-Jun-2009

Filed under Insolvency, Jurisdiction

Fern Computer Consultancy Ltd -v- Intergraph Cadworx & Analysis Solutions Inc; ChD 29-Aug-2014

The defendant sought to have set aside an order allowing service on it out of the jurisdiction.

Court: ChD
Date: 29-Aug-2014
Judges: Mann J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 2908 (Ch),

Comments Off on Fern Computer Consultancy Ltd -v- Intergraph Cadworx & Analysis Solutions Inc; ChD 29-Aug-2014

Filed under Jurisdiction

Mbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another -v- Logo Ltd and others; CA 23-Oct-2006

The claimant alleged a conspiracy by the defendants for his overthrow by means of a private coup d’etat. The defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction. The claimants appealed dismissal of their claim to damages.
Held: The claims were not justiciable here. Public laws, like penal laws, may not be enforced directly or indirectly in the English Courts. The court approved the statement: ‘a foreign State cannot enforce in England such rights as are founded upon its peculiar powers of prerogative. ‘ The critical question is whether in bringing a claim, a claimant is doing an act which is of a sovereign character or which is done by virtue of sovereign authority; and whether the claim involves the exercise or assertion of a sovereign right. If so, then the court will not determine or enforce the claim. On the other hand, if in bringing the claim the claimant is not doing an act which is of a sovereign character or by virtue of sovereign authority and the claim does not involve the exercise or assertion of a sovereign right and the claim does not seek to vindicate a sovereign act or acts, then the court will both determine and enforce it. However, the claims pleaded were not founded on the claimants’ property interests. The alleged losses arose as a result of decisions taken by the claimants to protect the state and citizens of Equatorial Guinea. The defence of a state and its subjects is a paradigm function of government. The allegations of assault in that any threat was not immediate.

Court: CA
Date: 23-Oct-2006
Judges: Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Lord Justice Dyson and Lord Justice Moses
Links: Bailii,
References: [2006] EWCA Civ 1370, Times, 27-Oct-2006, [2007] 2 WLR 1062
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Comments Off on Mbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another -v- Logo Ltd and others; CA 23-Oct-2006

Filed under Jurisdiction, Torts - Other

Union Bank of Finland Ltd -v- Lelakis; 1997

Proceedings had been served within the jurisdiction under submission to jurisdiction clauses contained in the guarantees upon which suit was brought against the defendant. However service abroad was objected to.
Held: Order 11, rule 9(4) was held to authorise service out of the jurisdiction with leave. It was sufficient to engage Order11 r.9(4) if the proceedings against the defendant were proceedings which could have been served out of the jurisdiction. They did not actually have to be so served.

Date: 01-Jan-1997
References: [1997] 1 WLR 590,
Cited By:

Comments Off on Union Bank of Finland Ltd -v- Lelakis; 1997

Filed under Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Mbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another -v- Logo Ltd and others; CA 23-Oct-2006

The claimant alleged a conspiracy by the defendants for his overthrow by means of a private coup d’etat. The defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction. The claimants appealed dismissal of their claim to damages.
Held: The claims were not justiciable here. Public laws, like penal laws, may not be enforced directly or indirectly in the English Courts. The court approved the statement: ‘a foreign State cannot enforce in England such rights as are founded upon its peculiar powers of prerogative. ‘ The critical question is whether in bringing a claim, a claimant is doing an act which is of a sovereign character or which is done by virtue of sovereign authority; and whether the claim involves the exercise or assertion of a sovereign right. If so, then the court will not determine or enforce the claim. On the other hand, if in bringing the claim the claimant is not doing an act which is of a sovereign character or by virtue of sovereign authority and the claim does not involve the exercise or assertion of a sovereign right and the claim does not seek to vindicate a sovereign act or acts, then the court will both determine and enforce it. However, the claims pleaded were not founded on the claimants’ property interests. The alleged losses arose as a result of decisions taken by the claimants to protect the state and citizens of Equatorial Guinea. The defence of a state and its subjects is a paradigm function of government. The allegations of assault in that any threat was not immediate.

Court: CA
Date: 23-Oct-2006
Judges: Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Lord Justice Dyson and Lord Justice Moses
Links: Bailii,
References: [2006] EWCA Civ 1370, Times, 27-Oct-2006, [2007] 2 WLR 1062
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Comments Off on Mbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another -v- Logo Ltd and others; CA 23-Oct-2006

Filed under Jurisdiction, Torts - Other

Union Bank of Finland Ltd -v- Lelakis; 1997

Proceedings had been served within the jurisdiction under submission to jurisdiction clauses contained in the guarantees upon which suit was brought against the defendant. However service abroad was objected to.
Held: Order 11, rule 9(4) was held to authorise service out of the jurisdiction with leave. It was sufficient to engage Order11 r.9(4) if the proceedings against the defendant were proceedings which could have been served out of the jurisdiction. They did not actually have to be so served.

Date: 01-Jan-1997
References: [1997] 1 WLR 590,
Cited By:

Comments Off on Union Bank of Finland Ltd -v- Lelakis; 1997

Filed under Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

JO -v- GO and Others; re PO; CoP 13-Dec-2013

PO, a lady in her late eighties lacked capacity to decide her own care. She had been habitually resident in Hertfordshire. Her daughters now challenged their brother who had moved her to a care home in Scotland when he himself moved there. An interim guardianship order had been made by the Sheriff. When the sisters made the current application for an order, the now guardian Scottish local council said that she was now habitually resident in Scotland and that the present court had no jurisdiction.
Held: The matter was governed by section 83 of the 2005 which incorporated the 2000 Convention.

Court: CoP
Date: 13-Dec-2013
Judges: Sir James Munby P
Statutes: Mental Capacity Act 2005 63, 2000 Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults
Links: Bailii, WLRD,
References: [2013] EWHC 3932 (COP), [2013] EWCOP 3932, [2013] WLR(D) 495
Cases Cited:

Comments Off on JO -v- GO and Others; re PO; CoP 13-Dec-2013

Filed under Health, Jurisdiction, Scotland

McGraw-Hill International (UK) Ltd -v- Deutsche Apotheker-Und Arztebank Eg and Others; ComC 18-Jul-2014

Application by fifth defendant to have service set aside as made without jurisdiction.

Court: ComC
Date: 18-Jul-2014
Judges: Cooke J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 2436 (Comm),

Comments Off on McGraw-Hill International (UK) Ltd -v- Deutsche Apotheker-Und Arztebank Eg and Others; ComC 18-Jul-2014

Filed under Jurisdiction

The Chaparral; CA 1968

A contract conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the English court as a neutral forum. In the context not only of English and other jurisdiction clauses the court held: ‘In the present case the choice of the parties was the English Court, and . . I should myself require strong grounds for saying that one of the parties should not keep his word.’

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1968
Judges: Diplock LJ
References: [1968] 2 Lloyd
Cited By:

Comments Off on The Chaparral; CA 1968

Filed under Contract, Jurisdiction

Young -v- Anglo American South Africa Ltd and Others; CA 31-Jul-2014

The parties disputed whether the claimant had a ‘good arguable case’ that the defendant had its central administration in England so as to give the court jurisdiction.

Court: CA
Date: 31-Jul-2014
Judges: Lord Dyson MR, Aikens LJ, Janet Smith D
Statutes: Brussels 1 Regulation (Regulation EC 44/2001 60
Links: Bailii, WLRD,
References: [2014] EWCA Civ 1130, [2014] WLR(D) 370

Comments Off on Young -v- Anglo American South Africa Ltd and Others; CA 31-Jul-2014

Filed under Jurisdiction

Young -v- Anglo American South Africa Ltd and Others; CA 31-Jul-2014

The parties disputed whether the claimant had a ‘good arguable case’ that the defendant had its central administration in England so as to give the court jurisdiction.

Court: CA
Date: 31-Jul-2014
Judges: Lord Dyson MR, Aikens LJ, Janet Smith D
Statutes: Brussels 1 Regulation (Regulation EC 44/2001 60
Links: Bailii, WLRD,
References: [2014] EWCA Civ 1130, [2014] WLR(D) 370

Comments Off on Young -v- Anglo American South Africa Ltd and Others; CA 31-Jul-2014

Filed under Jurisdiction

Baturina -v- Chistyakov; CA 5-Aug-2014

The claimant appealed against an order staying her action in favour of like actions before the courts of Russia.

Court: CA
Date: 05-Aug-2014
Judges: Rimer, Lewison, Christopher Clarke LJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWCA Civ 1134,

Comments Off on Baturina -v- Chistyakov; CA 5-Aug-2014

Filed under Jurisdiction

South Carolina Insurance Co -v- Assurantie Maatschappij de Zeven Provincien NV; HL 1987

There can be little basis for the grant of relief to a landowner providing protection from an action in nuisance if the landowner will not himself remedy the public nuisance. The House considered whether the circumstances gave the court power to grant an injunction at all, and stated certain basic principles governing the grant of an injunction. The first was that the power to grant an injunction was statutory (s. 37 of the 1981 Act). The third related to injunctions to restore proceedings in a foreign court, with which we are not concerned. The second was this: ‘The second basic principle is that, although the terms of section 37 (1) of the Act of 1981 and its predecessors are very wide, the power conferred by them has been circumscribed by judicial authority dating back many years. The nature of the limitations to which the power is subject has been considered in a number of recent cases in your Lordships’ House ‘
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook: ‘. . . The effect of these authorities, so far as material to the present case, can be summarised by saying that the power of the High Court to grant injunctions is, subject to two exceptions to which I shall refer shortly, limited to two situations. Situation (1) is when one party to an action can show that the other party has either invaded, or threatens to invade a legal or equitable right of the former for the enforcement of which the latter is amenable to the jurisdiction of the court. Situation (2) is where one party to an action has behaved, or threatens to behave, in a manner which is unconscionable.’ The House would not define unconscionable conduct save that it included conduct which is oppressive or vexatious or which interferes with the due process of the court.’
Lord Goff of Chieveley: ‘I am reluctant to accept the proposition that the power of the court to grant injunctions is restricted to certain exclusive categories. That power is unfettered by statute; and it is impossible for us now to foresee every circumstance in which it may be thought right to make the remedy available.’

Court: HL
Date: 01-Jan-1987
Judges: Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 37
References: [1987] AC 24, [1986] 3 WLR 398, [1986] 3 A11 ER 487, [1986] 2 Lloyds Rep 317
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Comments Off on South Carolina Insurance Co -v- Assurantie Maatschappij de Zeven Provincien NV; HL 1987

Filed under Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice, Nuisance

Hatch -v- Baez; 1876

(United States) The plaintiff claimed that he had suffered injuries in the Dominican Republic as a result of acts done by the defendant in his official capacity of President of that Republic. The Court accepted that because the defendant was in New York, he was within the territorial jurisdiction of the State.
Held: ‘But the immunity of individuals from suits brought in foreign tribunals for acts done within their own States, in the exercise of the sovereignty thereof, it is essential to preserve the peace and harmony of nations, and has the sanction of the most approved writers on international law. It is also recognised in all the judicial decisions on the subject that have come to my knowledge ‘
and ‘The counsel for the plaintiff relies on the general principle, that all persons, of whatever rank or condition, whether in or out of office, are liable to be sued by them in violation of law. Conceding the truth and universality of that principle, it does not establish the jurisdiction of our tribunals to take cognizance of the official acts of foreign governments. We think that, by the universal comity of nations and the established rules of international law, the courts of one country are bound to abstain from sitting in judgement on the acts of another government done within its own territory. Each state is sovereign throughout its domain. The acts of the defendant for which he is sued were done by him in the exercise of that part of the sovereignty of St. Domingo which belongs to the executive department of that government. To make him amenable to a foreign jurisdiction for such acts, would be a direct assault upon the sovereignty and independence of his country. The only remedy for such wrongs must be sought through the intervention of the government of the person injured.
The fact that the defendant has ceased to be president of St. Domingo does not destroy his immunity. That springs from the capacity in which the acts were done, and protects the individual who did them, because they emanated from a foreign and friendly government.’

Date: 01-Jan-1876
References: (1876) 7 Hun 596,
Cited By:

Comments Off on Hatch -v- Baez; 1876

Filed under International, Jurisdiction

Knauf UK GmbH -v- British Gypsum Ltd and Another; CA 24-Oct-2001

Permission was sought to use alternative service to serve proceedings on a company. There was no exceptional difficulty in ordinary service, but the claimant wanted to ensure that a claim was heard within the UK jurisdiction, and expected that he would have to serve the proceedings by surprise in order to prevent them first issuing in Germany.
Held: This was an inappropriate attempt to misuse the court rules in order to subvert the ordinary rules regulating such matters. The order for alternative service was set aside.

Court: CA
Date: 24-Oct-2001
Judges: Lord Justice Henry, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Lord Justice Rix
Statutes: Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
Links: Bailii,
References: Times, 15-Nov-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1570, [2002] 1 WLR 907
Cited By:

Comments Off on Knauf UK GmbH -v- British Gypsum Ltd and Another; CA 24-Oct-2001

Filed under Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Dornoch Ltd and others -v- The Mauritius Union Assurance Company Ltd and Another; ComC 19-Aug-2005

Court: ComC
Date: 19-Aug-2005
Judges: Aikens J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2005] EWHC 1887 (Comm), [2006] Lloyd's Rep IR 127
Cited By:

Comments Off on Dornoch Ltd and others -v- The Mauritius Union Assurance Company Ltd and Another; ComC 19-Aug-2005

Filed under Insurance, Jurisdiction

Reunion Europeenne Sa and Others -v- Spliethoffs Bevrachtingskantoor Bv and Another; ECJ 27-Oct-1998

French consignees of a shipment of peaches sued in France the Australian issuers of the bill of laiding under which the goods were carried (a contract claim) and the Dutch carriers and master of the ship in which they were carried (tort claims).
Held: There was no jurisdiction under Article 6(1) because none of the defendants were domiciled in France. After referring to Kalfelis: ‘It follows that two claims in one action for compensation directed against different defendants and based in one instance on contractual liability and in the other on liability in tort or delict cannot be regarded as connected.’
Europa An action by which the consignee of goods found to be damaged on completion of a transport operation by sea and then by land, or by which his insurer who has been subrogated to his rights after compensating him, seeks redress for the damage suffered, relying on the bill of lading covering the maritime transport, not against the person who issued that document on his headed paper but against the person whom the plaintiff considers to be the actual maritime carrier, does not fall within the scope of matters relating to a contract within the meaning of Article 5, point 1, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, since the bill of lading in question does not disclose any contractual relationship freely entered into between the consignee and the defendant. Such an action is, however, a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5, point 3, of that Convention, since that concept covers all actions which seek to establish the liability of a defendant and are not related to matters of contract within the meaning of Article 5, point 1. As regards determining the `place where the harmful event occurred’ within the meaning of Article 5, point 3, the place where the consignee, on completion of a transport operation by sea and then by land, merely discovered the existence of the damage to the goods delivered to him cannot serve to determine that place. Whilst it is true that the abovementioned concept may cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it, the place where the damage arose can, in the circumstances described, only be the place where the maritime carrier was to deliver the goods. Article 6, point 1, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that a defendant domiciled in a Contracting State cannot, on the basis of that provision, be sued in another Contracting State before a court seised of an action against a co-defendant not domiciled in a Contracting State on the ground that the dispute is indivisible rather than merely displaying a connection. The objective of legal certainty pursued by the Convention would not be attained if the fact that a court in a Contracting State had accepted jurisdiction as regards one of the defendants not domiciled in a Contracting State made it possible to bring another defendant, domiciled in a Contracting State, before that same court in cases other than those envisaged by the Convention, thereby depriving him of the benefit of the protective rules laid down by it.

Court: ECJ
Date: 27-Oct-1998
Statutes: Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968
Links: Times, Bailii,
References: C-51/97, [1998] ECR I-6511, [1998] EUECJ C-51/97
Cited By:

Comments Off on Reunion Europeenne Sa and Others -v- Spliethoffs Bevrachtingskantoor Bv and Another; ECJ 27-Oct-1998

Filed under European, Jurisdiction, Transport

BAS Capital Funding Corporation, Deutsche Bank Ag London, Paine Webber Capital Inc, PW Exe Lp, Pw Partners 1999 Lp -v- Medfinco Limited, Abacus Holdings Limited, Andreas W Gerdes, HTC Inc, etc; ChD 25-Jul-2003

The claimants wanted to bring actions in respect of various matters under shareholders agreements in complex international joint ventures. Leave was given to serve English proceedings in Malta, and the claim form and particulars of claim were faxed and emailed and delivered by hand at the registered offices of the company and at the private address of the owner and a director of the company. All these methods were ineffective as service under English law or Maltese law. The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the English court, referring to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. Proceedings had been begun in Malta. The respondents denied that serious and grave matters had been alleged so as to bring into play section 402.
Held: The court set aside the order granting permission to serve the defendants out of the jurisdiction, except in relation to the alleged breach by the Company of the funding limits, and refused to grant the injunctions either in the wide form originally sought, or in the modified form suggested in correspondence.

Court: ChD
Date: 25-Jul-2003
Judges: Lawrence Collins J
Statutes: Companies Act 1985 402
Links: Bailii,
References: [2003] EWHC 1798 (Ch), [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep 652
Cases Cited:

Comments Off on BAS Capital Funding Corporation, Deutsche Bank Ag London, Paine Webber Capital Inc, PW Exe Lp, Pw Partners 1999 Lp -v- Medfinco Limited, Abacus Holdings Limited, Andreas W Gerdes, HTC Inc, etc; ChD 25-Jul-2003

Filed under Company, Jurisdiction

Guaranty Trust Co of New York -v- Hannay & Co; CA 1915

A claimant does not need to have a subsisting cause of action against a defendant before the court will grant a claimant a declaration. The court considered the ambiguity in the meaning of the word ‘jurisdiction': ‘The first and, in my opinion, the only really correct sense of the expression that the Court has no jurisdiction is that it has no power to deal with and decide the dispute as to the subject matter before it, no matter in what form or by whom it is raised. But there is another sense in which it is often used, i.e., that, although the Court has power to decide the question it will not according to its settled practice do so except in a certain way and under certain circumstances.’ An unsuccessful attack was mounted on the vires of Ord 25 r 5.
Pickford LJ said: ‘I think therefore that the effect of the rule is to give a general power to make a declaration whether there be a cause of action or not, and at the instance of any party who is interested in the subject matter of the declaration.’ and ‘The first and, in my opinion, the only really correct sense of the expression that the Court has no jurisdiction is that it has no power to deal with and decide the dispute as to the subject-matter before it, no matter in what form or by whom it is raised. But there is another sense in which it is often used, i.e., that, although the Court has power to decide the question it will not according to its settled practice do so except in a certain way and under certain circumstances.’
Bankes LJ: ‘It is essential, however, that a person who seeks to take advantage of the rule must be claiming relief. What is meant by this word relief? When once it is established, as I think it is established, that relief is not confined to relief in respect of a cause of action it seems to follow that the word itself must be given its fullest meaning. There is, however, one limitation which must always be attached to it, that is to say, the relief claimed must be something which it would not be unlawful or unconstitutional or inequitable for the court to grant or contrary to the accepted principles upon which the court exercises its jurisdiction. Subject to this limitation I see nothing to fetter the discretion of the court in exercising a jurisdiction under the rule to grant relief, and having regard to general business convenience and the importance of adapting the machinery of the courts to the needs of suitors I think the rule should receive as liberal a construction as possible.’

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1915
Judges: Pickford LJ, Bankes LJ
References: [1915] 2 KB 536,
Cited By:

Comments Off on Guaranty Trust Co of New York -v- Hannay & Co; CA 1915

Filed under Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Assaubayev and Others -v- Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd; QBD 21-Mar-2014

Court: QBD
Date: 21-Mar-2014
Judges: Walker J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 821 (QB),

Comments Off on Assaubayev and Others -v- Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd; QBD 21-Mar-2014

Filed under Arbitration, Costs, Jurisdiction

de Dampierre -v- de Dampierre; HL 1988

The existence and state of foreign proceedings are relevant to the exercise of the court’s discretion to stay an action on the ground of forum non conveniens. The essential test on which the court might exercise its discretion to stay the petition is if the court, as Lord Goff said, ‘is satisfied that there is some other tribunal, having competent jurisdiction, in which the case may be tried more suitably for the interests of the parties and for the ends of justice.’

Court: HL
Date: 01-Jan-1988
Judges: Lord Goff
References: [1988] 1 AC 92,
Cited By:

Comments Off on de Dampierre -v- de Dampierre; HL 1988

Filed under Family, Jurisdiction

Smith and Others -v- The Ministry of Defence; SC 19-Jun-2013

The claimants were PRs of men who had died or were severely injured on active duty in Iraq being variously fired at by mistake by other coalition forces, or dying in vehicles attacked by roadside bombs. Appeals were heard against a finding that the soldiers had been found to be outwith the jurisdiction, and by the respondent that it owed a duty of care within a battlefield situation.
Held: The soldiers were within the jurisdiction, and the duty of care was owed. The cases could proceed to trial.

Court: SC
Date: 19-Jun-2013
Judges: Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 2, Armed Forces Act 2006 367(1)
Links: Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, WLRD,
References: [2013] UKSC 41, [2013] WLR(D) 239, [2014] AC 52, [2013] 4 All ER 794, [2014] 1 AC 52, [2013] 3 WLR 69, [2013] HRLR 27, [2014] PIQR P2
Cases Cited:

Comments Off on Smith and Others -v- The Ministry of Defence; SC 19-Jun-2013

Filed under Armed Forces, Human Rights, Jurisdiction

In re The Alexandros T; SC 6-Nov-2013

The parties had disputed insurance claims after the foundering of the Alexandros T. After allegations of misbehaviour by the underwriters, the parties had settled the claims in a Tomlin Order. Five years later, however, the shipowners began proceedings in Greece making substantially similar allegations and claims, but under the equivalent in Greek law. In response the insurance underwriters issued proceedings here under the Tomlin orders settling the first proceedings requesting a stay of the proceedings in Greece. At first instance the Judge refused a saty under Article 28, and awarded judgment to the insurers. On appeal the CA granted a stay under article 27, not having to decide the A28 claim. The insurers now challenged the stay granted under A27, saying that a stay under article 28 was correctly refused.
Held: The stay under A27 should not have been granted. A stay under A27 depended upon the claims being the same in the two jurisdictions, so that a risk of irreconcilable judgments arose. There was an insufficient identity between the claims settled and the claims now made. The settled claims were in contract, and the current Greek claims were in tort. Also the factual base and objects of the two sets of proceedings differed.
As to A28, a stay was available only to a court other than the court first seized. Such a stay was discretionary and intended again to avoid conflicts between jurisdictions. In this case, the natural place was the UK, and proceedings had already reached an advanced stage. The cross appeal was dismissed and the decision refusing a stay under A28 was correct.

Court: SC
Date: 06-Nov-2013
Judges: Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes
Statutes: Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 27 28
Links: Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC,
References: [2013] UKSC 70, [2013] 2 CLC 713, [2014] 1 Lloyd's Rep 223, [2014] Lloyd's Rep IR 327, [2014] 1 All ER 590, [2014] BUS LR 873, [2014] 1 All ER (Comm) 337, UKSC 2013/0023
Cases Cited:

Comments Off on In re The Alexandros T; SC 6-Nov-2013

Filed under European, Jurisdiction

Channel Tunnel Group Ltd and Another -v- Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd and Others; CA 1-Apr-1992

The arbitration agreement specified that disputes were to be arbitrated in Brussels, therefore there was no jurisdiction in an English court.

Court: CA
Date: 01-Apr-1992
Statutes: Arbitration Act 1950 12 (6) (h)
Links: Gazette,
References:
Cited By:

Comments Off on Channel Tunnel Group Ltd and Another -v- Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd and Others; CA 1-Apr-1992

Filed under Arbitration, Jurisdiction