Robinson v Bland: 1760

The plaintiff brought an action on a bill of exchange given in Paris in payment of gaming debts. By English law the debt was unenforceable but the plaintiff alleged that in France the debt could be enforced in a Court of Honour.
Held: Wilmot J: ‘I cannot help thinking, that where a person appeals to the law of England, he must take his remedy according to the law of England, to which he has appealed.’

Judges:

Wilmot J

Citations:

(1760) 2 Burr 1077

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHarding v Wealands HL 5-Jul-2006
Claim in UK for Accident in Australia
The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Jurisdiction, Contract

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.242984

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.’

Judges:

Lord Brougham

Citations:

(1837) 5 Cl and F 1

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

CitedDe la Vega v Vianna 1830
The plaintiff, a Spaniard, had the Portuguese defendant, arrested in England for non-payment of a debt contracted in Portugal. The defendant claimed to be released on the ground that in Portugal imprisonment for debt had been abolished in 1774.

Cited by:

CitedHarding v Wealands HL 5-Jul-2006
Claim in UK for Accident in Australia
The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.242982

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.

Judges:

Males J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 3704 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.538688

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.’

Judges:

Cozens-Hardy LJ

Citations:

[1907] 1 KB 853

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAshton Investments Ltd. and Another v OJSC Russian Aluminium (Rusal) and others ComC 18-Oct-2006
The claimants sought damages for breach of confidence saying that the defendants had hacked into their computer systems via the internet to seek privileged information in the course of litigation. The defendants denied this and said the courts had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Jurisdiction

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.245759

Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott: ComC 6 Nov 2008

Challenge to jurisdiction of arbitration proceedings.

Judges:

Teare J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2684 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoEmmott v Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd CA 12-Mar-2008
The court considered the implication of the obligation of confidentiality in banking contracts or in arbitration agreements. It is ‘really a rule of substantive law masquerading as an implied term’. . .

Cited by:

See AlsoEmmott v Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd ComC 12-Jan-2009
The claimant, a party to an arbitration, sought first an order requiring the defendant to comply with an order made by the arbitrator for the transfer of certain shares, and second an asset freezing order.
Held: The conditions for a peremptory . .
See AlsoMichael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott ComC 8-Jun-2011
The claimant challenged an arbitration award made concerning the agreement under which the defendant had been admitted to partnership. MWP contended that the Tribunal were guilty of a large number of serious irregularities in their conduct of the . .
See AlsoMichael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others ComC 21-Sep-2012
The claimant company alleged that the defendants had variously received assests (shares and cash) acquired by a former partner in the claimant company and held on his behalf, in breach of his obligations to the caimant partnership. The defendants . .
See AlsoMichael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others CA 16-Jan-2013
Application to stay order for costs. . .
See AlsoMichael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others CA 23-Jul-2015
. .
See AlsoMichael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott CA 14-Oct-2015
Appeal against a finding that payments made by the appellant were made in the ordinary course of business and not in breach of a freezing injunction. . .
See AlsoMichael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott CA 11-Dec-2015
The court considered a residual jurisdiction to set aside an arbitrator’s award after a first appeal. . .
See AlsoEmmott v Michael Wilson and Partners ComC 24-Nov-2016
Application for an anti-suit injunction against the defendant to restrain it from taking any further steps in ongoing proceedings in New South Wales and from commencing or pursuing any other substantive claims against the claimant on the ground that . .
See AlsoMichael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Another CA 13-Jan-2017
The appellant company sought to recover assets which, it said, had been acquired by a former partner in breach of his obligations under the partnership agreement, but which had been taken in the names of some of the respondents. There had been an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Arbitration

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277570

Youell and others v La Reunion Aerienne and others: ComC 22 Oct 2008

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2493 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromYouell and others v La Reunion Aerienne and others CA 11-Mar-2009
The parties disputed whether the court had jurisdiction. The defendant insurer argued that parallel issues had been referred to arbitration in France.
Held: the claim was outside the range of the arbitration agreement, and a stay, which would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Jurisdiction

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277340

Global Multimedia International Ltd v ARA Media Services and Others: ChD 21 Jul 2006

The defendant sought to resist the jurisdiction of the court, and said that employees had been in breach of duties implied into their employment contracts.
Held: A party seeking to rely upon a foreign law had a duty to specify which law was to be applied, and provide supporting confirmation. Foreign law is generally a matter of fact to be pleaded and proved by the party seeking to rely upon it.

Judges:

Sir Andrew Morritt Ch

Citations:

Times 01-Aug-2006, [2006] EWHC 3612 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAscherberg, Hpwood and Crew Ltd v Casa Musicale Sonzogno di Petro Ostall SNC 1971
A party seeking to rely upon foreign law has a duty to plead it. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.244187

Dexter Ltd (In Administrative Receivership) v Harley: ChD 2 Apr 2001

Money was transferred wrongfully out of the company, and then on again into the hands of the respondent. She received the money, and knew of its fraudulent provenance, but all her acts were committed outside the jurisdiction.
Held: It was not sufficient that the original act in breach of trust occurred within the jurisdiction, the claimant had to show that some act of the defendant had occurred here, if she was to be sued here.

Citations:

Times 02-Apr-2001

Statutes:

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1968) (Cmnd 7395)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Trusts, Banking, Jurisdiction

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.79951

Allianz Spa (Anciennement Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta) v West Tankers Inc (Judgments Convention/Enforcement of Judgments) (‘the Front Comor’): ECJ 4 Sep 2008

Europa (Opinion) Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 Scope Arbitration Order restraining a person from commencing or continuing proceedings before the national courts of another Member State instead of before an arbitral body (anti-suit injunction).
The court discussed the principal of mutual trust: ‘Having regard to the principle of mutual trust referred to above, the court has stated that the court of the state addressed is never in a better position than the court of the state of origin to determine whether the latter has jurisdiction. Accordingly, Regulation 44/2001, apart from a few limited exceptions, does not authorise the jurisdiction of a court of a member state to be reviewed by a court in another member state ( Allianz SpA, at para 29 and the case law cited). Therefore, article 31(3) of the CMR can be applied in the European Union only if it enables the objectives of the free movement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and of mutual trust in the administration of justice in the European Union to be achieved under conditions at least as favourable as those resulting from the application of Regulation 44/2001.’

Citations:

C-185/07, [2008] EUECJ C-185/07 – O, [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 661

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

At House of LordsWest Tankers Inc v Ras Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta Spa and others (The Front Comor) HL 21-Feb-2007
A ship had foundered, and the owners disputed their insurance claim. The policy provided for arbitration in London, and one party sought an order to prevent the other commencing proceedings in another EU state in breach of the arbitration agreement. . .
At High CourtWest Tankers Inc v Ras Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta Spa and Another (‘The Front Comor’) ComC 21-Mar-2005
Appeal against anti-suit order. The court ordered that since the question of whether an anti-suit injunction could be made to restrain proceedings abroad had been decided in Through Transport, that issue could go straight to the House of Lords. . .

Cited by:

OpinionAllianz Spa (Anciennement Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta) v West Tankers Inc (‘the Front Comor’) ECJ 10-Feb-2009
ECJ (Judgment) A West Tankers ship damaged a jetty in Syracuse. An agreement provided for an arbitration in London. The insurers having paid out brought a subrogated action in Italy. West Tankers sought an order . .
CitedBritish American Tobacco Denmark A/S v Kazemier Bv SC 28-Oct-2015
One container loaded with cigarettes was allegedly hi-jacked in Belgium en route between Switzerland and The Netherlands in September 2011, while another allegedly lost 756 of its original 1386 cartons while parked overnight contrary to express . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.273206

Cook Industries Inc v Galliher: ChD 1979

The plaintiff claimed a declaration that the defendants held a flat in Paris together with its contents in trust for the plaintiff, and made an order compelling the defendants to allow the plaintiff to inspect the flat. The fact that the subject-matter of the alleged trust was situate in France, a civil law country, was no bar to the jurisdiction.

Judges:

Templeman J

Citations:

[1979] Ch 439

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAkers and Others v Samba Financial Group SC 1-Feb-2017
Saad Investments was a Cayman Islands company in liquidation. The liquidator brought an action here, but the defendant sought a stay saying that another forum was clearly more appropriate. Shares in Saudi banks were said to be held in trust for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Jurisdiction

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.640397

Underwriting Members of Lloyd’s Syndicate 980 and others v Sinco Sa: ComC 29 Jul 2008

The claimants, insurers, relied upon an exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in a binder given to a Greek broker. It set England and Wales for any dispute. The insurers had terminated the binder alleging fraudulent conduct by the broker. A declaration and damages were sought, but proceedings had not served when the broker sued the insurers in Greece for ‘clientele compensation’ pursuant to statute and ‘financial and moral damages’. The insurers then amended their English claim to claim damages for breach of the exclusive jurisdiction clause and served the claim (as so amended) on the broker in Greece; the broker then sought a stay of the English proceedings.
Held: A stay was refused. The Greek claims were based on tort and statute while the English claims were for breach of the contract in the binder.

Judges:

Beatson J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1842 (Comm), [2009] Lloyd’s Rep IR 365

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001

Cited by:

CitedIn 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 . .
CitedStarlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine and Aviation Versicherungs Ag and Others CA 20-Dec-2012
The Alexander T, owned by the appellant and insured by the respondents was a total loss. The insurers resisted payment, the appellant came to allege improperly, and the parties had settled the claim on full payment under a Tomlin Order. The owners . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Jurisdiction, European

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271239

Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc and Others (No 3): ChD 1 Jul 1993

Bona fide chargees for value of shares situated in New York and held on trust for Macmillan were able, by application of New York law, to take the shares free of Macmillan’s prior equitable interest of which the chargees had had no notice. Where under the lex situs of the relevant trust property the effect of a transfer of the property by the trustee to a third party is to override any equitable interest which would otherwise subsist, that effect should be recognised as giving the transferee a defence to any claim by the beneficiary, whether proprietary or simply restitutionary.
Millett J said: ‘In order to ascertain the applicable law under English conflict of laws, it is not sufficient to characterise the nature of the claim: it is necessary to identify the question at issue . . Any claim, whether it be a claim that can be characterised as restitutionary or otherwise, may involve a number of issues which may have to be decided according to different issues of law. Thus it is necessary for the court to look at each issue and to decide the appropriate law to apply to the resolution of that dispute.’ and
‘The determination of a question of priority between competing claims to property is based on considerations of domestic legal policy, since it involves striking a balance between two competing desiderata, the security of title and the security of a purchase. A decision by an English court, based on English principles of conflict of laws, that the question should be determined by the application of the rules of a foreign law is also based on considerations of legal policy, albeit at a higher level of abstraction. It involves a policy decision, at the higher level, that the policy which has been adopted, at the lower level, by English law should not be applied because the considerations which led to its adoption in the domestic law are not relevant in the particular circumstances of the case; and to a policy decision, at a higher level, that the policy which has been adopted, at the lower level, by the foreign law should be applied in its stead. In my judgment there is or ought to be no scope for the doctrine of renvoi in determining a question of priority between competing claims to shares, and in the absence of authority which compels me to do so – and there is none – I am not willing to extend it to such a question’.
Millett J described the case of Norris v Chambres: ‘A suit in equity was instituted between two parties resident in England to enforce an equitable lien to land situate abroad. The court declined to entertain the suit. It held that, although a purchaser to whom land out of the jurisdiction of the court had been agreed to be sold by a person within the jurisdiction may obtain an order for specific performance against the vendor . . he cannot obtain an order against a third party to whom the vendor has conveyed the property even though such person took with notice of the contract and is within the jurisdiction. The case was treated as one of jurisdiction, but it would today more properly be regarded as one of choice of law; whether the claim be brought against the vendor himself or against his transferee, the plaintiff would be invoking the in personam jurisdiction of the court against a defendant who was amenable to that jurisdiction. The difference between the two cases is that in the second case there is no equity or privity between the parties which the court can enforce except such equity, if any, as may arise from the transferee’s notice; while the sufficiency of such notice to affect the transferee’s title is a matter for the lex situs. If, by that law, the transfer to the defendant extinguished the plaintiff’s interest notwithstanding the defendant’s notice, the plaintiff no longer has any proprietary interest upon which he can base his suit in England.’

Judges:

Millett J

Citations:

[1995] 1 WLR 978, [1995] 3 All ER 747

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ExplainedNorris v Chambres 1862
A company director had advanced part of a loan for the purchase of a mine in Prussia. He died, and because of lack of funds, his estate risked losing everything. His estate sought its recovery.
Held: ‘With respect to this advance, I think . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromMacmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc and Others (No 3) CA 2-Nov-1995
The question of ownership of a company is to be decided according to law of country where the company is incorporated. Conflict of laws rules are to be used to look to the issue in the case not the cause of action.
Staughton LJ said: ‘In any . .
CitedR Griggs Group Ltd and others v Evans and others (No 2) ChD 12-May-2004
A logo had been created for the claimants, by an independent sub-contractor. They sought assignment of their legal title, but, knowing of the claimant’s interest the copyright was assigned to a third party out of the jurisdiction. The claimant . .
CitedKnight 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 . .
Commented onGlencore International AG v Metro Trading International Inc and others ComC 1-Aug-2001
Under English conflicts of laws rules the transfer of title to movable property is governed by the law of the place where the property is situated.
Moore-Bick J commented obiter on a dictum of Millett J in Macmillan: ‘However, if the lex situs . .
CitedIran v Berend QBD 1-Feb-2007
The Republic of Iran sought the return of a fragment of ancient Achaemenid relief in the possession of the defendant, saying that it was part of an ancient monument. The defendant said that she had bought it properly at an auction in Paris. The . .
CitedAkers and Others v Samba Financial Group SC 1-Feb-2017
Saad Investments was a Cayman Islands company in liquidation. The liquidator brought an action here, but the defendant sought a stay saying that another forum was clearly more appropriate. Shares in Saudi banks were said to be held in trust for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.199522

Skatteverket v Gourmet Classic Ltd: ECJ 12 Jun 2008

Jurisdiction of the Court Directive 92/83/EEC Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages Article 20, first indent Alcohol contained in cooking wine Exemption from the harmonised duty
‘While the spirit of cooperation which must prevail in the exercise of the functions assigned by Article 234 EC to the national courts, on the one hand, and the Community judicature, on the other, requires the Court of Justice to have regard to the particular responsibilities of the national court, it implies at the same time that the national court, in the use which it makes of the possibilities offered by that article, must have regard to the particular function entrusted to the Court of Justice in this field, which is to assist in the administration of justice in the Member States and not to deliver advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions ‘

Judges:

K Lenaerts, P

Citations:

[2008] EUECJ C-458/06, [2008] 3 CMLR 13, EU:C:2008:338

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

OpinionSkatteverket v Gourmet Classic Ltd ECJ 3-Apr-2008
Europa (Taxation) (Opinion) Directive 92/83/EEC Excise duty Alcohol Cooking wine Article 234 EC Absence of a dispute Jurisdiction of the Court. . .

Cited by:

CitedWightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union ECJ 10-Dec-2018
Art 50 Notice withrawable unilaterally
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 50 TEU – Notification by a Member State of its intention to withdraw from the European Union – Consequences of the notification – Right of unilateral revocation of the notification – Conditions
The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Jurisdiction

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.631160

Greene Wood and Mclean v Templeton Insurance Ltd: ComC 10 Jul 2008

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

Judges:

Teare J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1593 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWilliams v Central Bank of Nigeria QBD 24-Jan-2012
The claimant asserted involvement by the defendant bank in a fraud perpetrated against him. Jurisdiction had already been admitted for one trust , and now the claimant sought to add two further claims.
Held: ‘None of the gateways to English . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270638

Comninos v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (The Ikarian Reefer no 2): CA 12 Oct 1999

Mr Comninos challenged the jurisdiction of the court to have made an order for costs made against him.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Waller LJ, Tuckey LJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 3019, [2000] 1 All ER 37, [1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 673, [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 129, [2000] 1 WLR 603, [2000] Lloyd’s Rep IR 230, [2000] CLC 22, [2000] 1 Costs LR 37, [2000] CP Rep 13, [2000] ILPr 490

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoThe Ikarian Reefer CA 1995
The court reversed the decision of the trial judge that the plaintiff insured shipowners had not deliberately scuttled their vessel or cast her away: ‘(1) The burden of showing that the trial Judge was wrong lies on the appellant . . (2) When . .
See AlsoNational Justice Compania Naviera S A v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (‘The Ikarian Reefer’) 1993
Cresswell J spoke of the nature of the duty owed by expert witnesses: ‘The duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses in civil cases include the following:

1. Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the . .

Cited by:

CitedMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside . .
CitedAB v CD QBD 3-Jan-2014
The parties were contracted to each other in respect of an internet based marketing system for metals and other resources. The claimant had contracted in effect to promote the system. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent termination of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs, Jurisdiction

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268839

Orams and Another v Apostolides: QBD 6 Sep 2006

The court was asked whether an English court can recognise and enforce an order of the court of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
Held: Judgements of the courts of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus were not enforceable in England. The Republic was not recognised either by the UK or by any other country save Turkey. Jack J said: ‘Just as the respondent could not rely on acquia against his own government . . He could not rely on the acquis against the appellants to enforce his judgment against them.’

Judges:

Jack J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2226 (QB), Times 22-Sep-2006, [2007] 1 WLR 241, [2007] 1 All ER (Comm) 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Treaty of Accession to the European Union 2003 1, Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of December 22, 2000, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At High CourtApostolides v Orams and Orams (Area Of Freedom, Security and Justice) ECJ 18-Dec-2008
Europa Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Application of the regulation to a judgment concerning land situated in an area of . .
Appeal FromApostolides 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.245095

Tavoulareas v Alexander G Tsavliris and Sons Maritime Company: ComC 24 Nov 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2643 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoTavoulareas v Tsavliris and others ComC 21-Mar-2003
. .
See AlsoTavoulareas v Tsavliris CA 5-Feb-2004
The court held that Greek proceedings required service for the purposes of establishing seisin, and therefore priority of jurisdiction. Mance LJ said: ‘Professor Antapassis says that, as a matter of Greek domestic law, the effect of art. 221 is that . .
See AlsoTavoulareas v Tsavliris and Another ComC 12-Oct-2005
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoTavoulareas v Tsavliris and others ComC 9-Mar-2006
Formal recognition of judgment from Greek court. . .
See AlsoTavoulareas v Tsavliris and Others (No 2) CA 5-Jan-2007
The claimant sought to enforce here a judgment obtained by default in a Greek court.
Held: The proceedings in Greece had not required service of the proceedings on the defendant, and judgment had been entered by default. An English court was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.235487

La Caisse Regional Du Credit Agricole Nord De France v Ashdown: QBD 15 Mar 2007

The defendant appealed an order for enforcement of a judgment obtained in France, saying that the order did not reflect or identify correctly the orders made.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 528 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.250623

Phillips and Another v Symes and others: HL 23 Jan 2008

Various parties had sought relief in the English courts and in Switzerland after an alleged fraud. There had been a mistake in service of the proceedings in England. The high court had dispensed with service an backdated the effect of the order to pre-date the Swiss proceedings. The court of appeal set aside the backdating of the order. The House was asked whether in the light of the Swiss proceedings, the English court should decline jurisdiction.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The court at first instance had not been backdating service but validating a defective service, and ‘the rule surely is that the English court is seised of proceedings at the date of effective service, whatever that date may eventually be declared to have been.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Mance

Citations:

[2008] UKHL 1, [2008] 2 All ER 537, [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 918, [2008] 1 WLR 180, [2008] 1 CLC 29, [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 344

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1988 21, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSiegfried Zelger v Sebastiano Salinitri ECJ 7-Jun-1984
Article 21 of the Convention of 28 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that the court ‘first seised’ is the one before which the requirements for proceedings to become definitively pending are first fulfilled, such requirements to be . .
CitedDresser UK v Falcongate Freight Management Ltd; The Duke of Yare CA 1992
In England the court was first seised of a matter at the point when the proceedings were served, not when they were issued. Article 21 was metaphorically described as a ‘tie-break rule’ which operates on the basis of strict chronological . .
CitedNeste Chemicals SA and Others v DK Line Sa and Another (‘The Sargasso’) CA 4-Apr-1994
An English Court becomes seised of a case on the service of the writ. Steyn LJ: ‘the general thrust of the Dresser UK Ltd case is not only binding on us but . . . is correct’. There were no ‘exceptions to the rule that date of service marks the time . .
At first instancePhillips, Harland (Suing As Administrators of the Estate of Christo Michailidis) v Symes (A Bankrupt), Nussberger, Galerie Nefer Ag, Geoff Rowley ChD 19-Aug-2005
The court allowed the appellant’s application to dispense with service of a claim form under the rule. The High Court became seised of the matter as at 19 January 2005. Further directions were given. . .
Appeal fromNussberger and Another v Phillips and Another (No 4) CA 19-May-2006
A claim was issued in London in December 2004, and then served in part in Switzerland in January 2005. One copy was removed from the bundle by a Swiss official, seeing that it had been marked ‘Nor for service out of the jurisdiction.’ That marking . .
CitedGolden Ocean Assurance Ltd v Martin (‘The Goldean Mariner’) CA 1990
Various defendants were served out of the jurisdiction but with the wrong copies of the writs, receiving a copy addressed to another defendant. One defendant received no writ at all, but only a form of acknowledgment of service.
Held: The . .
CitedKnauf 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 . .
See AlsoPhillips and Another v Robin James Symes and Robin Symes Ltd ChD 9-Jul-2001
English proceedings were issued to claim against a partnership. Simultaneously proceedings were issued in Greece, but the Greek proceedings were served on the London parties first. The plaintiffs in Greece asked the English court to issue a stay of . .
See AlsoPhillips v Symes CA 2003
Courts should be reluctant to exclude altogether evidence merely because it is written. If the purpose of the order sought was to trace assets it would be wrong to permit cross-examination which was designed to show that there had been a contempt of . .
See AlsoPhillips, Harland (Administrators of the Estate of Michailidis), Papadimitriou; Symes (A Bankrupt), Robin Symes Limited (In Administrative Receivership), Domercq etc ChD 30-Jul-2004
Under the Ciivil Procedure Rules, experts have acquired greater responsibilities to the court. Those responsibilities transcend their perceived obligations to the parties whom they give evidence. . .
CitedPhillips, Harland (Suing As Administrators of the Estate of Christo Michailidis), Papadimitriou v Symes (A Bankrupt) Robin Symes Limited (In Administrative Receivership) Jean-Louis Domercq ChD 20-Oct-2004
Dr Z had given expert evidence in the principal proceedings. It was now said that that evidence had not been given in the proper way, and a remedy was now sought in costs.
Peter Smith J had held that: ‘It seems to me that in the administration . .
See AlsoPhillips, Harland (Suing As Administrators of the Estate of Christo Michailidis), Papadimitriou v Symes (A Bankrupt) Robin Symes Limited (In Administrative Receivership) Jean-Louis Domercq etc ChD 20-Oct-2004
. .
See AlsoSymes v Phillips and others CA 6-May-2005
. .
See AlsoSymes v Phillips and others CA 19-May-2005
The applicant was in contempt of court. He successfully appealed a sentence of two years imprisonment, with the sentence being reduced to one year. Legally aided, he sought his costs from the claimant. The claimant replied that their part was only . .
See AlsoPhillips and Another v Symes and Others (No 6) CA 19-May-2006
Proceedings were issued in England for service on the defendant in Switzerland, but because of an error by the Swiss Court were not properly served. Proceedings were then issued in Sitzerland, and seisin was claimed for the Swiss Court. The claimant . .
See AlsoPhillips and others v Symes and others ChD 12-Jul-2006
. .
See AlsoPhillips and others v Symes and others ChD 16-Oct-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263818

Mora Shipping Inc v Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance Sa and others: CA 28 Jul 2005

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Neuberger

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1069

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromMora Shipping Inc v Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance S.A. and others ComC 16-Mar-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.229331

HC Trading Malta Ltd v Tradeland Commodities Sl: ComC 2 Jun 2016

Application by the defendant to set aside the claim for declaratory relief made against it by the claimant and/or to set aside service out of the jurisdiction.

Judges:

Waksman C HHJ

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1279 (Comm), [2016] WLR(D) 295

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Contract

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.565185

Watt (Formerly Carter) v Ahsan: HL 21 Nov 2007

The claimant was a Pakistani member of the Labour Party. He had sought selection as parliamentary candidate, but allegations had been made about behaviour of members in the Pakistani community in his ward and the local party had been suspended. A candidate was deliberately chosen who was not a member of that community. The claimant alleged racial discrimination, and began an action in the employment tribunal. After the tribunal had accepted jurisdiction, a later decision indicated that jurisdiction should have been declined. Nevertheless the tribunal rejected his claim.
Held: The action should indeed have been brought in the County Court. Section 12 did not apply to the party as it was not awarding a qualification or authorisation. Section 24 however did apply. The decision not to select candidates of Paksistani origin was simple discrimination, of the same sort as not employng a black member of staff because ‘customers will not like it.’ The issue is not whether there is a good reason for discrimination, but whether there has been discrimination.
A decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal as to the existence of its own jurisdiction created an issue estoppel between the parties to it.

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Carswell, ord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Citations:

[2007] UKHL 51, Times 27-Nov-2007, [2008] 1 AC 696, [2008] ICR 82, [2008] 1 All ER 869, [2008] IRLR 243, [2008] 2 WLR 17

Links:

Bailii, HL

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 12 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoTom Sawyer and All Other Members of the Labour Party v R Ahsan EAT 5-May-1999
EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction . .
See AlsoSawyer and others v Ahsan EAT 14-Jul-1999
. .
At EATCarter (Formerly McDonagh (General Secretary of, and on Behalf the Labour Party v Ahsan EAT 11-Feb-2004
EAT Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction . .
CitedAli and Another v Triesman (McDonagh) CA 7-Feb-2002
The applicants sought selection as candidates for the Labour Party. The respondent asserted that such issues were not ones of employment, and therefore not covered by the Act, and appealed a finding of the EAT against them.
Held: Sawyer was . .
Appeal fromAhsan v Carter CA 28-Jul-2005
The claimant sought to assert race discrimination by the Labour Party in not selecting him as a political candidate. The defendant, chairman of the party appealed.
Held: A political party when selecting candidates was not acting as a . .
CitedCarter v Ahsan EAT 21-Jun-2004
The claimant alleged discrimination in the failure to select him as a candidate. As a Pakistani, he was excluded by a decision not to select such a candidate for this constituency after allegations (later shown false) had been made against that . .

Cited by:

CitedSugar v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another HL 11-Feb-2009
The Corporation had commissioned a report as to its coverage of Middle East issues. The claimant requested a copy, and the BBC refused saying that the report having been obtained for its own journalistic purposes, and that it was not covered by the . .
CitedStockton on Tees Borough Council v Aylott EAT 11-Mar-2009
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Extension of time: just and equitable
2002 Act and pre-action requirements
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Disability related discrimination
Direct disability . .
DistinguishedDallah Estates and Tourism Holding Company v Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government Of Pakistan CA 20-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce an international arbitration award against the defendant in respect of the provision of accommodation for Hajj pilgrims. A without notice order had been made to allow its enforcement, but that had been set aside.
CitedFoster v Bon Groundwork Ltd EAT 17-Mar-2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
In April 2009, the Claimant, who was then 77 years of age, was employed by the Respondent, when he was laid off without pay. While still being employed by . .
CitedDN (Rwanda), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 26-Feb-2020
Challenge to imprisonment pending deportation of successful asylum applicant on release from prison after conviction of an offence specified under the 2004 Order as a particularly serious crime.
Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘The giving of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261585

Glencore International Ag v Exter Shipping Ltd and others: CA 18 Apr 2002

The court was asked whether there is jurisdiction in the English court to impose an anti-suit injunction against four foreign shipowners in respect of their complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The shipowners have participated in complex multi-party litigation in England, known as the Metro litigation, but they submit that, partly because their participation was always limited and partly because over time that participation has been still further eroded by settlement and discontinuance, the English court lacks jurisdiction to make the order complained of.

Judges:

Rix LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 528, [2002] CLC 1090, [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258651

AWB (Geneva) SA and Another v North America Steamships Ltd and Another: CA 18 Jul 2007

A swap agreement provided that pursuant to the ISDA Master Agreement, the agreement was governed by English law and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. The trustee of one of the parties brought statutory avoidance proceedings in Canada. The Court of Appeal refused to grant an anti-suit injunction, because the choice of law and choice of jurisdiction agreement did not apply to the insolvency proceedings. The proceedings in Canada did not relate to a dispute under the contract. They were part of insolvency proceedings. It was a matter for the Canadian Court to decide on the relief that it is prepared to grant within the scope of those proceedings as it is concerned with issues of insolvency and not with issues which relate to the contractual obligations under the agreement.

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, Latham LJ, Thomas LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 739, [2007] 2 Lloyds Rep 315

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromAWB Geneva Sa and Another v North America Steamships Ltd ComC 17-May-2007
Whether a party to a contract governed by English law and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English High Court can found on these provisions to restrain the counterparty’s foreign trustee in bankruptcy from seeking an order in foreign . .

Cited by:

CitedVizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and Another PC 3-Feb-2016
No Contractual Obligation to Try Case in New York
(Gibraltar) The appellant had invested in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff. They were repaid sums before the fund collapsed, and the trustees now sought repayment by way of enforcement of an order obtained in New York.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Contract, Insolvency

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254599

AWB Geneva Sa and Another v North America Steamships Ltd: ComC 17 May 2007

Whether a party to a contract governed by English law and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English High Court can found on these provisions to restrain the counterparty’s foreign trustee in bankruptcy from seeking an order in foreign insolvency proceedings that certain conditions precedent to liability under the contract should cease to apply.

Judges:

Field J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1167 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal fromAWB (Geneva) SA and Another v North America Steamships Ltd and Another CA 18-Jul-2007
A swap agreement provided that pursuant to the ISDA Master Agreement, the agreement was governed by English law and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. The trustee of one of the parties brought statutory avoidance . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Jurisdiction, Insolvency

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252439

Villiers v Villiers: SC 1 Jul 2020

Maintenance in England, divorce in Scotland

H disputed the right of W to seek maintenance before and English court, saying that the parties had mostly lived in Scotland, and the divorce was being conducted there.
Held: (Wilson, Hales LL dissenting) H’s appeal failed. The divorce and the maintenance action were distinct, and the European Regulations gave the England court jurisdiction.

Judges:

Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lady Black, Lord Sales

Citations:

[2020] UKSC 30, [2020] 2 FLR 917, [2020] 2 FCR 815, [2020] WLR(D) 391, [2021] 1 All ER 175

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD

Statutes:

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 27, Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Jurisdiction, European

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.652175

Butler v Butler: CA 6 Mar 1997

In divorce proceedings, the issue of forum conveniens is decided by the balance of fairness including convenience. In the end the judge’s discretion is bounded by the statutory considerations which rest upon an evaluation of fairness to the parties rather than upon a comparison of the competing jurisdictions, save insofar as the comparison relates to convenience of witnesses, delay and expense.

Citations:

Gazette 26-Mar-1997, Times 06-Mar-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 1049, [1998] 1 WLR 1208

Statutes:

Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 9(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoButler v Butler CA 5-Dec-1996
. .

Cited by:

CitedOtobo v Otobo; O v O (Appeal against Stay: Divorce Petition) CA 2-Jul-2002
The husband, a wealthy Nigerian had supported further traditional families outside the UK. The wife appealed a stay on her divorce petition. The husband argued that her habitual residence did not support jurisdiction. Agreed expert evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Jurisdiction

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.78784

Benatti v WPP Holdings Italy Srl and others: CA 28 Mar 2007

The parties had each begun proceedings in different jurisdictions within the European Union. They disputed which court was first seised.
Held: The issue was decided by looking at when, in each case, the document instituting the proceedings was first lodged at court. Different jurisdictions within the Union had different procedures, but article 30 of the Judgments Order applied to the UK. There was no injustice in applying that rule.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR explained at that WPP’s case was that the writ lodged with the relevant Italian body with a request for service on 1 February 2006 was never validly served on it both because the letter purporting to serve it was addressed to a different entity (WPP Group plc) and also because the addressee was entitled to refuse to accept it without a translation. The time for refusal was unspecified and it was submitted that it therefore remained open to the defendant (unless there had been a prior positive act of acceptance) to intimate its refusal as long as it remained open to it to contest the court’s jurisdiction under CPR 11. These technical nit-picking arguments were dismissed; Mr Benatti was not blameworthy and the errors were excused.

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Buxton LJ, Toulson LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 263, Times 16-Apr-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (OJ 2001 L12/1) 30(1) 30(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromWpp Holdings Italy Srl and others v Benatti ComC 18-Jul-2006
. .

Cited by:

CitedThum v Thum FC 21-Oct-2016
No abuse of process in service error
The husband claimed that the W was guilty of abuse of process by issuing the divorce petion, but then not serving it for many months in an attempt to gain a tactical jurisdictional advantage under Brussels II.
Held: H’s application was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.250577

Frankfurther v W L Exner Ltd: 1947

The court refused to give effect to an Austrian decree extending to moveables situated in this country because it was penal in nature.

Judges:

Romer J

Citations:

[1947] 1 Ch 629

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPeer International Corporation Southern Music Publishing Company Inc Peermusic (UK) Limited v Termidor Music Publishers Limited Termidor Musikverlag Gmbh and 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.186121

Shearson Lehman Hutton v Fur Vermogenswaltung and Betechigungen (TVB) mbH: ECJ 19 Jan 1993

ECJ Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Jurisdiction in proceedings concerning contracts concluded by consumers – Concept of ‘consumer’ – Plaintiff acting in pursuance of his trade or professional activity, as the assignee of the rights of a private individual – Excluded (Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 13, first para., and Art. 14, as amended by the 1978 Accession Convention)
The special system established by Article 13 et seq. of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters is inspired by the concern to protect the consumer, as the party deemed to be economically weaker and less experienced in legal matters than the other party to the contract, so that the consumer must not be discouraged from suing by being compelled to bring his action before the courts in the Contracting State in which the other party to the contract is domiciled. Those provisions affect only a private final consumer, not engaged in trade or professional activities, who is bound by one of the contracts listed in Article 13 and who is a party to the action, in accordance with Article 14. It follows that Article 13 of the Convention is to be interpreted as meaning that a plaintiff who is acting in pursuance of his trade or professional activity, and who is not, therefore, himself a consumer party to one of the contracts listed in the first paragraph of that provision, may not enjoy the benefit of the rules of special jurisdiction laid down by the Convention concerning consumer contracts.

Citations:

C-89/91, [1993] EUECJ C-89/91, [1993] ECR 1-139

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Lugano Convention

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedCanada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2) HL 12-Oct-2000
The plaintiffs alleged the involvement of the defendant in a conspiracy to defraud. He had been domiciled in England, but had moved to Germany. He denied that the UK court had jurisdiction. The court of appeal said that jurisdiction was determined . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.160677

Sandisk Corporation v Koninklijke Philips Electronics Nv and others: ChD 27 Feb 2007

The claimant sought damages for an alleged abuse of dominant market position by the defendants in its patent licensing. The defendant denied that the court had jurisdiction.
Held: An English court would have jurisdiction in such a case ony if the originating acts occurred here, of the damages substantially happened here.

Judges:

Pumfrey J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 332 (Ch), Times 27-Feb-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC Treaty 81 82

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction, European

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.249239

Ravennavi Spa v New Century Shipbuilding Company Ltd: CA 7 Feb 2007

Moore Bick LJ considered the interpretation of poorly drafted contracts and said: ‘Unless the dispute concerns a detailed document of a complex nature that can properly be assumed to have been carefully drafted to ensure that its provisions dovetail neatly, detailed linguistic analysis is unlikely to yield a reliable answer. It is far preferable, in my view, to read the words in question fairly as a whole in the context of the document as a whole and in the light of the commercial and factual background known to both parties in order to ascertain what they were intending to achieve.’

Judges:

Tuckey, Jacob, Moore-Bick LLJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 58, [2007] 1 CLC 176, [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 24, [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 756

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRavennavi Spa v New Century Shipbuilding Company Ltd ComC 4-Apr-2006
. .

Cited by:

CitedMulti-Link Leisure Developments Ltd v Lanarkshire Council SC 17-Nov-2010
The parties disputed the effect of an option clause in a lease, and particularly whether, when fixing the price, potential for development was to be included. The clause required the ‘full market value’ to be paid. The tenant appealed.
Held: . .
CitedGarratt v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd CA 13-Apr-2011
The claimant had been employed by the defendant. They made him redundant. He claimed and enhanced payment saying that his emloyment was covered by a collective agreement, but when he refused to sign a compromise agreement, the company paid him only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248385

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.

Judges:

Peter Jackson J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1190 (Fam), [2011] 2 FLR 778

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRapisarda 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.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.440084

The Mahkutai: PC 24 Apr 1996

(Hong Kong) The question was whether shipowners, who were not parties to the bill of lading contract between the charterers and carriers on the one part, and the cargo-owners, the bill of lading being a charterer’s bill, could enforce against the cargo-owners an exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in that contract.
Held: Ship owners may not rely on an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a charterer’s contract. They could not because the Himalaya clause in the bill of lading, which extended the benefit of all ‘exceptions, limitations, provision, conditions and liberties herein benefiting the carrier’ to ‘servants, agents and subcontractors of the carrier’ did not include the exclusive jurisdiction clause because an exclusive jurisdiction clause is a mutual agreement and does not benefit only one party. Rather the rights conferred entail correlative obligations. A contract (and in particular a Himalaya clause) must be construed to give commercial effect if possible.

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley

Citations:

Times 24-Apr-1996, [1996] AC 650, [1996] 3 WLR 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedNew Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v A M Satterthwaite and Co Ltd (The Eurymedon) PC 25-Feb-1974
The Board considered the extent to which an exclusion clause in a bill of lading could be relied on by the third party stevedore, an independent contractor employed by the carrier, who was sued by the consignees of goods for negligently damaging the . .

Cited by:

CitedHomburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (the ‘Starsin’) HL 13-Mar-2003
Cargo owners sought damages for their cargo which had been damaged aboard the ship. The contract had been endorsed with additional terms. That variation may have changed the contract from a charterer’s to a shipowner’s bill.
Held: The specific . .
CitedBorkan General Trading Ltd v Monsoon Trading Ltd CA 8-Jul-2003
A contract for a tug expressly provided a benefit for a third party. He now sought to claim benefit under it.
Held: If, in the absence of a trust in his favour a third party for whose benefit a contract had expressly been made, could not take . .
CitedNisshin Shipping Co Ltd v Cleaves and Company Ltd and others ComC 7-Nov-2003
One party sought a declaration that arbitrators should have no jurisdiction to determine claims for commission said to be due to the Respondent chartering brokers.
Held: Because he has in effect become a statutory assignee of the promisee’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Jurisdiction, Contract, Arbitration

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.89834

Distiller’s Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v Thompson: PC 19 Jan 1971

(Australia) There had been a negligent failure in New South Wales to warn a pregnant woman of the dangers of taking the drug thalidimide.
Held: When looking at jurisdiction to hear a complaint of a tort, the court should look to where in substance the tort was committed. Lord Pearson said: ‘It is not the right approach to say that, because there was no complete tort until the damage occurred, therefore the cause of action arose wherever the damage happened to occur. The right approach is, when the tort is complete, to look back over the series of events constituting it and ask the question: where in substance did this cause of action arise?’
and it was ‘manifestly just and reasonable that a defendant should have to answer for his wrongdoing in the country where he did the wrong’.

Judges:

Lord Pearson, Lord Reid, Lord Morris, Lord Upjohn, Lord Donovan

Citations:

[1971] AC 458, [1971] UKPC 3, [1971] 1 All ER 694, [1971] 2 WLR 441

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

New South Wales Common Law Procedure Act 1899 18(4)

Cited by:

CitedAshton Investments Ltd. and Another v OJSC Russian Aluminium (Rusal) and others ComC 18-Oct-2006
The claimants sought damages for breach of confidence saying that the defendants had hacked into their computer systems via the internet to seek privileged information in the course of litigation. The defendants denied this and said the courts had . .
CitedVTB 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Jurisdiction, Commonwealth

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245757

Islamic Republic of Pakistan v Zardari and others: ComC 6 Oct 2006

The claimant alleged that the defendants had funded the purchase of various properties by secret and unlawful commissions taken by them whilst in power in Pakistan. They sought to recover the proceeds. They now sought permission to serve proceedings on the defendant companies abroad, outside a Lugano Convention country.
Held: The claim should proced. ‘There are plainly serious issues here which it is reasonable for the court to try. There is a strong case that the refurbishment of the Rockwood Estate can be traced to corrupt payments.’ The extended notion of a trust set out in Nabb Brothers was incorrect.

Judges:

Lawrence Collins J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2411 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedGrant v Gold Exploration and Development Syndicate Ltd CA 1900
Secrecy is a badge of fraud. . .
CitedShahar v Tsitsekkos and others ChD 17-Nov-2004
The defendant wished to make a claim against another party outside the jurisdiction and was granted permission to serve documents which were headed ‘defence and counterclaim’. The proposed defendant argued that such a document could be served in . .
CitedIn Re Banco Nacional De Cuba ChD 7-Jun-2001
Where it was alleged that shares in a UK company had been sold at an undervalue, so as to allow a challenge in insolvency proceedings, the leave of the court was still required if the pleadings were to be served abroad. When the court considered . .
CitedAgip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson ChD 1990
The reference to ‘any wrongful act or omission’ in section 10 is not limited to torts or even to wrongs which were actionable at common law. ‘In paying or collecting money for a customer the bank acts only as his agent. It is otherwise, however, if . .
CitedLister and Co v Stubbs CA 1890
It was alleged by the plaintiffs that their foreman had received secret commissions which he had invested in land and other investments. They sought interlocutory relief to prevent him dealing with the land and requiring him to bring the other . .
CriticisedNabb Brothers Ltd v Lloyds Bank International (Guernsey) Ltd ChD 18-Mar-2005
It is not necessary that all the acts giving rise to liability occurred within the jurisdiction. . .
CitedNycal (UK) Ltd v Lacey 1994
. .
CitedMahesan v Malaysia Government Officers Co-operative Housing Society PC 1978
The appellant, the director and employee of a housing society was bribed by a real estate agent, one Manickam, and the appellant then caused the society to buy land at an overvalue. The agent was sued for money had and received (for the amount of . .
CitedMetal und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette Inc CA 27-Jan-1989
The claimants sued for negligent advice and secured judgment. The defendant company became insolvent, and so the plaintiff now sued the US parent company alleging conspiracy. The court considered a tort of malicious prosecution of a civil claim, . .
CitedISC Technologies Limited v Guerin 1992
A fraud was alleged by the defendant against the arms manufacturer Ferranti.
Hoffman J said: ‘The question [on an application under Ord. 12 r. 8(1)(c) to discharge an order giving leave to serve a writ out of the jurisdiction] is . . whether . .
CitedCarvill America Incorporated and Another v Camperdown UK Ltd. and others CA 27-May-2005
The claimant must bring evidence to establish that he has a cause of action which can be tried is that his claim has ‘a reasonable prospect of success,’ and this threshold is the same as if the claimant were resisting an application by the defendant . .
CitedSpiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .
CitedLimit (No 3) Ltd and others v PDV Insurance Company Ltd QBD 7-Nov-2003
When considering allowing proceedings here, the court must consider the the effect on related proceedings in another jurisdiction. . .
CitedBanque Indosuez v Ferromet Resources 1993
There is a general principle in favour of giving judicial assistance to foreign insolvency proceedings by preventing their disruption by the actions of individual creditors. . .
CitedDe Molestina v Ponton 2002
The claimants sought partial rescision of agreements of compromise of disputes within the etsate on the basis that agreement had been obtained by fraud.
Held: Recission of part only of an agreement was not possible. . .
CitedParagon Finance Plc (Formerly Known As National Home Loans Corporation Plc v D B Thakerar and Co (a Firm); Ranga and Co (a Firm) and Sterling Financial Services Limited CA 21-Jul-1998
Where an action had been begun on basis of allegations of negligence and breach of trust, new allegations of fraud where quite separate new causes of claim, and went beyond amendments and were disallowed outside the relevant limitation period. . .
CitedPolly Peck International Plc v Nadir and Others CA 17-Mar-1993
For a bank to be sued for breach of trust after receipt of funds, it was not necessary to show that the bank knew of the fraud, but rather that it knew the funds were trust funds, and that they were being misapplied. A Mareva injunction should be . .
CitedWestdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council HL 22-May-1996
Simple interest only on rate swap damages
The bank had paid money to the local authority under a contract which turned out to be ultra vires and void. The question was whether, in addition to ordering the repayment of the money to the bank on unjust enrichment principles, the court could . .
CitedAttorney General for Hong Kong v Reid and Others PC 24-Nov-1993
Principalhas proprietary interest in Trust assets
Bribes were taken by an employee, a crown prosecutor in Hong Kong, in a fraud on his employer. He then invested the proceeds in the purchase of property in New Zealand. The property had increased in value. The employer sought repayment of the bribes . .
CitedSeaconsar Far East Ltd v Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran HL 15-Oct-1993
A plaintiff must show that there is a ‘serious issue for trial’ to support and justify an application for overseas service. The standard of proof in respect of the cause of action relied on is whether, on the evidence, there was a serious question . .
CitedBP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt 1976
The fact that the contract was governed by English law was the predominating factor to be borne in mind when deciding jurisdiction.
The court should be careful before describing as non-disclosure as material not included in an affidavit in . .
CitedKonamaneni v Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Limited ChD 20-Dec-2001
The claimants founded their action on the assertion that the defendants had been corrupt in obtaining contracts in India. The defendants argued that the English courts had no jurisdiction. The claimants held various small shareholdings in a company . .
CitedAmin Rasheed Shipping Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co HL 1983
A claimant must show good reason why service on a foreign defendant should be permitted. This head of jurisdiction was an exorbitant jurisdiction, one which, under general English conflict rules, an English court would not recognise as possessed by . .
CitedDaraydan Holdings Limited, Cairn Estates Limited and Others v Solland International Limited and Others ChD 26-Mar-2004
The court was asked whether Lister and Co v Stubbs 45 ChD 1, a decision of the Court of Appeal, was binding on him or whether he could apply the Privy Council’s decision in Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid
Held: On the facts of the case . .
CitedBoscawen and Others v Bajwa and Others; Abbey National Plc v Boscawen and Others CA 10-Apr-1995
The defendant had charged his property to the Halifax. Abbey supplied funds to secure its discharge, but its own charge was not registered. It sought to take advantage of the Halifax’s charge which had still not been removed.
Held: A mortgagee . .
CitedISC Technologies Limited v Radcliffe 7-Dec-1990
It was alleged that a Mr Guerin had committed a fraud on the arms manufacturer Ferrari.
Held: The constructive trust provision in RSC Order 11, r 1(1)(t) applied only if all the acts necessary to impose liability were committed in England, and . .

Cited by:

CitedVTB 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.245196

Berezovsky and Another v Forbes Inc and Another: QBD 19 Jan 1998

A defamation action which between two parties both resident in foreign jurisdictions but based upon a publication with a circulation of 2000 in Britain was to be stayed.

Citations:

Times 19-Jan-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromBerezovsky and Glouchkov v Forbes Inc and Michaels CA 31-Jul-2001
The claimant sought damages from the defendant for a magazine article claiming that he was involved in organised crime in Russia. The defendants appealed against the striking out of elements of the defence suggesting lesser meanings. Was meaning a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Jurisdiction

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.78347

Seismic Shipping Inc and Another v Total E and P UK Plc “The Western Regent”: CA 29 Jul 2005

Judges:

Sir Martin Nourse Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Rix

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 985, [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 359

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromSeismic Shipping Inc and Another v Total E and P UK plc, ‘The Western Regent’ AdCt 22-Mar-2005
Ships had collided. The ship at fault sought to limit its liability according to its tonnage under the Convention, and requested appropriate directions to calculate its liability.
Held: The court did have jurisdiction to apply the Convention . .

Cited by:

CitedHarding v Wealands HL 5-Jul-2006
Claim in UK for Accident in Australia
The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Jurisdiction

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.229094

Burnard v Wainwright: 1850

B had succeeded in the arbitration award. W later discovered a letter written (he aid) by B which he said should require the re-opening of the arbitration.
Held: The court remitted it saying that the arbitrators should decide the issue of whether B had written the letter and then decide what difference it should make. An arbitration clause is capable of governing isues as to jurisdiction.

Citations:

(1850) 19 LJ QB 423, [1850] LMandP 455

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGuangzhou Dockyards Co Ltd v Ene Aegiali I ComC 5-Nov-2010
No appeal on facts from award
The defendant ship owners sought to strike out the claimant’s appeal against an arbitration award to the extent that that appeal consisted of an appeal against the factual findings. The claimant argued that the parties had agreed that such an appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Jurisdiction

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.430591

Cooley v Ramsey: QBD 1 Feb 2008

The claimant sought damages after being severely injured in a road traffic accident in Australia caused by the defendant. The defendant denied that the court had jurisdiction to permit service out of the jurisdiction. The claimant said that the issues were not as to liability but as to quantum.
Held: The defendant’s application failed. The advantage to the claimant of having his damages calculated here were exactly counterbalanced by the advantage to the defendant of having damages calculated in New South Wales. However, the Claimant had established that England was the proper place in which to bring the claim. The interests of justice for both parties required close liaison between each of the claimant’s legal representatives, Mr Cooley, and the witnesses, both the witnesses of fact and the expert witnesses. That could only be effectively and properly done in England, where the claimant now was, and where he was expected to remain.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 129 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 6.20(8)(a), Civil Jurisdiction and Judgment Act 1982

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMetall and Rostoff v Donaldson Inc CA 1990
The court looked at how to establish where a tort was committed in order then to test its jurisdiction: ‘As the rule now stands it is plain that jurisdiction may be assumed only where (a) the claim is founded on a tort and either (b) the damage was . .
MentionedHandelskwekerij GJ Bier Bv v Mines De Potasse D’Alsace Sa ECJ 30-Nov-1976
Europa Where the place of the happening of the event which may give rise to liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict and the place where that event results in damage are not identical, the expression ‘place . .
CitedHenderson v Jaouen and Another CA 1-Feb-2002
The plaintiff had been injured in an accident and had sued and recovered damages for his injuries in France. Later, his condition deteriorated. In France he would have been able to revive his action to claim further damages, but he sought a similar . .
CitedBooth v Phillips and Others ComC 17-Jun-2004
The claimant was widow of an engineer who died on the defendant’s vessel in Egypt. She sought damages, but first had to establish jurisdiction.
Held: Permission to serve out of the jurisdiction The ordinary and natural meaning of damage was . .
CitedCordoba Shipping Co Ltd v National State Bank, Elizabeth, New Jersey (The Albaforth) CA 1984
A negligent misrepresentation was made in a telex sent from the United States but received and acted upon in England. The judge had set aside leave to serve the document out of the jurisdiction.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The transmission was . .
CitedSpiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .
CitedHarding v Wealands HL 5-Jul-2006
Claim in UK for Accident in Australia
The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
Held: . .
CitedBooth v Phillips and Others ComC 17-Jun-2004
The claimant was widow of an engineer who died on the defendant’s vessel in Egypt. She sought damages, but first had to establish jurisdiction.
Held: Permission to serve out of the jurisdiction The ordinary and natural meaning of damage was . .
CitedMarinari v Lloyd’s Bank ECJ 19-Sep-1995
A ‘harmful event’ occurred where the physical damage was suffered and not at the time and place of a later financial loss.
Europa The term ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 5(3) of the . .
CitedABCI v Banque Franco-Tunisienne and others CA 27-Feb-2003
‘The thinking behind the CPR was that they would speak for themselves and that courts would not have to refer to an ever increasing body of authority in order to apply them.’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.264063

Dellar v Zivy and others: ChD 9 Oct 2007

Disappointed beneficiaries said they had been told that the deceased would leave certain shares to them. He did not do so, and they said the will had incorrectly interpreted his instructions. The defendants denied that the English court had jurisdiction. If domiciled in England, moveables went as at the date of death. In French law, they went as at the date of execution of the will.
Held: The will was made in England by English solicitors and the deceased gave his address in England and explicitly asserted English domicile. He appointed and English solicitor one of his exectors, and specifically applied an English Act of Parliament. Though he had a French domicile of origin, he had abandoned that domicile. Under English law, the first defendant was entitled to the shares.

Judges:

Kitchin J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2266 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedIn re Allen’s Estate 1945
A will is to be interpreted in accordance with the law intended by the testator. In the absence of indications to the contrary, this is presumed to be the law of his domicile at the time when the will is made. . .
CitedRe Philipson-Stow HL 1961
The section excluded from liability for estate duty property ‘passing on the death which is situate out of Great Britain if it is shown that the proper law regulating the devolution of the property situate, or the disposition under or by reason of . .
CitedSpiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .
CitedRe Levick ChD 1963
The proper law ‘regulating’ the disposition of movable property for the purposes of section 28(2) was the law of the testator’s domicile at the time of his death. Plowman J said that the term ‘regulate’ was concerned with the material or essential . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Jurisdiction

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.259855

Weissfisch v Julius, Weisfisch, Davis: CA 8 Mar 2006

An arbitration was to be governed by Swiss law with its seat in Geneva. One the party sought here an injunction restraining the arbitrator from acting as arbitrator on the grounds that the agreement had been induced by misrepresentation and was void or voidable.
Held: An English court should not grant the injunction sought. The natural consequence of the arbitration agreement was that any issue as to its validity would fall to be considered in Switzerland according to Swiss law. For the English Court to restrain the arbitration whose seat was in a foreign jurisdiction would infringe the principles of international arbitration agreed under the New York Convention and recognised in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Judges:

The Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales Master of the Rolls The Honourable Mr Justice Moses

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 218, [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 716

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSheffield United Football Club Ltd v West Ham United Football Club Plc ComC 26-Nov-2008
The claimant sought an order to prevent the defendant company from pursuing further an appeal against a decision made by an independent arbitator in their favour as regards the conduct of the defendant in the Premier League in 2006/2007.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Jurisdiction

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238899

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

Judges:

Aikens J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1887 (Comm), [2006] Lloyd’s Rep IR 127

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromDornoch Ltd and others v Mauritius Union Assurance Company Ltd and Another CA 10-Apr-2006
reinsurance jurisdiction dispute. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Jurisdiction

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238656

Mckie and others v Macrae and Another: OHCS 23 Dec 2005

Judges:

Lord Glennie

Citations:

[2005] ScotCS CSOH – 175

Links:

Bailii, ScotC

Citing:

CitedBremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschineenfabrik v South India Shipping Coroporation HL 1981
The parties had referred their dispute to arbitration, but there had been inordinate delay, and the plaintiffs complained that the delay had prejudiced them, and sought an injunction to prevent further contuance of the arbitration, saying that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Jurisdiction

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236853

Union Discount Company Ltd v Robert Zoller and Others, Union Cal Ltd: CA 21 Nov 2001

The claimant had incurred costs in defending an action brought by the respondents in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. They appealed a judgement against them.
Held: The claim for the costs must succeed. The jurisdiction in which the claim had been brought was one which did not award costs save exceptionally. That rule did not apply in the jurisdiction agreed for, and the claim would put the claimant in the position he would have been in had the other followed the contract.

Judges:

Lord Phillips MR, Lord Justice Schiemann, And, Lord Justice May

Citations:

Times 10-Dec-2001, Gazette 17-Jan-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 1755, [2002] 1 WLR 1517, [2002] CLC 314, [2002] 1 All ER 693

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ComparedBerry v British Transport Commission CA 1961
The plaintiff had been prosecuted by the defendant for pulling the emergency cord on a train without proper cause. After acquittal and payment of part of her costs, she sued for malicious prosecution, saying the damages were the part of her defence . .

Cited by:

CitedBotham v The Ministry of Defence QBD 26-Mar-2010
The claimant had been employed by the MOD. He was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct, and he was then placed on the list of persons unsuitable for work with children. He succeeded at the Tribunal in a claim for unfair and wrongful dismissal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Costs, Damages

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.166931

Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd: CA 24 Oct 2005

The defendants who were resident in Greece appealed a decision that the English court had jurisdiction over them, by virtue of a close connection of the matter with earlier proceedings heard here.
Held: The fact that the defendants were all defendants in the earlier proeedings was what mattered. That these were new proceedings did not defeat the court’s jurisdiction.

Citations:

Times 27-Oct-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 1436, [2006] 1 WLR 830

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd ComC 17-May-2005
. .
CitedKalfelis v Bankhaus Schroder, Munchmeyer, Hengst and Co and others ECJ 27-Sep-1988
ECJ For Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters to apply, a connection must exist between the various actions brought . .
CitedGascoigne v Pyrah CA 26-Nov-1991
The court was concerned with conflicts between different jurisdictions dealing with related matters. Hirst LJ said: ‘Conflicting findings of fact, on the other hand, are virtually impossible to reconcile if different judges in different . .

Cited by:

See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 28-Jul-2006
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and others ComC 25-May-2007
Application for an order to prevent some defendants pursuing action in other jurisdictions. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 11-Jul-2007
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 4-Apr-2008
The court was asked whether the Commercial Court had international jurisdiction to make an order for the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution, and a freezing order, in relation to the judgment debtors’ interest in the concession . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 23-May-2008
Application for interpretation of a receivership order. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another (No 3) CA 6-Jun-2008
The court was asked whether the English court has jurisdiction following judgment to grant an anti-suit injunction against foreign judgment debtors (one of whom has a domicile in a Brussels I Regulation State) restraining them from pursuing . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and others CA 28-Jul-2008
The judgment creditor appealed an order refusing to oblige the defendant company to attend court and provide information about its means. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 14-Mar-2007
Judgment on quantum. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 20-Dec-2007
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and Another ComC 17-Jun-2008
Application for further order of payment of costs of action on account. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 21-Oct-2008
The court heard matters relating to the recovery by the claimant of $63,000,000. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and others CA 13-Nov-2008
The creditors sought leave to appeal against orders made in the course of proceedings to recover a very substantial debt from a foreign resident company. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company Sal CA 6-Feb-2009
Appeal from order with regard to management of receivership. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others ComC 6-Oct-2010
The third respondent sought to strike out an application for his committal for failure to comply with orders made in support of proceedings to enforce a substantial judgment. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal ComC 21-Oct-2010
The court held a case management conference with regard to an intended application for committal for contempt of one of the defendants. . .
See AlsoConsolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 21-Jan-2011
. .
See AlsoConsolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 3-Feb-2011
. .
See AlsoMasri and Another v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others ComC 3-Mar-2011
On notice hearing with regard to without notice receivership order. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others ComC 5-May-2011
The applicant, and judgment creditor sought orders for committal for contempt by the defendant companies and officers after failing to comply with court orders. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235390

Svenska Petroleum Exploration Ab v Lithuania and Another (No 2): ComC 4 Nov 2005

The court was asked whether a claim to enforce an arbitration award constituted ‘proceedings relating to’ the transaction that gave rise to the award for the purposes of section 3(1)(a).
Held: It did not.

Judges:

Gloster J, DBE

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2437 (Comm), [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 181

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

State Immunity Act 1978 3(1)

Citing:

See AlsoSvenska Petroleum Exploration Ab v Government of the Republic of Lithuania and Another ComC 11-Jan-2005
The claimant sought enforcement of a final award. The Government of Lithuania had not attempted to challenge the tribunal’s first award in Denmark.
Held: Nigel Teare QC said that that, where a person has unsuccessfully contested the issue of . .
AppliedAIC Limited v The Federal Government of Nigeria, the Attorney General of the Federation of Nigeria QBD 13-Jun-2003
AIC had used the 1920 Act to register a judgment obtained in Nigeria against the Nigerian Government. The underlying matter was a commercial transaction. Nigeria applied to set the registration aside, saying that registration was an adjudicative act . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromSvenska Petroleum Exploration Ab v Lithuania and Another (No 2) CA 13-Nov-2006
The defendant state could not now claim state immunity to avoid enforcement of an arbitration award, having agreed to the reference to arbitration in writing.
Held: A person against whom an award has been made is not bound to challenge it . .
CitedNML 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Arbitration, Jurisdiction

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.234738

Sawyer v Atari Interactive Inc: ChD 1 Nov 2005

The claimant owned the copyright in several successful computer games. He had granted licenses for the use of the software, which licences were assigned to the defendants. Disputes arose as to the calculation of royalty payments, and the claimant sought to exercise his auditing rights. The defendant company in the US handled the accountancy for the group. The defendants argued that the matter should be tried in the US.
Held: The contract provided for the UK as jurisdiction. The bulk of the witnesses and of the evidence and of the sales were in the US. Evidence would also be required from an intermediate licensee in the US. The natural forum was the US. The contract however clearly stipulated for England. The defendant had not made a timely application to challenge jurisdiction as required under the amended rules. Nevertheless, the court had jurisdiction to extend time and would grant it. It was accepted that the claimant had established sufficient prospect of success. The real issue was as to English law as chosen by the parties. The parties has already submitted to an English arbitration. In all the circumstances, the forum for the entire matter should be in England.

Judges:

Lawrence Collins J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2351 (Ch), [2006] ILPr 8

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 11(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedInvestors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society HL 19-Jun-1997
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity
The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside.
Held: Investors having once . .
CitedColumbia Tristar Home Video (International) Inc v Polygram Film International BV (Formerly Manifesto Film Sales BV) CA 8-Feb-2000
The court considered a contract requiring access to be given to accounts records for auditing licence fees. . .
CitedSSQ Europe SA v Johann and Backes OHG 2002
Extension of time to challenge court’s jurisdiction. . .
CitedBFC Aircraft Sales and Leasing Ltd v Ages Group Plc 14-Dec-2001
The court will assume that by expressly choosing English law in a contract, the parties were indicating at least a preference to litigate in England: ‘The choice of the applicable law is, clearly, not so strong a feature as a choice of jurisdiction . .
CitedUSF Ltd v Aqua Technology Hanson NV/SA 30-Jan-2001
Extension of time to challenge jurisdiction of the court. . .
CitedSeaconsar Far East Ltd v Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran HL 15-Oct-1993
A plaintiff must show that there is a ‘serious issue for trial’ to support and justify an application for overseas service. The standard of proof in respect of the cause of action relied on is whether, on the evidence, there was a serious question . .
CitedCanada Trust Company and others v Stolzenberg and others (2) CA 29-Oct-1997
The court looked at questions relating to domicile and jurisdiction; standard of proof, date to be determined and duties before service.
Held: The court is endeavouring to find an imprecise concept which reflects that the plaintiff must . .
CitedCarvill America Incorporated and Another v Camperdown UK Ltd. and others CA 27-May-2005
The claimant must bring evidence to establish that he has a cause of action which can be tried is that his claim has ‘a reasonable prospect of success,’ and this threshold is the same as if the claimant were resisting an application by the defendant . .
CitedBurns-Anderson Independent Network Plc v Francis Henry Wheeler 2005
(Bristol Mercantile Court) The power to extend time to challenge the court’s jurisdiction in a matter was assumed to exist. . .
CitedSpiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .
CitedCanada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2) HL 12-Oct-2000
The plaintiffs alleged the involvement of the defendant in a conspiracy to defraud. He had been domiciled in England, but had moved to Germany. He denied that the UK court had jurisdiction. The court of appeal said that jurisdiction was determined . .
CitedCoast Lines Ltd v Hudig and Veder Chartering NV 1971
Parties who contract to give the UK courts jurisdiction must be taken at least to have wanted a case to be heard by the UK courts. The fact that the foreign forum, notwithstanding the express choice of English law, may not apply English law, and may . .
CitedNima SARL v The Deves Insurance Public Company Ltd; The Prestrioka CA 30-Jul-2002
A marine insurance contract was entered into for goods to be transported between two ports. A side note provided that cover was to start from the time the goods left the warehouse. The Act provided that the insurance was void from the time such a . .
CitedBP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt 1976
The fact that the contract was governed by English law was the predominating factor to be borne in mind when deciding jurisdiction.
The court should be careful before describing as non-disclosure as material not included in an affidavit in . .
CitedBP Exploration Operating Co Ltd v Chevron Transport (Scotland) HL 18-Oct-2001
A ship owned by the defenders caused substantial damage whilst moored at the claimant’s docks. The claim was made against different members of the defendants as they asserted and denied responsibility. The last company asserted that the claim was . .
CitedAmin Rasheed Shipping Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co HL 1983
A claimant must show good reason why service on a foreign defendant should be permitted. This head of jurisdiction was an exorbitant jurisdiction, one which, under general English conflict rules, an English court would not recognise as possessed by . .
CitedIlyssia Compania Naviera SA v Bamaodah ‘The Elli 2’ CA 1985
May LJ considered the creation of a contract by implication, saying: ‘no such contract should be implied on the facts of any given case unless it is necessary to do so: necessary, that is to say, in order to give business reality to a transaction . .
CitedMacSteel Commercial Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Thermasteel V (Canada) Inc CA 1996
The South African and Canadian parties had contracted subject to the law of England. The Canadian company said that England remained inappropriate as the choice of forum.
Held: Jurisdiction was declined.
The distinction between the . .
Citeddu Pont du Nemours v Agnew CA 1987
An application was made to injunct the commencement of proceedings in England.
Held: The request failed. The court was asked whether the English claimants had shown a good argument for invoking the jurisdiction of the English court against . .
CitedMitsubishi Corp v Alafouzos 1988
Elements of English public policy may determine that an English Court is the appropriate forum to hear a case. Steyn J said: ‘one must keep constantly in mind that one is dealing with a head of public policy, which requires the Court to proceed with . .
CitedSeashell Shipping Corporation v Mutualidad de Seguros del Instituto Nacional de Industria (‘The Magnum’ ex ‘Tarraco Augusta’) CA 1989
Where the decision as to forum depends upon the construction of the document or documents in one language and the rival courts are, on the one hand, courts whose native language is that of the document and on the other hand, courts whose native . .

Cited by:

CitedSawyer v Atari Interactive Inc CA 2-Mar-2007
The claimant designed games software and complained of infringements by the defendant of licensing agreements by failing to allow audits as required.
Held: The defendant should be allowed to be heard on the standard practices for management of . .
CitedVTB 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 . .
CitedAmin Rasheed Shipping Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co HL 1983
A claimant must show good reason why service on a foreign defendant should be permitted. This head of jurisdiction was an exorbitant jurisdiction, one which, under general English conflict rules, an English court would not recognise as possessed by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Licensing, Jurisdiction

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.234716

Pan Ocean Co Ltd v China-Base Group Co Ltd and Another: ComC 16 Apr 2019

Applications, for a declaration that the English Court has no jurisdiction, and an order setting aside the claim form, and for an anti-suit injunction preventing the continuance of proceedings in Singapore commenced by the Defendants against the Claimant.

Judges:

Christopher Hancock QC

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 982 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.637511

Hunter v Murrow (Abduction: Rights of Custody): CA 28 Jul 2005

Rights of access can in themselves amount to ‘rights of custody’ for the Convention. Dyson LJ divided the question of whether the father had rights of custody into two. The first, which he called ‘the domestic law question’, was what rights the father had in national law. The second, which he called ‘the Convention question’, was whether those rights were to be characterised as rights of custody for the purposes of the Convention.

Judges:

Lord Justice Thorpe Lord Justice Dyson Lord Justice Lloyd

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 976, [2005] 2 FLR 1119

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedIn re D (A Child), (Abduction: Rights of Custody) HL 16-Nov-2006
The child had been born to parents who married and later divorced in Romania. The mother brought him to England without the father’s consent, and now appealed an order for his return.
Held: The mother’s appeal succeeded. The Convention . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Children

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229050

Exter Shipping Ltd Stanley Shipping Ltd Wyndham Shipping Ltd Crest Shipping Ltd v Glencore International Ag: CA 18 Apr 2002

There had been complex multi-party litigation in England. The appellants sought discharge from an anti-suit injunction restraining them from taking some issues to their home court, Georgia in the USA. They contended that the reasons which surrounded the original reasons for litigation in London had now been discharged.
Held: The section creates the power to grant an anti-suit injunction provided personal jurisdiction can be exercised, and it is ‘just and convenient’ to do so. The ship owners had submitted to the English courts by bringing their claims here. There was therefore personal jurisdiction. No legitimate interest in pursuing claims in Georgia had been shown, and no prejudice was suggested if restrained from proceeding in Georgia. The conclusion was that they acted against conscience. A need for the protection of an injunction had been shown.

Judges:

The Vice-Chancellor Lord Justice Robert Walker And Lord Justice Rix

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 524, [2002] CLC 1151

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 37(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedTurner v Grovit and others HL 13-Dec-2001
The applicant was a solicitor employed by a company in Belgium. He later resigned claiming unfair dismissal, saying he had been pressed to become involved in unlawful activities. The defendants sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the English . .
CitedDonohue 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.170027

Whyte v Whyte: CA 21 Jul 2005

A decree of divorce had been made in Texas, and after the wife had breached a court order by fleeing to Russia with a child of the family, a freezing order was made against the wife in respect of property in London. The husband now appealed an order declining to enforce the Texas order for want of jurisdiction.
Held: The court had jurisdiction, and the appeal succeeded. The wife claimed that she had taken no part in the enforcement proceedings in Texas and should not be bound by them, but she had already submitted to the Texas jurisdiction by her involvement in the earlier related proceedings.

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Buxton LJ, Neubergeer LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 858, Times 23-Aug-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedMurthy and Another v Sivasjothi and Others CA 30-Oct-1998
Where a foreign defendant had accepted jurisdiction of a competent foreign court, that submission operated similarly in respect of a claim by a co-defendant in that case against the party in a related matter and the judgment was enforceable here. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Jurisdiction

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.229699

Airbus SAS v Generali Italia SPA and Others: CA 14 May 2019

The claimant in the action (respondent to this appeal) claimed declarations (1) that it was not liable to the defendant insurers for losses incurred when an aircraft which it had manufactured sustained damage when landing in Rome and (2) that proceedings commenced against it by the defendants in Italy had been commenced contrary to the terms of an English exclusive jurisdiction clause in an Airframe Warranties Agreement between (among others) Airbus and the defendants’ insured, the Italian airline company Alitalia. The issue was now whether the English court had jurisdiction over these claims by virtue of the jurisdiction clause. The defendant insurers now appealed from a decision that it did..

Judges:

Lord Justice Males

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 805

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Insurance

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.637313

North v Stewart: HL 14 Jul 1890

The Act 23 and 24 Vict. c. 127, enacts, sec. 28-‘In every case in which an attorney or solicitor shall be employed to prosecute or defend any suit, matter, or proceeding in any court of justice, it shall be lawful for the court . . to declare such attorney or solicitor entitled to a charge upon the property recovered or preserved; and upon such declaration being made, such attorney or solicitor shall have a charge upon and against and a right to payment out of the property . . for the taxed costs, . . and it shall be lawful for such court or judge to make such order or orders for taxation of such costs, charges, and expenses out of the said property as to such court or judge shall appear just and proper; and all conveyances and acts done to defeat, or which shall operate to defeat, such charge or right shall, unless made to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, be absolutely void and of no effect as against such charge or right.’
North, a domiciled Englishman, was sued in the Queen’s Bench Division by Welsh, a domiciled Scotsman, but in April 1887 obtained decree for expenses. On May 26th Stewart arrested in the hands of Welsh the sum due under the decree, and next day served a summons on North. On June 13th North’s solicitors in the English suit obtained a charging order in terms of the above-cited Act, on the costs for which North had obtained decree.
Held ( aff. judgment of the First Division- diss. Lord Morris) that jurisdiction had been properly founded by arrestment when the summons was served, and was not affected by the charging order, even assuming that to be retrospective in its operation.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor Halsbury, and Lords Watson, Herschell, Macnaghten, and Morris

Citations:

[1890] UKHL 397, 28 SLR 397

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Jurisdiction

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.636735

Limit (No 3) Ltd and others v PDV Insurance Company: CA 11 Apr 2005

There had been substantial oil leaks in Venezuela, which had been insured and then re-insured in London. Permission had been given to serve the defendant out of the jurisdiction, but that permission had been set aside. The claimant now appealed.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The burden was on him to identify and particularis the issues for the court to see whether the appropriate forum lay elsewhere. It was for Limit to show that England is clearly the most suitable forum for trial in the interests of the parties and for the ends of justice. It was not for the defendant to speculate as to how the action might proceed.

Judges:

Auld, Tuckey, Clarke LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 383, Times 14-Apr-2005, [2005] Lloyd’s Rep IR 552

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBensaude v Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Co Ltd HL 1897
. .
CitedToomey of Syndicate 2021 v Banco Vitalicio De Espana Sa De Seguros Y Reasseguros CA 18-May-2004
. .
CitedHIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited v New Hampshire Insurance Company Independent Insurance Company Limited Axa Reinsurance S A CA 21-May-2001
A claim was made under a re-insurance policy which supported film finances. The re-insurers resisted the claim on the grounds of misrepresentation. Rix LJ: ‘In principle it would seem to me that it is always admissible to look at prior contracts as . .
CitedSpiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .
CitedHill and Others v Mercantile and General Reinsurance Co Plc; Berry and Others v Same HL 15-Aug-1996
Liability under reinsurance was not invalidated by a compromise including other claims. The parties to reinsurance contracts could set their own ways of proving the loss within a contract. A Full Reinsurance Clause is not binding in respect of any . .
Appeal fromLimit (No 3) Ltd and others v PDV Insurance Company Ltd QBD 7-Nov-2003
When considering allowing proceedings here, the court must consider the the effect on related proceedings in another jurisdiction. . .

Cited by:

CitedVTB 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 . .
CitedVTB 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 . .
CitedAmin Rasheed Shipping Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co HL 1983
A claimant must show good reason why service on a foreign defendant should be permitted. This head of jurisdiction was an exorbitant jurisdiction, one which, under general English conflict rules, an English court would not recognise as possessed by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Jurisdiction

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224091

John Louis Carter Fourie v Allan Le Roux and others: CA 7 Mar 2005

The defendant’s company in South Africa had become insolvent and the claimant had recovered judgment for arrears of rent. They obtained a freezing order against the defendant. The defendant appealed saying the court did not have jurisdiction, and should have taken account of cross claims. The defendant argued that the order was sought on a tactical basis and that the true litigation was in South Africa and was not concluded. The claimant did not seek independant relief here, and would not be issuing proceedings. The order had been discharged, and the claimant appealed the discharge.
Held: The order had properly been discharged for want of jurisdiction, in the absence of any genuine attempt to seek substantive relief in England. The order would be amended to allow further consideration of the costs award.

Judges:

The Vice-Chancellor Lord Justice Parker Lord Justice Mance

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 204, Times 25-Apr-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 426, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHughes and others v Hannover Re Ruckversicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft CA 28-Jan-1997
An insolvency court answering an international call for assistance has the full range of remedies available to it. It may exercise ‘its own general jurisdiction and powers’ as well as the insolvency laws of England and the corresponding laws of the . .
CitedMemory Corporation v Sidhu (No 2) CA 3-Dec-1999
Where a party applied to court for an ex parte order, counsel had direct duties to the court, and also the supporting legal team and clients had continuing and overlapping duties. There was little to be gained by trying to analyze these things too . .
CitedVoice and Script International Ltd v Alghafar CA 8-May-2003
The court has a wide discretion whether to order the assessment of costs on an indemnity basis and the court of Appeal will rarely disturb the judge’s order as to costs.
Judge LJ said: ‘By treating the absence of allocation to track as . .
CitedSaid v Butt 1920
The plaintiff wanted to go to a play’s first night. He had fallen out with the management of the theatre, and knew that he would not get a ticket in his own name. He got a friend to go to the theatre and buy a ticket for him without disclosing the . .
CitedShaker v Al-Bedrawi and others CA 18-Oct-2002
. .
CitedMCA Records Inc v Charly Records Ltd and others (No 5) CA 29-Nov-2001
Thre had been an action for copyright and trade mark infringement. The court considered the personal liability of directors of the company for the costs of the action. . .
CitedHanak v Green CA 1958
A builder was sued for his failure to complete the works he had contracted for. The buider sought a set-off against that claim of three of his one claims. One, under the contract, was for losses from the defendant’s refusal to allow his workmen . .
Appeal fromFourie v Le Roux and Others ChD 30-Sep-2004
Interim asset freezing injunctions had been obtained on the application of a liquidator in South Africa. The defendant applied for their discharge.
Held: They should be discharged. No foreign proceedings had been specified for which they were . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromFourie v Le Roux and others HL 24-Jan-2007
The appellant, liquidator of two South African companies, had made a successful without notice application for an asset freezing order. He believed that the defendants had stripped the companies of substantial assets. The order was set aside for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Insolvency

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223273

Shahar v Tsitsekkos and others: ChD 17 Nov 2004

The defendant wished to make a claim against another party outside the jurisdiction and was granted permission to serve documents which were headed ‘defence and counterclaim’. The proposed defendant argued that such a document could be served in this way.
Held: The defendant should apply to the court for leave to add the party outside the jurisdiction, and the claim allowed would be treated as a counterclaim within Rule 20.

Judges:

Mann J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2659 (Ch), Times 30-Nov-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedGardner v Parker CA 25-Jun-2004
The court considered the extent to which a shareholder or creditor of a company who has suffered loss, as the result of a breach of duties owed both to him and the company by a defendant, is nonetheless debarred from recovering that loss, because . .
CitedGiles v Rhind ChD 24-Jul-2001
The company had suffered losses after an alleged breach of confidence by a director. The applicant sought to recover his losses as a shareholder, after the company became unable or unwilling itself to pursue an action to recover the losses it had . .
CitedKleinwort Benson Limited v City of Glasgow District Council HL 19-Jun-1997
Restitution when Contract Void ab initio
A claim for restitution of money paid under a contract which was void ab initio is not a claim in contract, nor tort, nor delict, it was justiciable only in the court of domicile. The Brussels Convention does not decide jurisdiction. ‘But it is . .
CitedKalfelis v Bankhaus Schroder, Munchmeyer, Hengst and Co and others ECJ 27-Sep-1988
ECJ For Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters to apply, a connection must exist between the various actions brought . .
CitedReunion Europeenne Sa and Others v Spliethoff’s 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).
CitedIn Re Banco Nacional De Cuba ChD 7-Jun-2001
Where it was alleged that shares in a UK company had been sold at an undervalue, so as to allow a challenge in insolvency proceedings, the leave of the court was still required if the pleadings were to be served abroad. When the court considered . .
CitedHandelswerkerij GJ Bier BV v Mines de Potasse d’Alsace SA ECJ 1976
The Dutch plaintiff claimed that the water supply to its nursery had been polluted by the French defendant’s discharge of waste into the Rhine in France.
Held: The meaning of the expression: ‘Place where the harmful event occurred’ must be . .

Cited by:

CitedIslamic Republic of Pakistan v Zardari and others ComC 6-Oct-2006
The claimant alleged that the defendants had funded the purchase of various properties by secret and unlawful commissions taken by them whilst in power in Pakistan. They sought to recover the proceeds. They now sought permission to serve proceedings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219548

Speed Investments Limited, Slec Holdings LImited v Formula One Holdings Limited, Bambino Holdings Limited, Luc Argand, Emmanuele Argand-Rey: CA 12 Nov 2004

The applicants, shareholders in the company, sought to stay an action in England, saying the action had first been commenced in Switzerland.
Held: The issue was one of the internal management of the company. Though it did not relate to a matter of the constitution of the company it did relate to a shareholders agreement which concerned one of the main organs of the company. The company was registered in the UK, and the action should be heard here. The stay was refused.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Neuberger Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1512, Times 18-Nov-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Lugano Convention 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromSpeed Investments Ltd and Another v Formula One Holdings Limited and Others (No 2) ChD 20-Jul-2004
The defendants sought a stay of the action, arguing that proceedings had begun first in Switzerland.
Held: An English court became seised of an action for the purposes of the Convention at the time when the proceedings were served. Under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Company

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219648

Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Another: CA 24 Apr 2002

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 650

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoSabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Another CA 14-Nov-2002
An order was sought to restrain proceedings in Pakistan.
Held: The agreement provided that it should be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of England. The national state was also party to the agreement, and had waived sovereign immunity. It . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Contract

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217095

Metall and Rostoff v Donaldson Inc: CA 1990

The court looked at how to establish where a tort was committed in order then to test its jurisdiction: ‘As the rule now stands it is plain that jurisdiction may be assumed only where (a) the claim is founded on a tort and either (b) the damage was sustained within the jurisdiction or (c) the damage resulted from an act committed within the jurisdiction. Condition (a) poses a question which we consider below: what law is to be applied in resolving whether the claim is ‘founded on a tort?’ Condition (b) raises the question: what damage is referred to? It was argued for A.C.L.I. that since the draftsman had used the definite article and not simply referred to ‘damage,’ it is necessary that all the damage should have been sustained within the jurisdiction. No authority was cited to support the suggestion that this is the correct construction of the Convention to which the rule gives effect and it could lead to an absurd result if there were no one place in which all the plaintiff’s damage had been suffered. The judge rejected this argument and so do we. It is enough if some significant damage has been sustained in England. Condition (c) prompts the inquiry: what if damage has resulted from acts committed partly within and partly without the jurisdiction? This will often be the case where a series of acts, regarded by English law as tortious, are committed in an international context. It would not, we think, make sense to require all the acts to have been committed within the jurisdiction, because again there might be no single jurisdiction where that would be so. But it would certainly contravene the spirit, and also we think the letter, of the rule if jurisdiction were assumed on the strength of some relatively minor or insignificant act having been committed here, perhaps fortuitously. In our view condition (c) requires the court to look at the tort alleged in a common sense way and ask whether damage has resulted from substantial and efficacious acts committed within the jurisdiction (whether or not other substantial and efficacious acts have been committed elsewhere): if the answer is yes, leave may (but of course need not) be given. But the defendants are, we think, right to insist that the acts to be considered must be those of the putative defendant, because the question at issue is whether the links between him and the English forum are such as to justify his being brought here to answer the plaintiffs’ claim.’

Citations:

[1990] 1 QB 391

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAshton Investments Ltd. and Another v OJSC Russian Aluminium (Rusal) and others ComC 18-Oct-2006
The claimants sought damages for breach of confidence saying that the defendants had hacked into their computer systems via the internet to seek privileged information in the course of litigation. The defendants denied this and said the courts had . .
CitedCooley v Ramsey QBD 1-Feb-2008
The claimant sought damages after being severely injured in a road traffic accident in Australia caused by the defendant. The defendant denied that the court had jurisdiction to permit service out of the jurisdiction. The claimant said that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Torts – Other

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.245758

Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin: CA 14 Oct 2004

The claimant sought damages from what were said to be speculative trades carried out by the defendant whilst working in Russia. The claims were in both equity and in tort. He was a director of the company which was incorporated in Guernsey.
Held: If the acts complained of did not relate to the constitution of a company, it must relate to its internal management. Where the claim related to the duties inherent in the office of director, the claim should be heard in the place of incorporation wherever the acts complained of took place. Russian law was applicable for the claim in tort, but Guernsey, where the company was incorporated, was the proper law of the claim in equity.

Judges:

Lady Justice Arden Lord Justice Tuckey Mr Justice Newman

Citations:

[2004] 4 All ER 1, [2004] EWCA Civ 1316, Times 01-Nov-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromBase Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin ComC 22-Oct-2003
. .
CitedCordoba Shipping Co Ltd v National State Bank, Elizabeth, New Jersey (The Albaforth) CA 1984
A negligent misrepresentation was made in a telex sent from the United States but received and acted upon in England. The judge had set aside leave to serve the document out of the jurisdiction.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The transmission was . .
See AlsoBase Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin ComC 21-Nov-2001
. .

Cited by:

CitedHarding v Wealands CA 17-Dec-2004
The claimant sought damages here for a road traffic accident which had occurred in Australia. The defendant was working in England. The defendant argued that the law of New South Wales applied.
Held: The general rule in section 11 was not to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Jurisdiction, Equity

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.216419

Hoffmann v Krieg: ECJ 4 Feb 1988

Europa Convention on Jurisdiction And The Enforcement Of Judgments – A foreign judgment which has been recognized by virtue of article 26 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must in principle have the same effects in the state in which enforcement is sought as it does in the state in which judgment was given.
A foreign judgment whose enforcement has been ordered in a contracting state pursuant to article 31 of the convention and which remains enforceable in the state in which it was given must not continue to be enforced in the state where enforcement is sought when, under the law of the latter state, it ceases to be enforceable for reasons which lie outside the scope of the convention. The convention does not preclude the court of the state in which enforcement is sought from drawing the necessary inferences from a national decree of divorce when considering the enforcement of the foreign order made in regard to maintenance obligations between spouses.
A foreign judgment ordering a person to make maintenance payments to his spouse by virtue of his conjugal obligations to support her is irreconcilable within the meaning of article 27(3) of the convention with a national judgment pronouncing the divorce of the spouses.
Europa
Article 36 of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning that a party who has not appealed against the enforcement order referred to in that provision is thereafter precluded, at the stage of the execution of the judgment, from relying on a valid ground which he could have pleaded in such an appeal, and that that rule must be applied of their own motion by the courts of the state in which enforcement is sought. However, that rule does not apply when it has the result of obliging the national court to make the effects of a national judgment which lies outside the scope of the convention conditional on its recognition in the state in which the foreign judgment whose enforcement is at issue was given.

Citations:

R-145/86, [1988] EUECJ R-145/86

Links:

Bailii

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215559

Martin Peters Bauunternehmung Gmbh v Zuid Nederlandse Aannemers Vereniging: ECJ 22 Mar 1983

1. The concept of matters relating to a contract in article 5(1) of the convention of 27 september 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters should not be interpreted simply as referring to the national law of one or other of the member states concerned, but should be regarded as an independent concept which, for the purposes of the application of the convention, must be interpreted by reference chiefly to the system and objectives of the convention, in order to ensure that it is fully effective.
2. Obligations in regard to the payment of a sum of money which have their basis in the relationship existing between an association and its members by virtue of membership are ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of article 5(1) of the convention, whether the obligations in question arise simply from the act of becoming a member or from that act in conjunction with one or more decisions made by organs of the association.

Citations:

[1983] ECR 987, [1983] EUECJ R-34/82, [1984] 2 CMLR 605

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Jurisdiction

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215149

Somafer Sa v Saar-Ferngas Ag: ECJ 22 Nov 1978

ECJ 1. The Convention of 27 September 1968 must be interpreted having regard both to its principles and objectives and to its relationship with the treaty. The question whether the words and concepts used in the convention must be regarded as having their own independent meaning and as being thus common to all the contracting states or as referring to substantive rules of the law applicable in each case under the rules of conflict of laws of the court before which the matter is first brought must be so answered as to ensure that the convention is fully effective in achieving the objects which it pursues.
2. The need to ensure legal certainty and equality of rights and obligations for the parties as regards the power to derogate from the general jurisdiction of article 2 requires an independent interpretation, common to all the contracting states, of the concepts in article 5(5) of the convention of 27 September 1968.
The concept of branch, agency or other establishment implies a place of business which has the appearance of permanency, such as the extension of a parent body, has a management and is materially equipped to negotiate business with third parties so that the latter, although knowing that there will if necessary be a legal link with the parent body, the head office of which is abroad, do not have to deal directly with such parent body but may transact business at the place of business constituting the extension.
The concept of ‘operations’ comprises :
– actions relating to rights and contractual or non-contractual obligations concerning the management properly so-called of the agency, branch or other establishment itself such as those concerning the situation of the building where such entity is established or the local engagement of staff to work there;
– actions relating to undertakings which have been entered into at the above-mentioned place of business in the name of the parent body and which must be performed in the contracting state where the place of business is established and also actions concerning non-contractual obligations arising from the activities in which the branch, agency or other establishment within the above defined meaning, has engaged at the place in which it is established on behalf of the parent body.
It is in each case for the court before which the matter comes to find the facts whereon it may be established that an effective place of business exists and to determine the legal position by reference to the concept of ‘operations’ as above defined.

Citations:

[1979] 1 CMLR 490, [1978] EUECJ R-33/78, [1978] ECR 2183

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedKinnear 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 . .
CitedIn Re N (Children) SC 13-Apr-2016
The Court considered whether the future of two little girls, aged four and two years, should be decided by the courts of this country or by the authorities in Hungary. Both children were born in England and lived all their lives here. But their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214776

United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar and Another: EAT 10 Jul 1995

The appellant challenged a decision by the tribunal made in its absence that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear against it a claim for unfair dismissal.
Held: The tribunal had erred. Though Sengupta had been decided under common law, it remained instructive. Though the tribunal had cited the section, it had not applied it correctly. This was a case of state immunity which had to be clearly distinguished from diplomatic immunity. The fact that he had been employed by a British citizen did not mean that state immunity was not available.
Mummery P J considered the principles applied by the Courts in considering whether to grant extensions of time under the Rules of the Supreme Court. He drew attention to two intersecting principles; the first that rules [and orders] should be obeyed, and the second that a party should not in the ordinary way be denied an adjudication of his claim on its merits because of procedural default, unless the default causes prejudice to his opponent for which an award of costs cannot compensate. The application of these principles is sensitive to the stage at which the application is made. Applications to extend time made at an early stage in proceedings are far more likely to receive sympathetic consideration than those made in relation to an appeal: ‘the approach is different, however, if the procedural default as to time relates to an appeal against a decision on the merits by the court or tribunal of first instance. The party aggrieved by that decision has had a trial to hear and determine his case. If he is dissatisfied with the result he should act promptly. The grounds for extending his time are not as strong as where he has not yet had a trial. The interests of the parties and the public in certainty and finality of legal proceedings make the court more strict about time limits on appeals. An extension may be refused, even though the default in observing the time limit has not caused prejudice to the party successful in the original proceedings.
(4) An extension of time is an indulgence requested from the court by a party in default. He is not entitled to an extension. He has no reasonable or legitimate expectation of receiving one. His only reasonable or legitimate expectation is that the discretion relevant to his application to extend time will be exercised judicially in accordance with established principles of what is fair and reasonable. In those circumstances, it is incumbent on the applicant for an extension of time to provide the court with a full, honest and acceptable explanation of the reasons for the delay. He cannot reasonably expect the discretion to be exercised in his favour, as a defaulter, unless he provides an explanation for the default.’
. . ‘In accordance with the general principles stated above, the Appeal Tribunal follows the guidelines for the exercise of its discretion to extend time. They are only guidelines. They do not fetter the exercise of the discretion. They are intended to ensure, as far as possible, consistency of treatment, predictability of result and the attainment of justice.(1) The timetable set by the EAT Rules should be observed by the parties and their lay and professional advisers. Although more sympathy may be shown to a party who is unrepresented, as many are, there is no excuse, even in the case of an unrepresented party, for ignorance of the time limit or of the importance of compliance. When parties are notified of the reasons for the industrial tribunal’s decision they are informed of the 42-day time limit for appealing. The limits will, therefore, only be relaxed in rare and exceptional cases where the tribunal is satisfied that there is a reason which justifies departure from the time limits laid down in the Rules.
(2) The tribunal’s discretion will not be exercised, unless the appellant provides the tribunal with a full and honest explanation of the reason for non-compliance. If the explanation satisfies the tribunal that there is a good excuse for the default, an extension of time may be granted. Experience has shown that most of the explanations offered do not in fact excuse the delay which has occurred. For example, the following explanations have been rejected by the Appeal Tribunal as excuses for delay: ignorance of the time limit; oversight of the passing of the limit, for example, by a solicitor under pressure of work; prior notification to the Employment Appeal Tribunal or the Industrial Tribunal or to the successful party of the intention to appeal; the existence of pending applications for review of the decision or for remedies; delay in the processing of an application for legal aid or of an application for advice or support from elsewhere, such as the Equal Opportunities Commission or the Commission for Racial Equality. It is always possible, in cases where there may be unavoidable delay, for an extension to be agreed between the parties or granted by order of the Appeal Tribunal before the period has expired. Alternatively, a notice of appeal may be served in order to comply with the Rules, with a covering letter saying that it may be necessary to apply to amend it later. (3) If an explanation for the delay is offered, other factors may come into play in the exercise of the discretion. It is, of course, impossible to make an exhaustive list of factors. The Appeal Tribunal will be astute to detect any evidence of procedural abuse, questionable tactics or intentional default. The Tribunal will look at the length of the delay which has occurred, though it may refuse to grant an extension even where the delay is very short. Extensions have been refused, even where the notice of appeal was served only one day out of time. Parties who have decided to appeal are also strongly advised not to leave service of the notice of appeal until the last few days of the 42-day period. If they do, they run the risk of delay in the delivery of post or of the misdirection of mail. That risk can be avoided by service of the notice of appeal well within the period. The merits of the appeal may be relevant, but are usually of little weight. It is not appropriate on an application for leave to extend time for the Tribunal to be asked to investigate in detail the strength of the appeal. Otherwise there is a danger that an application for leave will be turned into a mini-hearing of the substantive appeal. Lack of prejudice or of injustice to the successful party in the original proceedings is also a factor of little or no significance. If there is irreparable concrete prejudice, that will strengthen the opposition to the application for extension; but even if there is no prejudice, the application may still be refused. Thus, the questions which must be addressed by the Appeal Tribunal, the parties and their representatives on an application for an extension are: (a) What is the explanation for the default? (b) Does it provide a good excuse for the default? (c) Are there circumstances which justify the Tribunal taking the exceptional step of granting an extension of time.

Judges:

Mummery P J

Citations:

[1995] UKEAT 768 – 94 – 1007, [1995] ICR 65, [1995] IRLR 243

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

State Immunity Act 1978 1(2) 4 16(1)(a)

Citing:

CitedSengupta v Republic of India 1983
India did not appear at court to take a point on jurisdiction under the 1978 Act. The Court asked for the appointment of an amicus to assist it.
Held: The court has a duty under statute to give the effect to the immunity conferred, even though . .
See AlsoUnited Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar and others EAT 29-Jul-1994
At a preliminary hearing, when the respondent failed to appear, the tribunal decided that it had jurisdiction to hear a case brought by the claimant against the respondent despite the 1978 Act. The respondent sought to appeal out of time.

Cited by:

CitedPeters v Sat Katar Co Ltd (in liquidation) CA 20-Jun-2003
The claimant had sent a notice of appeal, but it was lost in the post. He now appealed a refusal of leave to apply out of time.
Held: The EAT should look at the circumstances. Here a litigant in person would not have been alerted to the need . .
ApprovedAziz v Bethnal Green City Challenge Company Limited CA 25-May-1999
The notice of appeal was served three days late. The Registrar and Morison J refused to extend time, the judge concluding that the explanation for the delay was honest and full, but not acceptable.
Held: Permission to appeal was refused. Sir . .
CitedMilitary Affairs Office of the Embassy of the State of Kuwait v Caramba-Coker EAT 10-Apr-2003
The appellant challenged a finding of race discrimination against the respondent, saying the court had no jurisdiction. . .
CitedClancy v Cannock Chase Technical College EAT 1-Feb-1999
The claimant sought to appeal against refusal to allow him an extension of time for appeal. He miscalculated the date.
Held: Reasons given for failure to apply in time often did not excuse the failure. That applied here. ‘The time limits, it . .
CitedClancy v Cannock Chase Technical College CA 11-Jun-1999
The claimant appealed refusal of leave to appeal to the EAT out of time. He had miscalculated the closing date by ten days.
Held: ‘the existence of a ground of appeal does not in itself justify an extension of time. It has been held repeatedly . .
CitedDolega-Ossowski v Harvey Nichols EAT 20-Mar-2003
The EAT considered applications for leave to appeal out of time from both parties.
Held: ‘the principal issues in the exercise of the jurisdiction before me today. They are:
1) What is the explanation for the default?
2) Does it . .
CitedDolega-Ossowski v Harvey Nichols EAT 20-Mar-2003
The EAT considered applications for leave to appeal out of time from both parties.
Held: ‘the principal issues in the exercise of the jurisdiction before me today. They are:
1) What is the explanation for the default?
2) Does it . .
CitedThe Federal Republic of Nigeria v Ogbonna EAT 12-Jul-2011
nigeria_ogbonnaEAT2011
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – State immunity
A claim for compensation for psychiatric illness caused by unlawful discrimination is a claim for ‘personal injury’ within the meaning of section 5 of the State . .
CitedKhudados v Leggate and others EAT 16-Feb-2005
Application was made to make extensive amendments to the notice of appeal.
Held: The application was refused. The EAT practice guide required an application for an amendment to be made as soon as its necessity became apparent. The applicant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Jurisdiction

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.209281

SMAY Investments Limited, Bachchan v Sachdev, RMSP (UK) Limited, Reliance Silicones (India) Private Limited, Manasvi Investments Private Limited: ChD 14 Mar 2003

The defendants sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the English courts. The claimants said that the fact they had appeared in Mareva proceedings, and applied to set aside leave to serve proceedings abroad, and checked the box indicating an intention to defend, had amounted to a waiver of their right to challenge jurisdiction.
Held: To amount to such a waiver, conduct had to be unequivocal. None of the acts were such, and indeed the parties had specifically reserved their rights to challenge jurisdiction. The right had not been waived, and the correct forum was India, not England.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Patten

Citations:

Times 01-Apr-2003, Gazette 15-May-2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.180339