Category Archives: 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under Armed Forces, Human Rights, Jurisdiction

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

The appeal depends upon whether the Court is bound to stay action 2006 Folio 815 (‘the 2006 proceedings’) under Article 27 of Regulation 44/2001 of the Council of the European Union (‘the Regulation’) and, if not, whether it should do so under Article 28.

Court: SC
Date: 06-Nov-2013
Judges: Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] UKSC 70,

Comments Off

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

Filed under Arbitration, Jurisdiction

Blue Tropic Ltd and Another -v- Chkhartishvili; ChD 7-Jul-2014

The court was asked to decline jurisdiction pending the outcome of related proceedings between the parties abroad.

Court: ChD
Date: 07-Jul-2014
Judges: Newey J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 2243 (Ch),

Comments Off

Filed under Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Coys of Kensington Automobiles Ltd -v- Pugliese; QBD 22-Mar-2011

Appeal against rejection of jurisdiction over defendant.

Court: QBD
Date: 22-Mar-2011
Judges: Ramsey J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2011] EWHC 655 (QB), [2011] 2 All ER (Comm) 664

Comments Off

Filed under Contract, Jurisdiction

Hirsi Jamaa -v- Italy; ECHR 23-Feb-2012

The court was asked whether the asylum seekers were subject to the jurisdiction of Italy while they were detained on the ship flying the Italian flag.
Held: The court need not concern itself with the question whether the state is in a position to guarantee Convention rights to that individual other than those it is said to have breached.

Court: ECHR
Date: 23-Feb-2012
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: 27765/09 - HEJUD, [2012] ECHR 1845
Cited By:

Comments Off

Filed under Human Rights, Immigration, Jurisdiction

Al-Skeini and Others -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 7-Jul-2011

(Grand Chamber) The exercise of jurisdiction, which is a threshold condition, is a necessary condition for a contracting state to be able to be held responsible for acts or omissions imputable to it which give rise to an allegation of the infringement of rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. The Chamber divided the general principles relevant to jurisdiction into three distinct categories: state agent authority and control; effective control over an area; and the Convention legal space.

Court: ECHR
Date: 07-Jul-2011
Judges: Jean-Paul Costa, P
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: 55721/07, [2011] ECHR 1093, 30 BHRC 561, (2011) 53 EHRR 18
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Comments Off

Filed under Armed Forces, Human Rights, Jurisdiction

Scottish & Newcastle International Limited -v- Othon Ghalanos Ltd; HL 20-Feb-2008

The defendant challenged a decision that the English court had jurisdiction to hear a claim in contract saying that the appropriate court was in Cyprus. The cargo was taken by ship from Liverpool to Limassol. An English court would only have jurisdiction of the cargo was ‘delivered’ in England.
Held: The cargo was delivered on being shipped, and the English court had jurisdiction. This was clear under section 32 of the 1979 Act.

Court: HL
Date: 20-Feb-2008
Judges: Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
Statutes: Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 5(1)(b), Sale of Goods Act 1979 32(1)
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] UKHL 11,
Cases Cited:

Comments Off

Filed under Jurisdiction

Citicorp International Ltd -v- Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Ltd; ComC 11-Feb-2014

Application by claimant for summary judgment, and by defendant for order as to place of trial.

Court: ComC
Date: 11-Feb-2014
Judges: Andrew Smith J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 245 (Comm),

Comments Off

Filed under Jurisdiction

OTP Bank Nyilvanosan MUKODO Reszvenytarsasag -v- Hochtief Solutions AG; ECJ 17-Oct-2013

Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Special jurisdiction – Article 5, paragraph 1 a) – Concept of ‘contractual matters

Court: ECJ
Date: 17-Oct-2013
Judges: G. Arestis P
Links: Bailii,
References: C-519/12, [2013] EUECJ C-519/12

Comments Off

Filed under European, Jurisdiction

Re MN (Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Protective Measures); FD 2010

An elderly woman, MN, habitually resident in California, had been removed from there to Canada and thence to this country in circumstances which, it was said, involved a breach of the terms of Part 3 of an advance directive signed by her.
Held: Hedley J said: “It follows that, in my judgment, the question of authority to remove is the key in this case to the question of habitual residence. Habitual residence is an undefined term and in English authorities it is regarded as a question of fact to be determined in the individual circumstances of the case. It is well recognised in English law that the removal of a child from one jurisdiction to another by one parent without the consent of the other is wrongful and is not effective to change habitual residence . . It seems to me that the wrongful removal (in this case without authority under the directive whether because Part 3 is not engaged or the decision was not made in good faith) of an incapacitated adult should have the same consequence and should leave the courts of the country from which she was taken free to take protective measures. Thus in this case were the removal ‘wrongful’, I would hold that MN was habitually resident in California
If, however, the removal were a proper and lawful exercise of authority under the directive, different considerations arise. The position in April 2010 was that MN had been living with her niece in England and Wales on the basis that the niece was providing her with a permanent home. There is no evidence other than that MN is content and well cared for there and indeed may lose or even have lost any clear recollection of living on her own in California. In those circumstances it seems to me most probable that MN will have become habitually resident in England and Wales and this court will be required to accept and exercise a full welfare jurisdiction under the Act pursuant to para 7(1)(a) of Sch 3. Hence my view that authority to remove is the key consideration.”

Court: FD
Date: 01-Jan-2010
Judges: Hedley J
References: [2010] EWHC 1926 (Fam), [2010] COPLR Con Vol 893
Cited By:

Comments Off

Filed under Family, Jurisdiction

AMT Futures Ltd -v- Marzillier, Dr Meier & Dr Guntner Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft Mbh; ComC 11-Apr-2014

Application by the Defendant for a declaration that the court did not have jurisdiction over it in respect of the subject matter of the claim and for an order setting aside service of the Claim Form.

Court: ComC
Date: 11-Apr-2014
Judges: Popplewell J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 1085 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Med Marine -v- Castillo Schiffahrts-Gmbh & Co Kg Ms and Another; ComC 28-Mar-2014

Defendants’ application pursuant to CPR Part 11 for orders that (1) the defendants’ application contesting the jurisdiction of this court is granted; (2) the service of the claim form on the defendant is set aside, and (3) the claimant’s claim is dismissed.

Court: ComC
Date: 28-Mar-2014
Judges: Hofmeyr QC
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 1064 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Hi Hotel Hcf SARL -v- Uwe Spoering; ECJ 3-Apr-2014

ECJ Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – International jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict – Act committed in one Member State consisting in participation in an act of tort or delict committed in another Member State – Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred

Court: ECJ
Date: 03-Apr-2014
Judges: L. Bay Larsen, P
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 44/2001
Links: Bailii,
References: C-387/12, [2014] EUECJ C-387/12

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Jurisdiction

Vitol Bahrain Ec -v- Nasdec General Trading Llc and Others; ComC 4-Apr-2014

Application by the Third Defendant to set aside ex parte order granting permission for service out of the jurisdiction.

Court: ComC
Date: 04-Apr-2014
Judges: Popplewell J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 984 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Citicorp International Ltd -v- Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Ltd; ComC 11-Feb-2014

Court: ComC
Date: 11-Feb-2014
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 245 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Vidal-Hall and Others -v- Google Inc; QBD 16-Jan-2014

The claimants alleged misuse of their private information in collecting information about their internet useage when using Google products. Google now applied for an order setting aside consent for service out of the jurisdiction.

Court: QBD
Date: 16-Jan-2014
Judges: Tugendhat J
Statutes: Data Protection Act 1998 4(4), Civil Procedure Rules 6.37
Links: Bailii, WLRD,
References: [2014] EWHC 13 (QB), [2014] WLR(D) 21
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information, Jurisdiction

Enasarco -v- Lehman Brothers Finance Sa and Another; ChD 16-Jan-2014

Court: ChD
Date: 16-Jan-2014
Judges: David Richards J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 34 (Ch),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Insolvency, Jurisdiction

BAT Industries Plc -v- Windward Prospects Ltd and Another; ComC 20-Dec-2013

Appeal against order allowing service of an amended claim form on the ground that England is not the proper place for the claim.

Court: ComC
Date: 20-Dec-2013
Judges: Field J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] EWHC 4087 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Mf 7 AS -v- Mafra AS; ECJ 14-Nov-2013

ECJ Article 267 TFEU – Concept of

Court: ECJ
Date: 14-Nov-2013
Links: Bailii,
References: C-49/13, [2013] EUECJ C-49/13

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Jurisdiction

Ray -v- Sekhri; CA 14-Feb-2014

The husband appealed against rejection of his assertion that since neither he nor his wife were habitually resident within the jurisdiction, the court could not hear the wife’s divorce petition.

Court: CA
Date: 14-Feb-2014
Judges: Rimer, McFarlane, Vos LJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWCA Civ 119,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Family, Jurisdiction

Cifal Groupe SA Grontmij Investment Management SAS and Others -v- Meridian Securities (UK) Ltd and Others; ComC 15-Nov-2013

Defendants’ challenge to court’s jurisdiction.

Court: ComC
Date: 15-Nov-2013
Judges: Males J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] EWHC 3553 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Peter Pammer -v- Reederei Karl Schluter GmbH & Co KG etc; ECJ 7-Dec-2010

ECJ (Grand Chamber) Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 15(1)(c) and (3) – Jurisdiction over consumer contracts – Contract for a voyage by freighter – Concept of

Court: ECJ
Date: 07-Dec-2010
Judges: V. Skouris, P
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 15(1)
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] EUECJ C-144/09, [2012] Bus LR 972, [2012] All ER (EC) 34, [2011] 2 All ER (Comm) 888, [2010] ECR I-12527
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Consumer, European, Jurisdiction

Oak Leaf Conservatories Ltd -v- Weir and Another; TCC 24-Oct-2013

The claimant conservatory installers claimed wrongful repudiation of the contract by the defendant householders. The defendants, living in Ayrshire, said that the English courts had no jurisdiction over the contract.
Held: The court gave its reasons for accepting the defendants’ submission. The mere fact that Oak Leaf’s primary focus in advertising is on England did not correctly reflect the statutory test or determine the outcome of the application. While the primary focus of the claimant’s business may be in England and most of the business had been in England, it was apparent from its websites and its overall activity (including the acceptance of previous projects in Scotland as well as that of the Weirs) that Oak Leaf was envisaging doing business with consumers domiciled in Scotland. Accordingly, the action must be brought in Sotland.

Court: TCC
Date: 24-Oct-2013
Judges: Stuart-Smith J
Statutes: Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 16(1) Sch 4
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] EWHC 3197 (TCC),
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Consumer, Contract, Jurisdiction

Siegfried Janos Schneider; ECJ 3-Oct-2013

ECJ Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Scope – Legal capacity of natural persons – Exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property – Scope – Non-contentious proceedings concerning the right of a person who has been placed under guardianship and is domiciled in a Member State to dispose of immovable property situated in another Member State

Court: ECJ
Date: 03-Oct-2013
Judges: M Ilesic P
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 44/2001
Links: Bailii, WLRD,
References: C-386/12, [2013] EUECJ C-386/12, [2013] WLR(D) 366

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Jurisdiction

Haqen -v- Zeehaqhe; ECJ 1990

ECJ ‘Article 6(2) makes provision for a special jurisdiction, which the Plaintiff may choose because of the existence, in clearly defined situations, of a particularly close connecting factor between a dispute and the court which may be called upon to hear it, with a view to the efficacious conduct of the proceedings (judgment of 22 November 1978 in Case 33/78 Somafer SA v Saar-Ferngas AG [1978] ECR 2183). The Convention thus enables the entire dispute to be heard by a single court. Consequently, the related nature of the main action and the action on a warranty or guarantee suffices to found jurisdiction on the part of the court in which the action on a warranty or guarantee has been brought, irrespective of the basis on which it has jurisdiction in the original proceedings; in this respect, the jurisdiction provided for in Article 2 and that provided for in Article 5 are equivalent.’

Court: ECJ
Date: 01-Jan-1990
References: [1990] ECR 1-1845,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Jurisdiction

Country Weddings Ltd -v- Crossman and Others (Transfer of Undertakings : Consultation and Other Information); EAT 30-Apr-2013

EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Consultation and other information
Where an Employment Tribunal makes orders for compensation in tort against Respondents jointly or jointly and severally, it has no power to apportion liability between the Respondents. The Employment Tribunal can do nothing other than to make an order for joint or joint and several liability, as the case may be. If there is an issue between the parties who have been found liable as to the relative share of the liability that they should bear, this is a matter that has to be determined in the County Court or the High Court under the provisions of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.

Court: EAT
Date: 30-Apr-2013
Judges: Serota QC J
Statutes: Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] UKEAT 0535_12_3004,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Damages, Employment, Jurisdiction, Torts - Other

Euromark Ltd -v- Smash Enterprises Pty Ltd; QBD 6-Jun-2013

The Australian company defendant sought a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction over it.

Court: QBD
Date: 06-Jun-2013
Judges: Coulson J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] EWHC 1627 (QB),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Hyman -v- Hyman; HL 1929

The husband had left the wife for another woman. The parties had entered into a deed of separation under which the husband had paid two lump sums and agreed to make weekly payments of £20 for the life of the wife. The deed included a covenant by the wife that she would not institute any proceedings to make him pay more than this.
Held: The parties cannot lawfully covenant or make an agreement either not to invoke the jurisdiction or to control the powers of the court where jurisdiction in invoked. In partiicular, a wife cannot contract out of her matrimonial maintenance entitlements in a deed of separation.
Lord Atkin gave a short history of such contracts and commented on their effect: ‘We have to deal with a separation deed, a class of document which has had a chequered career at law. Not recognized by the Ecclesiastical Courts, such contracts were enforced by the common law. Equity at first frowned. Lord Eldon doubted but enforced them: cf. St. John v. St. John (1803) Ves. 525, 529 and Bateman v. Countess of Ross (1813) 1 Dow 235; and see the arguments of Sir Fitzroy Kelly and Mr Turner and of Mr Bethell in Wilson v. Wilson (1848) 1 H. L. C. 538, 550-553, 564, 565. Finally they were fully recognized in equity by Lord Westbury’s leading judgment in Hunt v. Hunt (1861) 4 D. F. & J. 221, in which he followed Lord Cottenham’s decision in Wilson v. Wilson (1846-1848) 1 HLCas 538, 550-553, 564, 565, where his argument for the respondent had prevailed. Full effect has therefore to be given in all courts to these contracts as to all other contracts. It seems not out of place to make this obvious reflection, for a perusal of some of the cases in the matrimonial courts seems to suggest that at times they are still looked at askance and enforced grudgingly. But there is no caste in contracts. Agreements for separation are formed, construed and dissolved and to be enforced on precisely the same principles as any respectable commercial agreement, of whose nature indeed they sometimes partake. As in other contracts stipulations will not be enforced which are illegal either as being opposed to positive law or public policy. But this is a common attribute of all contracts, though we may recognize that the subject-matter of separation agreements may bring them more than others into relation with questions of public policy.’
Lord Hailsham LC said: ‘However, this may be, it is sufficient for the decision of the present case to hold, as I do, that the power of the court to make provision for a wife on the dissolution of her marriage is a necessary incident of the power to decree such a dissolution, conferred not merely in the interests of the wife, but of the public, and that the wife cannot by her own convenant preclude herself from invoking the jurisdiction of the court or preclude the court from the exercise of that jurisdiction.’ The existence of the covenant did not preclude the wife from making an application to the court: ‘this by no means implies that, when this application is made, the existence of the Deed or its terms are not the most relevant factors for consideration by the court in reaching a decision.’

Court: HL
Date: 01-Jan-1929
Judges: Lord Hailsham LC, Lord Atkin
References: [1929] AC 601, [1929] All ER 245, [1929] P 1
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Family, Jurisdiction

Ideal General Supply Co Ltd -v- Louis Edelson and Edelson (t/a Ideal Clothing Co); 1957

The plaintiff had started an action for passing off and slander in the county court. The county court judge declined jurisdiction on the basis he thought they were equity proceedings and the claimant withdrew the proceedings and started again in the High Court. The question was whether this created an estoppel
Held: It did not. Diplock J expressed no opinion on the view of the county court judge that he had no jurisdiction. Diplock J refused to award any damages because the plaintiff managed to put an end to the defendant’s passing-off by an injunction after 4 advertisements in a local evening newspaper and the plaintiff had suffered no damage at all. He was prepared to grant injunctive relief in respect of probable damage which would occur if the defendants continued their conduct.

Date: 01-Jan-1957
Judges: Diplock J
References: [1957] RPC 252,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Damages, Defamation, Estoppel, Jurisdiction

Navig8 Pte Limited -v- Al-Riyadh Co; ComC 17-Dec-2012

Court: ComC
Date: 17-Dec-2012
Judges: Popplewell J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] EWHC 3925 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction, Transport

Lawlor -v- Sandvik Mining & Construction Mobile Crushers and Screens Ltd; CA 22-Apr-2013

The parties disputed the proper law governing a commercial agency agreement between them.

Court: CA
Date: 22-Apr-2013
Judges: Llyd, Levesaon LJJ, Toulson L
Statutes: Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] EWCA Civ 365,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Contract, Jurisdiction

Mengiste and Another -v- Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others; ChD 25-Mar-2013

Application for leave to appeal – refused.

Court: ChD
Date: 25-Mar-2013
Judges: Peter Smith J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] EWHC 856 (Ch),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Revenue & Customs -v- Sunico ApS & Others; ECJ 11-Apr-2013

ECJ (Opinion) Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Article 6 of the Agreement – Capacity of Danish courts to make references to the Court – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 1(1) – Concept of civil and commercial matters – Action by an authority – Damages for involvement in tax evasion by a third party which is not itself a taxable person

Court: ECJ
Date: 11-Apr-2013
Judges: Kokott AG
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 1(1)
Links: Bailii, Bailii,
References: C-49/12, [2013] EUECJ C-49/12, [2013] EUECJ C-49/12

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Jurisdiction, Taxes Management

In re LM (A Child); FD 27-Mar-2013

Court: FD
Date: 27-Mar-2013
Judges: Cob J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] EWHC 646 (Fam),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Children, Jurisdiction

In re S (A Child); FD 25-Mar-2013

The mother in England with S and the father in Spain disputed arrangements for his residence. They now disagreed whether a court order made by consent in Spain having been completed, Spain continued to have jurisdiction.

Court: FD
Date: 25-Mar-2013
Judges: Cob J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] EWHC 647 (Fam),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Children, Jurisdiction

Mengiste and Another -v- Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others; ChD 22-Mar-2013

The case was broght in respect of a foundation in Ethiopia; the parties were alll Ethiopian, the assets and the law. The defendants disputed that the English court had jurisdiction.

Court: ChD
Date: 22-Mar-2013
Judges: Peter Smith J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] EWHC 599 (Ch),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Navig8 Pte Ltd -v- Al-Riyadh Co for Vegetable Oil Industry; ComC 22-Feb-2013

Application by the defendant, a Jordanian company to challenge the jurisdiction of the court over these proceedings brought by the claimant, a Singaporean company. Navig8 served proceedings in Jordan, having been permitted to do so by Hamblen J on 9 May 2012. Al-Riyadh contend that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear Navig8’s claims and should not exercise it even if it has.

Court: ComC
Date: 22-Feb-2013
Judges: Andrew Smith J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] EWHC 328 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Vidal-Hall and Others -v- Google Inc; QBD 16-Jan-2014

The claimants alleged misuse of their private information in collecting information about their internet useage when using Google products. Google now applied for an order setting aside consent for service out of the jurisdiction.

Court: QBD
Date: 16-Jan-2014
Judges: Tugendhat J
Statutes: Data Protection Act 1998 4(4), Civil Procedure Rules 6.37
Links: Bailii, WLRD,
References: [2014] EWHC 13 (QB), [2014] WLR(D) 21
Cases Cited:

Comments Off

Filed under Information, Jurisdiction

Vitol Bahrain Ec -v- Nasdec General Trading Llc and Others; ComC 4-Apr-2014

Application by the Third Defendant to set aside ex parte order granting permission for service out of the jurisdiction.

Court: ComC
Date: 04-Apr-2014
Judges: Popplewell J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 984 (Comm),

Comments Off

Filed under Jurisdiction

Med Marine -v- Castillo Schiffahrts-Gmbh & Co Kg Ms and Another; ComC 28-Mar-2014

Defendants’ application pursuant to CPR Part 11 for orders that (1) the defendants’ application contesting the jurisdiction of this court is granted; (2) the service of the claim form on the defendant is set aside, and (3) the claimant’s claim is dismissed.

Court: ComC
Date: 28-Mar-2014
Judges: Hofmeyr QC
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 1064 (Comm),

Comments Off

Filed under Jurisdiction

Ray -v- Sekhri; CA 14-Feb-2014

The husband appealed against rejection of his assertion that since neither he nor his wife were habitually resident within the jurisdiction, the court could not hear the wife’s divorce petition.

Court: CA
Date: 14-Feb-2014
Judges: Rimer, McFarlane, Vos LJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWCA Civ 119,

Comments Off

Filed under Family, Jurisdiction

Enasarco -v- Lehman Brothers Finance Sa and Another; ChD 16-Jan-2014

Court: ChD
Date: 16-Jan-2014
Judges: David Richards J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 34 (Ch),

Comments Off

Filed under Insolvency, Jurisdiction

VTB Capital Plc -v- Nutritek International Corp and Others; SC 6-Feb-2013

The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for resolution of VTB’s tort claims, and nor that there was a proper basis for piercing the corporate veil.
Held: The appeal as to jurisdiction was dismissed (Clarke, Reed LL dissenting). The appeal as to piercing the corporate veil was dismissed unanimously. The limited burden on a defendant challenging jurisdiction is to identify the issues and how they might arise. It was wrong to approach such a decision as the equivalent to a trial. Permission to serve on a foreign resident should be refused unless the court felt it clear that England is the appropriate forum, but an appellate court should intervene only in the case of error.
The conclusion below that Russian law governed the case had been incorrect but had not affected the result. The choice of law was separate from and did not determine the choice of forum.
There was insufficient cause shown to pierce the corporate veil, and permission to amend to allow this argument should not be granted.

Court: SC
Date: 06-Feb-2013
Judges: Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed
Links: Bailii, WLRD, Balii Summary, SC, SC Summ,
References: UKSC 2012/0167, [2013] UKSC 5, [2013] WLR(D) 41, [2013] 1 All ER 1296, [2013] BCC 514, [2013] 1 CLC 153, [2013] 1 Lloyd's Rep 466, [2013] 2 AC 337, [2013] 1 BCLC 179, [2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 1009, [2013] 2 WLR 398
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Company, Jurisdiction, Torts - Other

Abusabib and Another -v- Taddese; EAT 20-Dec-2012

EAT Jurisdictional Points : State Immunity – Diplomatic Immunity
The First Respondent, who had been found liable together with the Second Respondent for acts of discrimination against the Claimant in a hearing of which he said he had not been aware, asserted on appeal that he was entitled to diplomatic inviolability. Since he had ceased to occupy a diplomatic post in the UK, this depended on whether the employment by him of the claimant as a domestic at his home out of which the claims arose could be regarded as an exercise by him of his functions as a diplomat, and whether the alleged acts of discrimination likewise attracted immunity as having been such an exercise of his functions. It was held that employment of a domestic servant at the diplomat’s residence would not normally be within those functions, and this case on its facts was not, nor were the acts complained of, done in the exercise of those functions.

Court: EAT
Date: 20-Dec-2012
Judges: Langstaff P J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKEAT 0424_11_2012),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment, Jurisdiction

Land Berlin -v- Sapir And Others; ECJ 28-Nov-2012

ECJ Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 1(1) – Article 6(1) – Notion of

Court: ECJ
Date: 28-Nov-2012
Judges: AG Trstenjak
Links: Bailii, Bailii,
References: C-645/11, [2012] EUECJ C-645/11, [2013] EUECJ C-645/11

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Jurisdiction

Melzer -v- Mf Global UK; ECJ 29-Nov-2012

ECJ Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Special jurisdiction in tort or delict – Cross-border participation of several people in the same allegedly harmful act – Possible option of establishing the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State with regard to a defendant domiciled in another Member State by reason of the place where an event giving rise to such act may has been committed by a purported joint participant or accomplice who is not being sued for damages.

Court: ECJ
Date: 29-Nov-2012
Judges: Jaaskinen AG
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 5(3)
Links: Bailii, Bailii,
References: C-228/11, [2012] EUECJ C-228/11, [2013] EUECJ C-228/11

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Jurisdiction

Ceska Sporitelna As -v- Gerald Feichter; ECJ 20-Sep-2012

ECJ Opinion – Jurisdiction – Matters relating to a contract – Contract concluded by a consumer – Manager of a company – Credit agreement entered into by the company – Promissory note issued in incomplete form – Aval – Place for performance of the obligation

Court: ECJ
Date: 20-Sep-2012
Judges: Sharpston AG
Statutes: Regulation No 44/2001
Links: Bailii, Bailii,
References: C-419/11, [2012] EUECJ C-419/11, [2013] EUECJ C-419/11

Leave a Comment

Filed under Consumer, Contract, European, Jurisdiction

Foote Cone & Belding Reklim Hizmetleri -v- Theron; 2006

The Defendant was the sole owner of a property in Kingston, but denied that he was domiciled in the UK.
Held: Residence was established. The house was one of his real residences at the relevant time. He apparently came to England regularly, about once a month, and was registered for council tax and utility bills. Patten J said: ‘The Kingston property is his home when he lives in England . . One can have a residence in more than one place and domicile under the statutory definition depends on residence, not on the old common law test of where one intended to permanently reside in the sense of indefinitely and exclusively’.

Date: 01-Jan-2006
Judges: Patten J
References: [2006] EWHC 1585,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Cathcart -v- Cathcart; 1902

The Court refused to grant a declarator that the pursuer was entitled to a liferent of land situated in England. Lord Low said: ‘Real estate in England is beyond the jurisdiction of the Scotch courts . . Further, if decree of declarator in terms of the second conclusion was pronounced, this court would have no power to give practical effect to the right thereby declared. The pursuer would require to go to England to obtain his remedy. Would the English courts, according to the principles of international law, be bound to recognise and act upon the declarator of this court? I am of opinion that they would not . . I think that the answer would be that it was for the court of the country where the real estate was situated to say what was the result, as regards the rights of the parties [of the relevant events]. I am therefore of opinion that the question . . is one with which this court is not competent to deal.’

Date: 01-Jan-1902
Judges: Lord Low
References: (1902) 12 SLT 182,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction, Land, Scotland

Perry and Others -v- Serious Organised Crime Agency; SC 25-Jul-2012

The first appellant had been convicted of substantial frauds in Israel. He appealed against world wide asset freezing (PFO) and disclosure (DO) orders made against him. Neither the appellant, nor his offences were connected with the UK. A bank account within the UK had been disclosed.
Held: The appeals succeeded (Judge and Clarke dissenting). The Act could not have the full extra territorial effect suggested.
Lord Phillips summarised his conclusions: ‘(i) The courts below placed undue weight on the definition of ‘property’ in POCA.
(ii) The appellants have placed undue weight on the presumption that a statute does not have extraterritorial effect.
(iii) States have, by agreement, departed from the customary principles of international law in the case of confiscating the proceeds of crime. Of particular relevance is the 1990 Strasbourg Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime. POCA must be read in the light of that Convention.
(iv) The Convention recognises that the courts of state A may make an order purporting to vest in the authorities of state A property that is situated in state B in circumstances where the property is the proceeds of the criminal conduct of a defendant subject to the criminal jurisdiction of state A.
(v) The Convention provides that effect should be given to such an order by confiscation proceedings in state B at the request of state A.
(vi) The answer to the issue raised by the PFO appeal depends upon an analysis of both the scheme and the language of POCA considered in the light of the Convention
(vii) Parts 2, 3 and 4 of POCA provide for (a) the imposition in personam of obligations in respect of property worldwide; (b) measures in rem to secure and realise property within the United Kingdom; and (c) requests to be made to other states to take such measures in respect of property within their territories.
(viii) Part 5 of POCA makes provision for in rem proceedings in respect of property within the United Kingdom but not outside it.
(ix) The scheme of POCA, as described above, accords with arrangements made by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005 (SI 2005/3181) (‘the Order’) for giving effect to requests from other states in relation to the confiscation of the proceeds of crime.
(x) The scheme of POCA as described above also accords with the requirements of a coherent international scheme for confiscation of the proceeds of crime and with principles of public international law. The converse is the case if SOCA’s submissions as to the extraterritorial effect of Part 5 are correct.
(xi) Section 286 is an anomalous enigma and cannot justify giving the provisions of POCA that relate to the rest of the United Kingdom a meaning different from that which they would bear in the absence of section 286.
(xii) For all these reasons the PFO appeal should be allowed.’
Sir Anthony Hughes said: ‘What cannot, as it seems to me, be the correct construction is that, as SOCA was obliged to submit, it has jurisdiction to seek a (mandatory) civil recovery order over property in China which is the product of a crime committed in China by an offender who has never left that country.’

Court: SC
Date: 25-Jul-2012
Judges: Lord Phillips, President, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Judge, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Sir Anthony Hughes
Statutes: Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, 1990 Strasbourg Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime
Links: Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC,
References: [2012] UKSC 35, UKSC 2010/0182, [2012] 5 Costs LO 668, [2012] 3 WLR 379, [2012] WLR(D) 238
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Criminal Practice, International, Jurisdiction

Faraday Reinsurance Co Ltd -v- Howden North America Inc and Another; CA 20-Jul-2012

Court: CA
Date: 20-Jul-2012
Judges: Ward, Longmore LJJ, Sir Stephen Sedley
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] EWCA Civ 980,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp and Others -v- Recoletos Ltd and Others; ComC 12-Jul-2012

The seventh defendant sought to be excused from the case denying the court’s jurisdiction. He had been a director.

Court: ComC
Date: 12-Jul-2012
Judges: Teare J
Statutes: Brussels Regulation
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] EWHC 1887 (Comm),
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Folien Fischer Ag & Another -v- Ritrama Spa; ECJ 19-Apr-2012

ECJ (Opinion) Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Special grounds of jurisdiction – Matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict – Meaning – Action for a negative declaration (negative Feststellungsklage) – Right of a potential injuring party to sue the party potentially injured in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur in order to obtain a declaration as to the non-existence of liability in tort.

Court: ECJ
Date: 19-Apr-2012
Judges: Askinen AG
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 5(3)
Links: Bailii,
References: C-133/11, [2012] EUECJ C-133/11
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Jurisdiction

Commission -v- Cyprus (Jurisdiction And The Enforcement Of Judgments In Civil And Commercial Matters); ECJ 15-Mar-2012

ECJ Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Public notification of legal documents – Lack of known domicile or place of abode of the defendant in the territory of a Member State – Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ – Infringement of the right to protection of personality liable to have been committed by the publication of photographs on the internet – Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur

Court: ECJ
Date: 15-Mar-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: C-292/10, [2012] EUECJ C-292/10

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Jurisdiction

Weston -v- Bates and Another; QBD 15-Mar-2012

The claimant was asked to decide whether the claim papers had been properly served on the frst defendant who was resident in Monaco.

Court: QBD
Date: 15-Mar-2012
Judges: Tugendhat H
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] EWHC 590 (QB),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Defamation, Jurisdiction

VTB Capital Plc -v- Nutritek International Corp and Others; CA 20-Jun-2012

The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for resolution of VTB’s tort claims, and nor that there was a proper basis for piercing the corporate veil. The parties were all based abroad, and only the initiation of the alleged fraud had occurred here.
Held: The appeal failed. The burden was on the claimant to persuade the court that England is clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum. The claimant would not be given leave to serve the documents outside the jurisdiction, and nor had it been shown to warranted to pierce the corporate veil.

Court: CA
Date: 20-Jun-2012
Judges: Lloyd, Rimer, Aikens LJJ
Links: Bailii, WLRD,
References: [2012] EWCA Civ 808, [2012] WLR(D) 181, [2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep 313, [2012] 2 CLC 431, [2012] 2 BCLC 437
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Company, Jurisdiction, Torts - Other

eDate Advertising GmbH -v- X; ECJ 25-Oct-2011

ECJ Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Jurisdiction

Court: ECJ
Date: 25-Oct-2011
Judges: President V Skouris
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, Directive 2000/31/EC
Links: Bailii, WLRD,
References: [2011] EUECJ C-161/10, C-509/09, C-161/10, [2011] WLR (D) 330
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Human Rights, Jurisdiction

VTB Capital Plc -v- Nutritek International Corp and Others; ChD 29-Nov-2011

The appellant bank had granted very substantial lending facilities to the defendant companies, and now alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. The defendants now sought to have the service set aside. The claimants also sought permission to amend the pleadings to set aside the veil of incorporation to add three further defendants.
Held: Leave was set aside. The application to amend was refused. The evidence did not establish a real risk of dissipation of assets by the fourth defendant and the original order was tainted by material non-disclosure by the claimant to the court.

Court: ChD
Date: 29-Nov-2011
Judges: Arnold J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2011] EWHC 3107 (Ch),
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Company, Jurisdiction, Torts - Other

Lucasfilm Ltd and Others -v- Ainsworth and Another; SC 27-Jul-2011

The claimant had produced the Star War films which made use of props, in particular a ‘Stormtrooper’ helmet designed by the defendant. The defendant had then himself distributed models of the designs he had created. The appellant obtained judgment against the respondent in the US for punitive damages, but these had not been collected, and the courts below had declared then unenforceable here.
Held: The judgment as to the applicability of English copyright below was upheld insofar as the helmets were not sculptures. It would be inappropriate to stray too far from what would normally be regarded as a sculpture. Not every three dimensional representation of a concept qualifies. The helmet remained a utilitarian item, even though it had a clear role in an artistic work, the film.
However the US judgment was justiciable here. English courts have jurisdiction to entertain claims in relation to infringement of foreign copyrights where there is a basis for in personam jurisdiction for those courts over a defendant: ‘in the case of a claim for infringement of copyright of the present kind, the claim is one over which the English court has jurisdiction, provided that there is a basis for in personam jurisdiction over the defendant, or, to put it differently, the claim is justiciable. It is clear that much of the underpinning of the Mocambique rule and the decision in Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd has been eroded. All that is left of the Mocambique rule (except to the extent that it is modified by the Brussels I Regulation) is that there is no jurisdiction in proceedings for infringement of rights in foreign land where the proceedings are ‘principally concerned with a question of the title, or the right to possession, of that property.’ So also article 22(1) of the Brussels I Regulation does not apply to actions for damages for infringement of rights in land.’

Court: SC
Date: 27-Jul-2011
Judges: Lord Phillips, President, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Collins
Statutes: Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 4 51 52, Copyright (Industrial Process and Excluded Articles) (No 2) Order 1989 (SI 1989/1070)
Links: Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary,
References: [2011] 3 WLR 487, [2011] FSR 41, [2011] Bus LR 1211, [2011] UKSC 39, UKSC 2010/0015, [2011] 4 All ER 817, [2011] FSR 41, [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 1011, [2012] 1 AC 208, [2012] EMLR 3,, [2011] ECDR 21
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property, Jurisdiction

Parker -v- Schuller; CA 1901

The plaintiffs had obtained leave to serve a writ out of the jurisdiction under Order 11, r 1(e) of the RSC on the ground that the claim was for breach of a contract within the jurisdiction. The breach alleged was of a CIF contract, and the allegation was that the contract was broken by reason of a failure to deliver in Liverpool the goods that were the subject of the contract. Leave was given ex parte and upheld inter partes. The plaintiffs now conceded that the way that their claim had been advanced had been misconceived in that a CIF contract involves an obligation to deliver documents, not the goods to which the documents relate. The plaintiffs tried to persuade the Court to uphold the leave given to serve out on the basis of substituting for the original claim a claim for failure to deliver the relevant documents in Liverpool.
Held: Permission was refused. A L Smith MR said: ‘It was not until the case came into this Court that the plaintiff set up another cause of action. That could not be allowed.’
Collins LJ said: ‘an application for leave to issue a writ for service out of the jurisdiction ought to be made with great care and looked at strictly. If a material representation upon which the leave was obtained in the first instance turned out to be unfounded, the plaintiff ought not to be allowed . . to set up another and a distinct cause of action which was not before the Judge upon the original application. It was clear from the affidavit that the only case made on the original application was that the defendants were bound to deliver the goods in this country, and that there was a breach of that contract here, and upon that representation alone leave was originally granted to issue the writ and serve notice thereof abroad.’
Romer LJ said: ‘an application for leave to issue a writ for service out of the jurisdiction ought to be made with great care and looked at strictly. If a material representation upon which the leave was obtained in the first instance turned out to be unfounded, the plaintiff ought not to be allowed, when an application was made by the defendant to discharge the order for the issue of the writ and the service, to set up another and a distinct cause of action which was not before the judge upon the original application.’

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1901
Judges: A L Smith MR, Collins, Romer LJJ
References: (1901) 17 TLR 299,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Waterhouse -v- Reid; 1938

The court has no power to make orders against persons outside its territorial jurisdiction unless authorised by statute and that there is no inherent extra-territorial jurisdiction.

Date: 01-Jan-1938
Judges: Greer LJ
References: [1938] 1 KB 743, [1938] 1 All ER 235
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

NML Capital Ltd -v- Argentina; SC 6-Jul-2011

The respondent had issued bonds but in 2001 had declared a moratorium on paying them. The appellant hedge fund later bought the bonds, heavily discounted. Judgment was obtained in New York, which the appellants now sought to enforce against assets in the UK. They argued that the terms of issue waived state immunity.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The respondent, under section 31 of the 1982 Act had submitted to the jurisdiction and had waived immunity by its actions. The doctrine of state immunity had over many years come to be restricted, and the 1978 Act now contained a complete statement of the law. Immunity remains, but does not attach to a sovereign authority’s commercial activities.
The phrase ‘proceedings relating to a commercial transaction’ was to be given a broad rather than narrow meaning.

Court: SC
Date: 06-Jul-2011
Judges: Lord Phillips, President Lord Walker Lord Mance Lord Collins Lord Clarke
Statutes: Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, State Immunity Act 1978, Civil Procedure Rules 6.20(9)
Links: Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC,
References: [2011] UKSC 31, UKSC 2010/0040
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under International, Jurisdiction

Brown and Others -v- Innovatorone Plc and Others; ComC 28-Jul-2010

The claimants alleged breach of trust by the defendants in their promotion of an investment scheme which went on to fail. One defendant, a Swiss bank now sought a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction over it.
Held: The defendant’s application succeeded: ‘t has not been established that the claims sought to be made against MFC are so closely connected with the claims made against the other defendants in these proceedings that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. Accordingly, the requirements of Article 6(1) have not been shown to be satisfied and jurisdiction must be declined. ‘

Court: ComC
Date: 28-Jul-2010
Judges: Hamblen J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] EWHC 2281 (Comm), [2011] ILPr 9
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Mujur Bakat Sdn Bhd and Another -v- Uni Asia General Insurance Berhad and Others; ComC 18-Mar-2011

Eder J said: ‘in considering whether or not England is the most appropriate forum, it is necessary to have in mind the overall shape of any trial and, in particular what are, or what are at least likely to be, the issues between the parties and which will ultimately be required to be determined at any trial. These were originally set out in two letters’

Court: ComC
Date: 18-Mar-2011
Judges: Eder J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2011] EWHC 643 (Comm), [2011] Lloyd's Rep IR 465
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Insurance, Jurisdiction

AK Investment CJSC -v- Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd and Others; PC 10-Mar-2011

(Isle of Man) The parties were all based in Kyrgyzstan, but the claimant sought a remedy in the Isle of Man which would be unavailable iin Kyrgyzstan.
Held: Lord Collins said: ‘The general rule is that it is not normally appropriate in a summary procedure (such as an application to strike out or for summary judgment) to decide a controversial question of law in a developing area, particularly because it is desirable that the facts should be found so that any further development of the law should be on the basis of actual and not hypothetical facts: e.g. Lonrho Plc. v. Fayed [1992] 1 A.C. 448 , 469 (approving Dyson v Att-Gen [1911] 1 KB 410, 414: summary procedure ‘ought not to be applied to an action involving serious investigation of ancient law and questions of general importance …’); X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633 at 741 (‘Where the law is not settled but is in a state of development . . it is normally inappropriate to decide novel questions on hypothetical facts’); Barrett v Enfield London BC [2001] 2 AC 550, 557 (strike out cases); Home and Overseas Insurance Co. Ltd. v Mentor Insurance Co. (U.K.) Ltd. [1990] 1 WLR 153 (summary judgment). In the context of interlocutory injunctions, in the famous case of American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396, 407 it was held that the court must be satisfied that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious, in other words, that there is a serious question to be tried. It was no part of the court’s function ‘to decide difficult questions of law which call for detailed argument and mature consideration.’ . . In Seaconsar Far East Ltd. v Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran [1994] 1 AC 438, 452, Lord Goff said that if, at the end of the day, there remained a substantial question of fact or law or both, arising on the facts disclosed by the affidavits, which the plaintiff bona fide desired to try, the court should, as a rule, allow the service of the writ. The standard of proof in respect of the cause of action could broadly be stated to be whether, on the affidavit evidence before the court, there was a serious question to be tried . . There is no reason why the same principle should not apply to the question whether, in a service out of the jurisdiction case . . a claim is ‘bound to fail’ as well as to the question whether there is a ‘serious issue to be tried’ . .’
Lord Collins of Mapesbury set out the three principles applicable; first, the claimant must satisfy the court that, in relation to the foreign defendant to be served with the proceedings, there is a serious issue to be tried on the merits of the claim, ie a substantial question of fact or law or both. There has to be a real, as opposed to a fanciful, prospect of success on the claim. Secondly, the claimant must show a good arguable case that the claim against the foreign defendant falls within one or more of the classes of case for which leave to serve out of the jurisdiction may be given. ‘Good arguable case’ means that the claimant has a much better argument than the foreign defendant. Where a question of law arises in connection with a dispute about service out of the jurisdiction and that question of law goes to the existence of the jurisdiction then the court will normally decide the question of law, as opposed to seeing whether there is a good arguable case on that issue of law. Thirdly, the claimant must satisfy the court that in all the circumstances England is clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for the trial of the dispute and that in all the circumstances the court ought to exercise its discretion to permit service of the proceedings out of the jurisdiction.

Court: PC
Date: 10-Mar-2011
Judges: Lord Phillips, Lord Mance, Lord Collins, Lord Kerr, Lord Dyson
Links: Bailii,
References: [2011] UKPC 7, [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 319, [2011] 1 CLC 205, [2012] 1 WLR 1804, [2011] 4 All ER 1027
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth, Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Cairns -v- Modi; QBD 10-Nov-2010

Tugendhat J said: ‘A claimant’s primary concern in a libel action is vindication, not damages for what has been suffered in the past. So the damage that has occurred before the action is brought may not give an indication of the importance of the claim. Vindication includes a retraction, or a verdict for the claimant, or a judgment to the effect that the allegation complained of is false . .’

Court: QBD
Date: 10-Nov-2010
Judges: Tugendhat J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] EWHC 2859 (QB),
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Defamation, Jurisdiction

UBS Ag, London Branch and Another -v- Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig Gmbh; ComC 15-Oct-2010

The defendant asked the court to decline jurisdiction.

Court: ComC
Date: 15-Oct-2010
Judges: Gloster DBE J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] EWHC 2566 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Football Dataco Ltd and Others -v- Sportradar Gmbh and Another; ChD 17-Nov-2010

The claimants complained of alleged breach of database rights claimed by the claimants in their lists of football match schedules.

Court: ChD
Date: 17-Nov-2010
Judges: Floyd J
Statutes: Directive 96/9/EC on the Legal Protection of Databases
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] EWHC 2911 (Ch), [2011] ECDR 2, [2011] FSR 10, [2011] ECC 16
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Intellectual Property, Jurisdiction

Sebastian Holdings Inc -v- Deutsche Bank Ag; CA 20-Aug-2010

The court was asked as to the appropriate jurisdiction for settlement of contract disputes between the parties.

Court: CA
Date: 20-Aug-2010
Judges: Mummery, Thomas, Pitchford LJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] EWCA Civ 998,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Depfa Bank Plc -v- Provincia Di Pisa; ComC 25-May-2010

Court: ComC
Date: 25-May-2010
Judges: Hamblen J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] EWHC 1148 (Comm), [2010] 2 CLC 478, [2010] ILPr 51

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Cecil and Others -v- Bayat and Others; ComC 29-Mar-2010

The defendants sought to set aside an order allowing service out of the jurisdiction pleading forum non conveniens.

Court: ComC
Date: 29-Mar-2010
Judges: Hamblen J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] EWHC 641 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Sheppard and Another, Regina -v-; CACD 29-Jan-2010

The defendants appealed against their convictions for publishing racially inflammatory material. They skipped bail during the trial, were convicted in their absence, and returned after being refused asylum in the US. The convictions related to materials published on their website which was hosted in the USA. It included materials calculated to create hatred of Jewish and black people. The defendants argued that the court did not have jurisdiction because the site were hosted in the US.
Held: The materials were created in the UK and were intended to be seen by people in the UK and offered re-distribution of printed material from the UK. The ‘substantial measure’ test was correctly applied in the context of the 1986 Act: “Whilst in 1986 the world-wide web was a thing of the future and computers were in their infancy it seems to us clear that “written material” is plainly wide enough to cover the material disseminated by the website in the present case. The judge took the same view. He said that what was on the computer screen was first of all in writing or written and secondly that the electronically stored data which is transmitted also comes within the definition of written material because it is written material stored in another form.”

Court: CACD
Date: 29-Jan-2010
Judges: Lord Justice Scott Baker, Mr Justice Penry-Davey and Mr Justice Cranston
Statutes: Public Order Act 1986 19(1)
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] EWCA Crim 65, [2010] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 68, [2010] 1 Cr App R 26, [2010] 1 WLR 2779, [2010] 2 All ER 850, [2010] Crim LR 720
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Crime, Jurisdiction

Apostolides -v- Orams and Others; CA 19-Jan-2010

The claimant had obtained an order in the Nicosia in the Republic of Cyprus and sought to enforce it in the UK court. The High court declined, and it was referred to the ECJ which in turn found that it could be registered. The defendant now challenged that decision saying that the court’s presiding judge had been Greek, and had associated with the President of the Republic of Cyprus which was not recognised, and that therefore the court was biased against him.
Held: The order should be registered for enforcement. There was a need to support the international public policy promoting peace in Cyprus, and no rule of public policy against recognising judgements of its courts. There was no appearance of bias either in the nationality of the judge or in the company he kept, particularly given the circumstances of the meeting.

Court: CA
Date: 19-Jan-2010
Judges: Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Lloyd and Sir Paul Kennedy
Statutes: Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of December 22, 2000, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
Links: Bailii, Times,
References: [2010] EWCA Civ 9, [2010] 1 All ER (Comm) 992, [2011] QB 519, [2011] 2 WLR 324, [2010] Eu LR 435, [2010] 4 EG 112, [2010] ILPr 20
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Jurisdiction

Moore -v- Moore; CA 21-Oct-2009

Court: CA
Date: 21-Oct-2009
Judges: Thorpe, Wall LJJ, Coleridge J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2009] EWCA Civ 1427, [2010] 1 FLR 1413, [2010] Fam Law 443, [2010] Fam Law 335

Leave a Comment

Filed under Family, Jurisdiction

Kinnear and Others -v- Falconfilms Nv and Others; QBD 27-Jan-1994

The deceased had died in an accident whilst filming in Spain for the defendants. The plaintiff personal representatives sought damages here, while the defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction under the 1968 Convention, and said that the death actually occurred as a consequence of the negligence of his medical treatment in Spain.

Court: QBD
Date: 27-Jan-1994
Judges: Phillips J
Statutes: Brussels Convention on Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments 1968, Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 1, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
Links: Bailii,
References: [1994] EWHC QB 1, [1996] 1 WLR 920, [1994] ILPr 731, [1994] 3 All ER 42
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction, Personal Injury

Choudhary and Others -v- Bhatter and Others; CA 11-Nov-2009

The parties disputed matters within a company in India. The defendant appealed against an order under which the court had accepted jurisdiction.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The opening words of article 22 giving jurisdiction ‘regardless of domicile’ were not intended to apply to the courts of a member state, such as Denmark, which was not bound by the regulation; and therefore the direction was not intended to apply as between the courts of member states and the courts of non-member states. The proper venue was India.

Court: CA
Date: 11-Nov-2009
Judges: Ward LJ, Stanley Burnton LJ, Sir John Chadwick
Statutes: Council Regulation 44/2001/EC (OJ January 16, 2001 L12/1) 22
Links: Times, Bailii, WLRD,
References: [2009] EWCA Civ 1176, [2009] WLR (D) 326
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Company, European, Jurisdiction

Knight -v- Axa Assurances; QBD 24-Jul-2009

The claimant was injured in a car accident in France. The defendant insurer said that the quantification of damages was to be according to French law and the calculation of interest also. The claimant said that English law applied.
Held: The assessment of damages is a procedural matter, and is governed by the law of the forum in which the case is brought. Articles 9(1)(b) and 11(2) of Brussels I (Council Regulation 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters) entitle an injured party to sue an insurer direct on matters relating to insurance, in the place where the injured party is domiciled, provided that direct action is permitted under national law. Both French and English law are potentially relevant to the award of pre-judgment interest on those damages, depending on the facts. Damages are to be assessed by reference to English Law.

Court: QBD
Date: 24-Jul-2009
Judges: Sharp J
Statutes: Brussels I (Council Regulation 44/2001, Supreme Court Act 1981 35A
Links: Bailii,
References: [2009] EWHC 1900 (QB), [2009] Lloyd's Rep IR 667
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Damages, Jurisdiction, Personal Injury

Dubai Bank Ltd -v- Abbas and Another; CA 17-Jul-1996

The defendant sought to set aside service of a claim outside the jurisdiction, saying that no good and arguable case had been made out that he was domiciled in the UK. The bank said that he owned a house in London.
Held: Although domicile is defined in terms of ‘residence’, this concept must be construed in accordance with its ordinary meaning and connotes a settled or usual place of abode. There was no evidence to rebut the Defendant’s claim that he usually stayed with friends or in a hotel. There was thus no ‘good arguable case’ that he owned a property here or that he was registered as an occupier for any purpose.

Court: CA
Date: 17-Jul-1996
Judges: Simon Brown, Saville, Aldous LJJ
Statutes: Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 41 42 43 44 45 46
Links: Bailii,
References: [1997] ILPr 308, [1996] EWCA Civ 1342
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction