Insured Financial Structures Ltd v Elektrocleplownia Tychy SA: CA 28 Jan 2003

The parties to a contract had agreed that Poland should have non-exclusive jurisdiction over disputes. Poland was not a party to the Lugano Convention, but both parties were domiciled in contracting states.
Held: The agreement had extended exclusive jurisdiction to the Polish courts through article 17 of the Convention. The agreement must first be interpreted against English law as against the Convention, following Kurtz

Judges:

Woolf LCJ, Hale, Latham LJJ

Citations:

Times 31-Jan-2003

Statutes:

Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 17(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedKurz v Stella Musical Veranstaltungs GmbH ChD 1991
A prorogation clause which claimed to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of one country would, if it complied with Article 17 in point of form, be given effect so as to exclude any other jurisdictions which might otherwise be competent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Contract

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.178841

Mapfre Mutualidad Compania De Seguros Y Reaseguros Sa and Another v Keefe: CA 17 Jun 2015

Injury suffered whilst on holiday in Tenerife

Judges:

Moore-Bick, Black, Gloster LJJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 598, [2015] 2 CLC 15, [2016] Lloyd’s Rep IR 94, [2015] WLR(D) 265, [2016] 1 WLR 905, [2015] CP Rep 39

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 11(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Personal Injury, European

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.549104

Deutsche Schachtbauund Tiefbohrgesellschaft mbH v Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd: HL 1990

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

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley

Citations:

[1990] 1 AC 295

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSociete Eram Shipping Company Limited and others v Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Compagnie Internationale de Navigation HL 12-Jun-2003
The appeal concerned a final third party debt order (formerly a garnishee order). A judgment in France was registered here for enforcement. That jurisdiction was now challenged.
Held: A third party debt order is a proprietary remedy operating . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.183545

Secretary of State in Council of India v Kamachee Boye Sahaba: 1859

Lord Kingsdown said: ‘ . . the transactions of independent States between each other are governed by other laws than those which Municipal Courts administer’.

Judges:

Lord Kingsdown

Citations:

(1859) 13 Moo PCC 22

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBelhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.634790

Nabob of The Carnatic v East India Company: 28 Jan 1793

The case arose out of the East India Company’s controversial relations with the Nabob at a stage when the courts had not yet learned to identify the East India Company with the British government. The Company had assisted the Nabob, a sovereign ruler, in his wars against neighbouring princes. The Nabob had thereby incurred large debts to them, secured on his public revenues and on part of his territory. The Nabob alleged that they had taken more than he owed them, and sued for an account. The company, although a private person in respect of its trading activities, was treated as a sovereign in relation to its operations as the ruler of a large part of India.
Held: The commissioners discharging the office of Chancellor dismissed the claim: ‘It is a case of mutual treaty between persons acting in that instance as states independent of each other; and the circumstance, that the East India Company are mere subjects with relation to this country, has nothing to do with that. That treaty was entered into with them, not as subjects, but as a neighbouring independent state, and is the same, as if it was a treaty between two sovereigns; and consequently is not a subject of private, municipal, jurisdiction.’
Political treaties between a foreign state and subjects of the crown of Great Britain, acting as an independent state under powers granted by charter and act of parliament, are not a subject of municipal jurisdiction ; therefore a bill founded on such treaties by the Nabob of Arcot against the East India Company was dismissed.

Citations:

[1793] EngR 1368, (1792-1793) 2 Ves Jun 56, (1793) 30 ER 521

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoNabob of The Carnatic v The East India Company 1789
. .
See AlsoNabob of The Carnatic v The East India Company 2-Jan-1789
A political treaty, between sovereigns, or parties exercising sovereign authority cannot be the subject of a municipal jurisdiction. . .
See AlsoNabob of The Carnatic v East India Company 23-Jul-1791
. .

Cited by:

CitedBelhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
ApprovedCarr v Fracis Times and Co HL 1902
The House considered a claim following seizure of ammunition by British officers in Muscat under the authority of a proclamation of the absolute ruler, the Sultan of Muscat, whose word was law.
Held: The appeal succeeded. To found an action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.357955

Nabob of The Carnatic v The East India Company: 2 Jan 1789

A political treaty, between sovereigns, or parties exercising sovereign authority cannot be the subject of a municipal jurisdiction.

Citations:

[1789] EngR 1626, (1789-1817) 1 Ves Jun Supp 149, (1789) 34 ER 729

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoNabob of The Carnatic v The East India Company 1789
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoNabob of The Carnatic v The East India Company 1789
. .
See AlsoNabob of The Carnatic v East India Company 23-Jul-1791
. .
CitedBelhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
See AlsoNabob of The Carnatic v East India Company 28-Jan-1793
The case arose out of the East India Company’s controversial relations with the Nabob at a stage when the courts had not yet learned to identify the East India Company with the British government. The Company had assisted the Nabob, a sovereign . .
See AlsoGhoolam Moortoozah Khan Bahadoor v The Government, Representing The Estate Of The Late Nabob Of The Carnatic 15-Jun-1863
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Constitutional

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.367257

AIG Capital Partners Inc and Another v Kazakhstan: ComC 20 Oct 2005

Aitkens J said as to the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property that it though not in force, and not ratified by the United Kingdom: ‘its existence and adoption by the UN after the long and careful work of the International Law Commission and the UN Ad Hoc Committee on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, powerfully demonstrates international thinking on the point.’

Judges:

Aikens J

Citations:

[2006] 1 All ER 284, [2005] EWHC 2239 (Comm), [2006] 1 WLR 1420

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedJones v Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimants said that they had been tortured by Saudi police when arrested on false charges. They sought damages, and appealed against an order denying jurisdiction over the defendants. They said that the allegation of torture allowed an exception . .
CitedSerVaas Incorporated v Rafidian Bank and Others SC 17-Aug-2012
The appellant had contracted to construct a factory in Iraq. On the imposition of sanctions, the respondent bank’s assets were frozen. The appellant sought to recover the sums due to it, and obtained judgment in France. After the fall of Hussain, . .
CitedBelhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Jurisdiction

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.231570

Peer 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 other titles. In Cuba laws had been passed to to recover copyrights assigned abroad.
Held: English law recognises no exceptions to the rule that a foreign law is not recognised to apply to goods situated here. The property right created by the equitable assignment survived the abrogation of the contracts.

Judges:

Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Latham

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1156, Times 11-Sep-2003, Gazette 02-Oct-2003, [2004] 2 WLR 849, [2004] Ch 212

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedKuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company and Others (Nos 4 and 5) HL 16-May-2002
After the invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqi government had dissolved Kuwait airlines, and appropriated several airplanes. Four planes were destroyed by Allied bombing, and 6 more were appropriated again by Iran.
Held: The appeal failed. No claim . .
CitedLorentzen v Lydden 1942
The Norwegian Government decreed that all ships registered in Norway were requisitioned. The defendants, a London firm had agreed to charter a Norwegian vessel for the carriage of pulp from Oslo to Grangemouth or Leith. The curator sued for damages, . .
CitedA Schroeder Music Publishing Co Ltd v Macaulay 1974
Assignments of copyright which were manifestly inequitable and oppressive could be void or unenforceable on grounds of public policy. . .
CitedLoucks v Standard Oil Co of New York 1918
An English court will exclude a foreign decree only when it ‘would violate some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of the common weal’ . .
CitedThe El Condado SCS 1939
Lord Aitchison said: ‘The penal laws of foreign countries are strictly local, and affect nothing more than they can reach and can be seized by virtue of their authority; a fugitive who passes hither, comes with all his transitory rights; he may . .
CitedFrankfurther 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. . .
CitedNovello and Co Ltd v Hinrichsen Editions Ltd 1951
The court refused to give credit to a foreign law as it applied to goods here because the law was confiscatory. . .
CitedBank Voor Handel En Scheepvaart NV v Slatford 1951
A Dutch bank deposited a quantity of gold in London before the start of the 1939-1945 war. In May 1940 the Netherlands were invaded and they became an enemy territory for the purposes of the 1939 Act. The Royal Netherlands Government, with the . .
CitedIn the Estate of Fuld, decd (No 3) ChD 1967
The deceased had spent relatively equal periods in two or more countries. The parties disputed his domicile.
Held: A blind adherence to foreign law can not be always expected of an English Court. The legal relationship between a person and the . .
CitedOppenheimer v Cattermole (Inspector of Taxes) HL 5-Feb-1975
HL Income tax, Schedule D – Foreign possessions – Double taxation relief – German government pension for past services – Paid to British subject of German origin – Whether German nationality deemed to be retained . .
Appeal fromPeer International Corporation and Others v Termidor Music Publishers Ktd and Another ChD 11-Dec-2002
The claimant company had acquired the copyrights to the works of several Cuban musicians. A law later passed by Cuba in 1960 had allowed the musicians to re-assign their copyrights.
Held: A title to property which had been given by English law . .

Cited by:

CitedB4U Network (Europe) Ltd v Performing Right Society Ltd CA 16-Oct-2013
Composers had entered an agreement with the respondent, assigning all copyrights in their works to the respondent. The respondent asserted also an equitable assignment of all future works. The appellant asserted that the rights in the particular . .
CitedBelhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
See AlsoPeer International Corp and others v Termidor Music Publishers Ltd and Another ChD 25-May-2005
The claimants sought declarations as to the ownership of copyrights to music fom Cuba. Many witnesses would be required to give evidence from Cuba. Attempts to take evidence by video link from Cuba had failed. It was suggested that the judge might . .
See AlsoPeer International Corporation and others v Termidor Music Publishers Ltd and others ChD 16-Nov-2006
Claim for English copyright of Cuban musical scores. . .
See AlsoPeer International Corporation and others v Termidor Music Publishers and others CA 23-Nov-2007
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.185457

L G Caltex Gas Co Ltd v National Petroleum Corporation and Another: CA 15 May 2001

Section 67(1)(a) applies both when a tribunal finds that it has jurisdiction and also when it declines jurisdiction. The respondent said that an informal agreement with the claimant to allow jurisdiction was limited to certain issues only. While an arbitral tribunal is entitled to determine whether it has jurisdiction, its decision on that issue is not binding on the parties.

Judges:

Lord Phillips MR, Pill, Keene LJJ

Citations:

[2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 97, [2001] EWCA Civ 788, [2001] CLC 1392, [2001] BLR 325, [2001] 4 All ER 875, (2001) 3 TCLR 22, [2001] 1 WLR 1892

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1996 67 73

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Arbitration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.201061

American Motorists Insurance Co (Amico) v Cellstar Corporation and another: CA 4 Mar 2003

The claimant, incorporated in Texas, took global transportation insurance with the first defendant, a Texan company, to cover its businesses in Europe. Proceedings began in England to avoid the global transportation insurance policy issued in Texas. The judge set aside service on one defendant and stayed the proceedings against the other, saying the contract was not governed by English law. The claimant contended on appeal that the contract covered risks in several countries and was severable so as to be governed by the law of each country where a company was situated.
Held: Appeal dismissed The contract had significant composite elements and could not be regarded as severable into a series of contracts applying to individual companies in the group in order to invoke the law of the country where each was incorporated as the governing law of the contract; that where a contract failed to express its governing law, the 1982 and 1990 Acts provided alternative schemes, but each required an English court to act on the implied intention of the contracting parties as to the applicable law; both parties intended the insurance contract to be under Texan law.

Judges:

Lords Justice Kennedy, Mantell and Mance

Citations:

Gazette 09-May-2003

Statutes:

Insurance Companies Act 1982, Contract (Applicable Law) Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromAmerican Motorists Insurance Co (Amico) v Cellstar Corporation and Another ComC 15-Mar-2002
Parties sought leave to bring an action here in a context of several insurance and re-insurance contracts from differemt jurisdictions, but where the agreements themselves did not select a governing law.
Held: The governing law of an insurance . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Jurisdiction

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.183093

Nabob of The Carnatic v East India Company: 23 Jul 1791

Citations:

[1791] EngR 1443, (1791) 1 Ves Jun 371, (1791) 30 ER 391

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoNabob of The Carnatic v The East India Company 2-Jan-1789
A political treaty, between sovereigns, or parties exercising sovereign authority cannot be the subject of a municipal jurisdiction. . .
See AlsoNabob of The Carnatic v The East India Company 1789
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoNabob of The Carnatic v East India Company 28-Jan-1793
The case arose out of the East India Company’s controversial relations with the Nabob at a stage when the courts had not yet learned to identify the East India Company with the British government. The Company had assisted the Nabob, a sovereign . .
See AlsoGhoolam Moortoozah Khan Bahadoor v The Government, Representing The Estate Of The Late Nabob Of The Carnatic 15-Jun-1863
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.362958

Gascoigne 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 jurisdictions within the EEC, hearing and seeing different witnesses, reach different conclusions which have hinged on an assessment of the reliability of individual witnesses; and of course the problem may be compounded in cases where there are different procedures in the different national courts in the way in which they hear the evidence and assess it. Moreover, different findings of fact also frequently lead to different conclusions of law.’

Judges:

Hirst LJ

Citations:

[1994] 1 LPr 82, Times 26-Nov-1991

Statutes:

Brussels Convention 1968 Art 22

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMasri 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 . .
CitedCasio Computer Co Ltd v Sayo and others CA 11-Apr-2001
The court was asked whether a constructive trust claim based on dishonest assistance is a matter ‘relating to tort, delict or quasi delict’ for the purpose of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention?
Held: A constructive trust claim based upon . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.235391

Stolzenberg and others v CIBC Mellon Trust Co Ltd and others: CA 30 Jun 2004

The court considered the issue of the use of a strike out as a sanction for non-compliance with a court order.
Held: The approach of the court in a case considering relief for sanctions – exemplified by RC Residuals v Linton Fuel was bound to be different from that in Arrow Nominees v Blackledge, as there was no ‘unless’ order in the latter case. Her Ladyship stated: ‘The fact that an ‘unless’ order has been made inevitably means that there is an additional factor to consider. Had there been a relevant order in Arrow Nominees, that, too, would have been a factor. It is only a factor to be weighed in the balance. Moreover, compliance with orders of the court is not a question of judicial amore propre. It goes to the essence of the rule of law that parties subject to the court’s jurisdiction . . should comply with the court’s orders. The gravity of the matter of non-compliance is plainly increased where the non-compliance results from a conscious decision, as in this case. It follows, as Ward LJ said in High Tech Limited v Coventry City Council [1997] 1WLR 1666 at 1674 to 1675, that, ‘If a party intentionally or deliberately . . flouts the order, he can expect no mercy’. He has to persuade the court that in all the circumstances the injustice to him outweighs the interests of the administration of justice and the injury to the other party.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward Lady Justice Arden Sir William Aldous

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 827

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedGluckstein v Barnes; Re Olympia Ltd, ex parte Gluckstein HL 1900
Directors’ hidden profits disclosable
Promoters of a company had acquired a property intending its resale through the sale of shares in the company. In doing so the original directors made a substantial profit which they did not disclose (though it was discoverable). The company became . .
CitedR C Residuals Ltd (formerly Regent Chemicals Ltd) v Linton Fuel Oils Ltd CA 2-May-2002
The applicant had failed to comply with an unless order, delivering his expert evidence some 20 minutes late. The evidence had not been allowed. They appealed.
Held: The claim was re-instated. This was not the first occasion of default. . .
See AlsoCIBC Mellon Trust Company and others v Stolzenberg CA 15-Jun-2001
Application for leave to appeal, for an extension of time to appeal, and for a stay of execution pending the hearing of the appeal. . .
Appeal fromCIBC Mellon Trust Company and Others v Stolzenberg and Others ChD 3-Feb-2003
Application to set aside judgments entered on failure to comply with ‘unless’ orders.
Held: Etherton J said: ‘The Court of Appeal has laid down guidance as to the approach of the Court when considering an application for relief from sanctions . .

Cited by:

CitedTisson v Telewest Communications Group Ltd EAT 19-Feb-2008
The claimant’s claim had been struck out for his failure to comply with an order to serve a list of documents.
Held: The appeal failed. The principles applied under the Civil Procedure Rules should be applied in Employment Tribunals. The . .
See AlsoVenulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architecture Ltd and Others TCC 22-May-2013
The claimant sought an extension of time to serve the Particulars of Claim. The solicitors said that they had misread the relevant Rules.
Held: The solicitors had acted on the basis of the former practice, but the rules had been substantially . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198474

Tryg Baltic International (UK) Ltd v Boston Compania De Seguros Sa and others: ComC 28 May 2004

Four defendants from Argentina sought to have set aside an order for them to be served, saying the appropriate jursidiction, if there was a triable issue, would be Argentina.
Held: The agreements were to be construed according to English Law. There was an advantage in settling these issues in advance of pessification. ‘Where points of construction of English law are involved, particularly those which involve Reinsurance with conditions precedent, ‘full reinsurance’ clauses and ‘follow the settlements’ clauses, the natural expectation of the parties must be for the English Courts to resolve such matters. ‘

Judges:

Cooke The Honourable Mr Justice Cooke

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1186 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedThe Zephyr 1984
Whilst it is possible to make a contract which is partly oral and partly written, that is not the practice of the marine insurance market. The policy is the formal contractual document issued to the assured and unequivocally contains the terms of . .
CitedCredit Lyonnais v New Hampshire Insurance Company CA 12-Mar-1997
Whether two policies of insurance were governed by English or French law. . .
CitedVolvox Hollandia 1998
. .
CitedMessier-Dowty Ltd and Another v Sabena Sa and Others CA 21-Feb-2000
The defendants sought a declaration that they would not be liable in respect of their potential involvement in a pending action. The appellants asserted that such a declaration could not be granted since no proceedings were yet in issue. The court . .
CitedNew Hampshire Insurance Company and others v Phillips Electronics North America Corporation CA 16-May-1997
In the context of applications for negative declarations: ‘1. There is power to grant a negative declaration in an appropriate case, the fundamental test being whether it would be useful. 2. However, careful scrutiny will be exercised not only to . .
CitedForsikringsaktieselskapt Vesta v Butcher HL 1988
A contract of insurance and a facultative reinsurance, under which part of the original risk was reinsured, contained warranties in identical terms.
Held: The warranty in the reinsurance policy, which was governed by English law, should be . .
CitedGroupama Navigation Et Transports; Continent Sa; Mutuelles Du Mans; Zurich International France SA and Gie Generali Transports (Bodies Corporate) v V Catatumbo Seguros (a Body Corporate) CA 20-Jul-2000
. .
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 . .
CitedThe Nile Rhapsody ComC 1992
. .
CitedBaker v Black Sea and Baltic General Insurance Co Ltd HL 20-May-1998
The question agreed to be before the court was ‘Where an insurer incurs costs in investigating settling or defending claims by his insured, can the insurer recover a proportion of these costs under a quota share or other form of proportional . .
CitedThe Nile Rhapsody CA 1994
. .
CitedCGU v Szabo 2002
. .
CitedMunchener Ruckversicherungsgesellschaft (Trading As Munich Reinsurance Company) v Commonwealth Insurance Company ComC 28-Apr-2004
Challenge to leave to serve proceedings on Canadian defendant. . .
CitedThe Lincoln National Life Insurance Co v Employers Reinsurance Corporation ComC 5-Feb-2002
. .
CitedPrifti and others v Musini Sociedad Anonima De Seguros Y Reaseguros ComC 21-Nov-2003
‘It is argued that because the subject matter of the Reinsurance was a Spanish risk, the commercial context of the . . Reinsurance suggests in the absence of an express jurisdiction agreement, that the parties intended the Spanish Courts to have . .
CitedSiporex Trade SA v Comdel Commodities 1986
The court should not absolve a defaulting party from the consequences of its neglect by maintaining a Mareva injunction order in force. . .
CitedThe Giovanna 1999
Non-disclosure by applicant for interim relief . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.197932

Metall und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette Inc: CA 1990

There was a complicated commercial dispute involving allegations of conspiracy. A claim by the plaintiffs for inducing or procuring a breach of contract would have been statute-barred in New York.
Held: Slade LJ said: ‘The judge’s approach to the limitation point was further criticised by the defendants’ counsel on the grounds that, following the guidance given by Lord Goff in Spiliada relating to the treatment of a ‘legitimate personal or juridical advantage’ he should first have considered which was the appropriate forum without reference to the juridical advantage which M. and R. would enjoy by proceedings in England, and only if he decided that New York was prima facie the appropriate forum, should have gone on to consider whether, none the less, the limitation point rendered a trial in England necessary for the purpose of doing substantial justice between the parties. We think that the approach to this point suggested on behalf of the defendants is correct in principle and that at least on one reading of the judge’s judgment, he did not follow it, but took into account the juridical advantage point in his initial search for the appropriate forum.’
Slade LJ said: ‘Relief in tort under the principle of Grainger v Hill is not, in our judgment, available against a party who, however dishonestly, presents a false case for the purpose of advancing or sustaining his claim or defence in civil proceedings. This may well cause hardship to an injured party who cannot be sufficiently compensated by an appropriate order for costs. However, if there is a gap in the law it rests on sound considerations of public policy, as does the rule of law which gives immunity to witnesses against civil actions based on the falsity of evidence given in judicial proceedings. If the position were otherwise, honest litigants might be deterred from pursuing honest claims or defences and honest witnesses might be deterred from giving evidence.’

Judges:

Slade LJ

Citations:

[1990] 1 QB 391

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromMetall und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette Inc and another QBD 29-Mar-1988
The plaintiff had suffered damage when given negligent advice. It obtained a judgment but the company became insolvent, and it now sought to sue the US parent company in conspiracy. The defendant said that to establish conspiracy it was necessary . .
CitedParker v Schuller CA 1901
The plaintiffs had obtained leave to serve a writ out of the jurisdiction under Order 11, r 1(e) of the RSC on the ground that the claim was for breach of a contract within the jurisdiction. The breach alleged was of a CIF contract, and the . .

Cited by:

CitedLewis and others v King CA 19-Oct-2004
The claimant sought damages for defamation for an article published on the Internet. The claimant Don King sued in London even though he lived in the US as did the defendants.
Held: A publication via the internet occurred when the material was . .
CitedTotal Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .
CitedLand Securities Plc and Others v Fladgate Fielder (A Firm) CA 18-Dec-2009
The claimants wanted planning permission to redevelop land. The defendant firm of solicitors, their tenants, had challenged the planning permission. The claimants alleged that that opposition was a tortious abuse because its true purpose was to . .
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 . .
CitedStobart Group Ltd and Others v Elliott QBD 11-Apr-2013
The defendant applied to the court for various officers of the cliamant companies to be subject to contempt proceedings. The claimants asked the court to strike of the defendant’s counterclaim and to make a civil restraint order against him. There . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Torts – Other

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.220029

Turner v Grovit: ECJ 27 Apr 2004

The claimant had been employed as a solicitor by the respondent at locations across Europe, and came to claim in England that they had wrongly implicated him in unlawful activity. The company sought to issue proceedings in Spain.
Held: The Brussels Convention was based upon trust and respect between contracting states. The Convention did not allow one state to restrain another from hearing a claim save in the limited circumstances set out in the Convention, and even though such proceedings might be though to be in bad faith. No matter how much bad faith was displayed by a party to litigation in beginning proceedings in a Contracting State it must always be for that Contracting State to assume or decline jurisdiction. That is because a Jurisdiction and Judgment Convention creates a closed system in which it is assumed that every Contracting State will come to a similar decision about jurisdiction: ‘the rules on jurisdiction that [the Brussels Convention] lays down . . are common to all courts of the Contracting States [and must] be interpreted and applied with the same authority by each of them.’
Europa Brussels Convention – Proceedings brought in a Contracting State – Proceedings brought in another Contracting State by the defendant in the existing proceedings – Defendant acting in bad faith in order to frustrate the existing proceedings – Compatibility with the Brussels Convention of the grant of an injunction preventing the defendant from continuing the action in another Member State

Judges:

V Skouris, P

Citations:

Times 29-Apr-2004, C-159/02, [2004] EUECJ C-159/02, [2004] ECR I – 3565, [2005] 1 AC 101, [2005] ICR 23, [2004] 3 WLR 1193, [2004] ECR I-3565, [2004] All ER (EC) 485

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Brussel Convention 1968

Citing:

Reference fromTurner 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 . .
CitedOverseas Union Insurance Ltd and others v New Hampshire Insurance Company ECJ 27-Jun-1991
ECJ Article 21 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters must be interpreted as meaning that the rules applicable to lis alibi pendens . .

Cited by:

Referred toTurner 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 . .
CitedOT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corporation and others CA 13-Jun-2005
The parties to a contract had agreed that the proper law for the contract was England. One party commenced proceedings in Canada, and the courts of Canada had accepted jurisdiction as the most appropriate and convenient forum to resolve the dispute. . .
CitedNussberger 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 . .
CitedWest 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. . .
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: . .
CitedAllianz 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 . .
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.

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196581

Smith (Wallace Duncan), Regina v (No 4): CACD 17 Mar 2004

The defendant appealed convictions for fraudulent trading and obtaining property by deception, saying that the English court could not prosecute an offence committed principally in the US.
Held: Provided some substantial element (here the deception) took place within the UK, and provided there was no offence to international comity, the court here could hear such a case. Convictions for obtaining services by deception were substituted for the property convictions, but otherwise the appeal was dismissed. The common law had to be allowed to develop. The court had to decide between Smith and Manning. Smith was preferred. Substitutional convictions were imposed.

Judges:

The Lord Chief Justice of England And Wales, Mr Justice Richards And Mr Justice Henriques

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Crim 631, Times 29-Mar-2004, [2004] QB 1418, [2004] 2 Cr App R 17, [2004] 3 WLR 229

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 485

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Preddy; Regina v Slade; Regina v Dhillon (Conjoined Appeals) HL 10-Jul-1996
The appellants were said to have made false mortgage applications. They appealed convictions for dishonestly obtaining property by deception.
Held: A chose in action created by an electronic bank transfer was not property which was capable of . .
CitedRegina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .
See alsoRegina v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No 1) CACD 13-Nov-1995
In the offence of fraudulent trading, ‘creditors’ are those to whom money was owed, including future creditors, not just those who can presently sue. Deceptions practised in UK, but having their effect abroad are prosecutable here. The only feature . .
See AlsoRegina v Smith, WD CACD 18-May-1999
The Court of Appeal Criminal Division has the discretion to adjourn an appeal, once it becomes clear that the point at issue was a point of law, which was itself the subject of a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. . .
See AlsoRegina v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No 3) CACD 28-Nov-2002
The appellant was supported in his appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. In addition the appellant sought to permission raise other grounds of appeal. The prosecution asserted that the court could filter the grounds of appeal already . .
CitedRegina v Manning CACD 24-Jun-1998
The defendant appealed his conviction for obtaining property by deception where part of the offence had taken place abroad.
Held: Smith should be overturned. The last act or terminatory theory remains the binding common law of England and . .
CitedRegina v Roberts 1990
. .
CitedRegina v Berry (No 2) 1991
. .
CitedPoole and Mills v Regina CACD 17-Jun-2003
The case was a reference from the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The defendants had been convicted in 1990 of murder. The House of Lords had dismissed an earlier appeal. Police officers had allowed statements to be put forward which were false in . .
CitedRegina v Cooke CACD 24-Jan-1997
The defendant had been convicted of a mortgage fraud, but sought leave to appeal out of time in the light of Preddy.
Held: ‘In the light of Graham and upon our reading of section 1 of the 1978 Act we consider that the wording of subsection (2) . .
CitedRegina v Hawkins (Paul) CACD 2-Aug-1996
The defendant sought leave to appeal out of time after a guilty plea.
Held: Leave was not granted despite a subsequent ruling on the Theft Act, which showed the basis of the original plea to have been wrong in law. No injustice had been shown, . .
CitedRegina v Halai CACD 15-Jul-1982
The defendant went to his solicitor, who was also an agent of a building society, to raise a mortgage to purchase a house. The defendant gave false details in the form which was intended to induce the building society to make an advance. He signed . .
CitedRegina v Teong Sun Chuah CACD 1991
. .
CitedRegina v Hawkins (Paul) CACD 2-Aug-1996
The defendant sought leave to appeal out of time after a guilty plea.
Held: Leave was not granted despite a subsequent ruling on the Theft Act, which showed the basis of the original plea to have been wrong in law. No injustice had been shown, . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Doot HL 1973
The defendants were charged with conspiracy to import dangerous drugs into the United Kingdom. Their counsel submitted that they could not be tried in England since the conspiracy had been formed abroad.
Held: There could be no breach of any . .

Cited by:

See AlsoRegina v Smith, WD CACD 18-May-1999
The Court of Appeal Criminal Division has the discretion to adjourn an appeal, once it becomes clear that the point at issue was a point of law, which was itself the subject of a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. . .
See AlsoRegina v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No 3) CACD 28-Nov-2002
The appellant was supported in his appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. In addition the appellant sought to permission raise other grounds of appeal. The prosecution asserted that the court could filter the grounds of appeal already . .
CitedPurdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 30-Jul-2009
Need for Certainty in Scope of Offence
The appellant suffered a severe chronic illness and anticipated that she might want to go to Switzerland to commit suicide. She would need her husband to accompany her, and sought an order requiring the respondent to provide clear guidelines on the . .
CitedSheppard and Another, Regina v CACD 29-Jan-2010
The defendants appealed against their convictions for publishing racially inflammatory material. They skipped bail during the trial, were convicted in their absence, and returned after being refused asylum in the US. The convictions related to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Jurisdiction

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194905

Tavoulareas 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 proceedings may be considered pending retrospectively from the date of filing of the writ, once service has been effected . . However, it is impossible to accept that the Greek proceedings were, for the purposes of art. 21 of the Brussels Convention, definitively pending from Nov. 8, 2001 (when they were filed). Article 21 requires a simple chronological approach, which is inconsistent with retrospectivity. That is obvious in principle, and was stated in Dresser, where Lord Justice Bingham said: ‘Some tie-break rule was necessary, and that adopted by the Convention was a simple test of chronological priority.”

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Evans-Lombe, Lord Justice Mance, Lord Justice Thorpe

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 48, [2004] 1 Lloyds Rep 445

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Brussels Convention 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoTavoulareas v Tsavliris and others ComC 21-Mar-2003
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoTavoulareas v Tsavliris and Another ComC 12-Oct-2005
. .
See AlsoTavoulareas v Alexander G Tsavliris and Sons Maritime Company ComC 24-Nov-2005
. .
See AlsoTavoulareas v Tsavliris and others ComC 9-Mar-2006
Formal recognition of judgment from Greek court. . .
CitedNussberger 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 . .
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: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192641

Don King v Lennox Lewis, Lion Promotions, LLC Judd Burstein: QBD 6 Feb 2004

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 168 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromLewis and others v King CA 19-Oct-2004
The claimant sought damages for defamation for an article published on the Internet. The claimant Don King sued in London even though he lived in the US as did the defendants.
Held: A publication via the internet occurred when the material was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192660

Royal Bank of Canada v Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank Ba: CA 23 Jan 2004

The claimant sought an order to restrain proceedings in New York. The parties were based in Canada and the Netherlands, with places of business in New York and London also. The swap agreement underlying the claim provide for it to be governed non-exclusively by the laws of England, but which envisaged other courts applying it.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Thorpe Mr Justice Evans-Lombe

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 7

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRoyal Bank of Canada v Cooperative Centrale Raiffeisen-Boorenleenbank Binding Authority ComC 2-Dec-2003
. .
CitedSouth Carolina Insurance Co v Assurantie Maatschappij de Zeven Provincien NV HL 1987
There can be little basis for the grant of relief to a landowner providing protection from an action in nuisance if the landowner will not himself remedy the public nuisance. The House considered whether the circumstances gave the court power to . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Jurisdiction, Contract, Banking

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.192101

Morin v Bonhams and Brooks Limited Bonhams and Brooks S A M: CA 18 Dec 2003

The claimant had bought a vintage Ferrari motor car through the defendant auctioneers in Monaco but sought rescission after it appeared that the odometer had been altered. The auction conditions purported to exclude any description of the car. He appealed against refusal of a request for leave to serve the defendant outside the jurisdiction.
Mance LJ said: ‘As to English law, the judge also concluded, obiter, that Mr Morin had a reasonable prospect of showing that [BandB Monaco] owed him and were in breach of a duty of care, despite cll 3 and 27 of the conditions of sale. He distinguished statements of Morison J in De Balkany v Christie Manson and Woods Ltd (1997) 16 Tr LR 163 as obiter and as concerned with differently worded conditions. The present conditions are at pains to exclude any warranty or guarantee, and to refer to catalogue statements as matters of ‘opinion’. But cl 3 is prefaced by the words ‘Whilst every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of the description of each Lot in any Catalogue’ and cl 27 says that the description and information in the catalogue ‘are given for guidance’. It is a usual implication in relation to any expression of opinion by a professional person that due diligence has been exercised in preparing and expressing the opinion, and the opening words of cl 3 are entirely consistent with this’.

Judges:

Lord Justice Keene Lord Justice Mance

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1802, [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 880, [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 702, [2004] ILPr 24

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromMorin v Bonhams and Brooks Ltd and Another ComC 18-Mar-2003
Claim for rescission of contract for purchase of Ferrari car at auction after discovery of alteration to odometer.
Jonathan Hirst QC said (after discussing the Christie’s case): ‘Plainly this authority provides substantial ammunition for BandB . .
CitedProtea Leasing Ltd v Royal Air Cambodge Company Ltd ComC 12-Dec-2002
The court should be careful before applying cases predating the 1995 Act on related issues. . .
CitedDistillers Co Ltd v Thompson HL 1971
When asking where a tort occurred so as to give jurisdiction the court should ask: ‘where in substance did the cause of action arise, or . . what were the elements which constituted the gist of the relevant tort which it was alleged had been . .
CitedMetall und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette Inc and another QBD 29-Mar-1988
The plaintiff had suffered damage when given negligent advice. It obtained a judgment but the company became insolvent, and it now sought to sue the US parent company in conspiracy. The defendant said that to establish conspiracy it was necessary . .
CitedDe Balkany v Christie Manson and Woods Ltd QBD 19-Jan-1995
Over-painting was deemed to be a forgery within the Christie terms and conditions. The exception was excluded. Christie’s was liable under the guarantee it had given. Morison J also considered (obiter) the defendant’s possible liability in tort, and . .

Cited by:

CitedAvrora Fine Arts Investment Ltd v Christie, Manson and Woods Ltd ChD 27-Jul-2012
The claimants had bought a painting (Odalisque) through the defendant auctioneers. They now claimed that it had been misattributed to Kustodiev, and claimed in negligence and misrepresentation.
Held: Based on the connoisseurship evidence, the . .
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.

Contract, Jurisdiction

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191204

Mukta Gokaldas Hindocha (widow of C S Gheewala) and Others v Mahesh Shamjibhal Juthabhai Gheewala and Others: PC 20 Nov 2003

PC (Jersey) The defendant sought a stay of the action, arguing it should be heard in another jurisdiction. He wanted the estate to be administered in Kenya, a jurisdiction which would apply Hindu laws of coparceny, but the substantial asset was in Jersey.
Held: The Royal Court was right in its view that Kenya is clearly a more appropriate forum than Jersey for the trial of Mahesh’s action, and that no compelling reason has been made out for rejecting Kenya on the ground that Mahesh (or any other party) cannot expect to obtain justice there.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Sir William Aldous

Citations:

[2003] UKHL 77

Links:

Bailii, PC

Citing:

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 . .
CitedLubbe (Suing As Administrator Of The Estate Of Rachel Jacoba Lubbe) and 4 Others v Cape plc and Related Appeals HL 22-Jun-2000
South African asbestosis victims suing in England submitted that to stay their proceedings in favour of the South African forum would violate their article 6 rights. A stay was refused on the non-Convention ground that, because of the lack of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Jurisdiction, Wills and Probate

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188440

Harada Limited (T/A Chequepoint) v Turner: CA 2 Dec 2003

Applications for leave to appeal. The claimant had alleged unfair dismissal. The respondent denied jurisdiction.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mance, Lord Justice Mummerym Lord Justice Simon Brown

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1695

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 196(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoHarada Ltd v Turner CA 6-Apr-2001
The claimant had sought damages alleging unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from his wages. The defendant argued that it was not subject to the jurisdiction of the court. During preliminary discussions, the judge hearing the application was . .

Cited by:

CitedWinkler and Another v Shamoon and Others ChD 15-Feb-2016
The claimants sought a declaration as against the residuary beneficiaries (wife and daughter) under the will, saying that the claimants had a beneficial interest in company shares within the estate. The defendants fild acknowledgments of service but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Jurisdiction

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188395

Barnette v Government of the United States of America; United States Government v Montgomery (No 2): CA 24 Mar 2003

The appellant sought to resist the registration here of a confiscation order made in the US. She argued it would be contrary to the interests of justice to register it, that the US procedure would be unlawful here under the Convention, the appeal having been held in her absence.
Held: It could not be said that the registration here of the order would lead to a breach of the applicant’s human rights. Any breach of the applicant’s human rights in the US was not flagrant. English law itself allowed such a hearing in limited circumstances. The US proceedings were seen as civil. In the interests of comity, the order should be registered.

Judges:

Lord Justice Scott Baker Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales Lord Justice Kennedy

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 392, Times 28-Mar-2003, Gazette 05-Jun-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 1916

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 97, European Convention on Human Rights 6.1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See alsoUnited States Government v Montgomery and Another HL 6-Feb-2001
An English court had power to make a restraining order against the disposal of assets pending an application for confiscation pursuant to a US order. This applied even if the US original judgment predated the date on which the US was added to the . .
DistinguishedSoering v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be . .
CitedHadkinson v Hadkinson CA 1952
The courts adopt an approach similar to that of the United States courts where there has been a significant contempt on the part of a party to litigation. Denning LJ said: ‘Those cases seem to me to point the way to the modern rule. It is a strong . .
CitedWim Harry Gerard Maronier v Bryan Larmer CA 29-May-2002
The defendant had been a dentist in the Netherlands. An action for damages was begun against him, but then stayed. Judgment was later entered in the Netherlands after he had moved to the UK, and of which he was ignorant. There was no subsisting . .
Appeal fromGovernment of the United States of America v Barnette and another Admn 2002
The applicant sought to register, under the Act, an order against the funds of the defendant, who replied that the order sought to be registered had been obtained in a way which would infringe her human rights if obtained here. As a fugitive she had . .

Cited by:

See AlsoUnited States Government v Montgomery and Another HL 6-Feb-2001
An English court had power to make a restraining order against the disposal of assets pending an application for confiscation pursuant to a US order. This applied even if the US original judgment predated the date on which the US was added to the . .
Appeal fromGovernment of the United States of America v Barnette and Montgomery (No 2) HL 22-Jul-2004
The applicant sought to resist orders for the return to the US of what were alleged to be the proceeds (direct or indirect) of a fraud committed there. She had been in contempt of the court in the US and was a fugitive here. She complained that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Jurisdiction, International

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180050

Staines v Walsh, Howard: ChD 14 Mar 2003

The claimant sought an account from the defendant share broker for the proceeds of share transactions. The defendant said the matter should be tried in Hong Kong.
Held: The claimant must show a good arguable case. Here there was evidence to support the claimant’s assertion of the use of an address in England, and a case was therefore shown. There were clear English connections, and the contract was asserted to have been made in England. England was the forum conveniens.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Goldring

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 458 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 6.20, Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990, Rome Convention 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules, Contract

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179918

Wermuth v Wermuth: CA 4 Feb 2003

The husband had commenced proceedings for divorce in Germany. The husband was German, and the wife became German upon the marriage, but they had lived in London. The wife was second to issue, beginning proceedings in London. The district judge recorded the parties’ agreement that the German court should be seized, save of article 12 matters. The wife obtained an ancillary relief maintenance order, which the husband now appealed.
Held: The maintenance order was an unwarranted invasion of the jurisdiction of the German court. It was not protective, and nor was the case urgent. Brussels II has no direct application to ancillary relief claims. It was wrong for an English court to seek to usurp the Convention. Substantial sums had been spent on legal costs unnecessarily in London.

Judges:

Thorpe, Latham, LJJ, Lawrence Collins J

Citations:

Times 07-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 50, [2003] 1 WLR 942

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation No 1347/2000/EC (OJ 2000 L160/19) 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Jurisdiction, European

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179018

Sabah 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 was not clear which proceedings had commenced first, but the terms of the guarantee were clear enough to justify an anti-suit injunction from the English courts. Clauses dealing with waiver of immunity need not be construed tightly.

Judges:

Sir Martin Nourse, Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Pill

Citations:

Times 27-Nov-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1643

Links:

Bailii

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 . .
See AlsoSabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Another CA 24-Apr-2002
. .

Cited by:

CitedOT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corporation and others CA 13-Jun-2005
The parties to a contract had agreed that the proper law for the contract was England. One party commenced proceedings in Canada, and the courts of Canada had accepted jurisdiction as the most appropriate and convenient forum to resolve the dispute. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, International

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178077

Kenburn Waste Management Ltd v Bergmann: CA 30 Jan 2002

The claimant had failed to obtain an order under a compromise agreement ordering that a foreign resident was not to be contacted.
Held: The place of performance of an obligation not to contact somebody under the Convention was the place of residence of the person who was not to be contacted, not that of the person against whom the order was made. The applicable law was therefore the place of residence of the person protected. The connection attached to the person not the place.

Judges:

Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Lord Justice Keene

Citations:

Times 04-Feb-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 98

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 Art 5, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromKenburn Waste Management Ltd v Bergmann ChD 9-Jul-2001
By a contract, a party accepted an obligation not to contact persons in a certain country. When a breach was alleged, the question arose as to in which jurisdiction the breach had occurred. It was held that the obligation was a negative obligation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.167542

Danielsson, Largenteau and Haoa v Commission of the European Communities: ECFI 22 Dec 1995

ECFI Nuclear tests conducted by a Member State – Application for interim relief -Article 34 of the EAEC Treaty – Application for suspension of the operation of a Commission decision regarding nuclear tests. In principle, the issue of the admissibility of the main action should not be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures, so as not to prejudge the Court’ s decision on the substance of the case. It should be reserved for the examination of the main action, unless it is apparent at first sight that the latter is manifestly inadmissible. When that is the case, for example because the applicant is seeking the annulment of a decision addressed to a Member State and cannot be regarded as being prima facie individually concerned by that decision, the interim application must be dismissed.

Citations:

T-219/95, [1995] EUECJ T-219/95

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EAEC Treaty 34

European, Jurisdiction, Environment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173120

Kenburn Waste Management Ltd v Bergmann: ChD 9 Jul 2001

By a contract, a party accepted an obligation not to contact persons in a certain country. When a breach was alleged, the question arose as to in which jurisdiction the breach had occurred. It was held that the obligation was a negative obligation and although it appeared to fall upon the person who agreed to it, in fact any breach would occur in the country where the person contacted was situated. The result of this was that although the defendant lived in Germany, the place of effective or characteristic performance was in the UK, and it was under the convention more closely lined to the UK and could be tried here. The proviso in the later subsection applied.

Citations:

Times 09-Jul-2001

Statutes:

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 Art 4(2) 4(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromKenburn Waste Management Ltd v Bergmann CA 30-Jan-2002
The claimant had failed to obtain an order under a compromise agreement ordering that a foreign resident was not to be contacted.
Held: The place of performance of an obligation not to contact somebody under the Convention was the place of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.82729

BVC v EWF: QBD 12 Oct 2018

Judges:

Karen Steyn QC

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2674 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoBVC v EWF QBD 26-Sep-2019
Application by the Claimant for summary judgment in a claim for misuse of private information and harassment. The privacy claim arises from internet publication, on a website created by the Defendant, of his account of his relationship with the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.628218

Land Rover Exports Limited v Samcrete Egypt Engineers and Contractors S A E: CA 21 Dec 2001

The defendant appealed an order refusing a stay of the proceedings on the grounds of forum non conveniens. The contract of guarantee contained no choice of law clause, but the contract under which it was made set English law as the jurisdiction. The clause had been deleted from the guarantee contract, and the subject mater of the contract was in Egypt.
Held: the convention should be read in a purposive not literal way. The presumption under the convention can be most easily rebutted where the place of performance differs from the location of the party whose performance is characteristic of the contract. Article 3 did not choose jurisdiction in the case, and the judge had given too much weight to the main contract. Nevertheless there remained a sufficient preponderance of connection to refuse the stay of action in England.

Judges:

Lord Justice Thorpe, And, Lord Justice Potter

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 2019

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 4.2, Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 Sch 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedEgon Oldendorff v Libera Corporation 1996
Conflict of laws – ‘It is sufficient to say that the party relying upon art. 3 must demonstrate with reasonable certainty that the parties have chosen a particular law as the governing or applicable law. ‘ . .

Cited by:

CitedPt Pan Indonesia Bank Ltd Tbk v Marconi Communications International Ltd CA 27-Apr-2005
The parties disputed the jurisdiction of the English courts over a letter of credit. It foresaw payment here and in sterling, made by the English bank as against the appropriate documents. Authority had been given for service out of the . .
CitedCaledonia Subsea Limited v Micoperi Srl IHCS 12-Jul-2002
The court considered the proper application of Article 4 of the Convention. The Lord President expressed agreement with the position as stated in Samcrete: ‘I consider that the presumption under para 2 should not be disregarded unless the outcome of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167341

REFCO Capital Markets Ltd and Another v Eastern Trading Co, Credit Suisse (First Boston) Ltd and Another: CA 17 Jun 1998

An application for Mareva relief was granted under s.25 where proceedings were pending in the US against Lebanese defendants arising out of futures transactions with respect of assets in England. On the application to discharge the order, the lower court held that, in view of the risk of asset dissipation, the merits was for the US court and granted a holding injunction. The plaintiffs were advised that such an application in the US would fail and sought declaratory relief instead. Rix J held that the forensic activity in Illinois should be regarded as if it were an application made and lost on the merits and discharged the injunction.
Held: There was insufficient evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets and that by the time the matter was before them the plaintiffs had effective security over substantial assets. A two-stage approach should be adopted on an application for interim relief under s.25 namely: (a) whether the facts would warrant the relief sought if the substantive proceedings were brought in England; (b) if yes, whether in the terms of s.25(2) the fact that the court has no jurisdiction apart from that section makes it inexpedient to grant the interim relief sought. Much effort was being spent in English courts attempting to give effect to letters rogatory requesting the English court to order the production of documents and oral deposition from third parties to litigation in the USA. Such orders are not part of standard procedure in England. Discovery against non-parties will not be provided because it simply was not part of English procedure.

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Schiemann and Lord Justice Waller

Citations:

Times 07-Dec-2001, [1998] EWCA Civ 1020, [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 159

Statutes:

Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

LeaveRefco Inc and Another v Eastern Trading Co and others CA 4-Jun-1998
The defendant sought and was granted leave to appeal. . .

Cited by:

Appeal proceededRefco Inc and Another v Eastern Trading Co and others CA 4-Jun-1998
The defendant sought and was granted leave to appeal. . .
CitedMotorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others (No 2) CA 12-Jun-2003
World-wide freezing orders had been made under the 1982 Act. The defendants were members of a Turkish family with substantial business interests in the telecommunications industry. In breach of orders made in the US some defendants had sought to . .
CitedBAS Capital Funding Corporation, Deutsche Bank Ag London, Paine Webber Capital Inc, PW Exe Lp, Pw Partners 1999 Lp v Medfinco Limited, Abacus Holdings Limited, Andreas W Gerdes, HTC Inc, etc ChD 25-Jul-2003
The claimants wanted to bring actions in respect of various matters under shareholders agreements in complex international joint ventures. Leave was given to serve English proceedings in Malta, and the claim form and particulars of claim were faxed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167118

Donohue v Armco Inc and others: HL 13 Dec 2001

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

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough Lord Scott of Foscott

Citations:

[2001] UKHL 64, [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 425, [2002] CLC 440, [2002] 1 All ER 749, [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 97

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedCiti-March Ltd v Neptune Orient Lines Ltd 1996
Colman J regarded separate trials in England and Singapore as not only inconvenient but also a potential source of injustice and made an order intended to achieve a composite trial in London despite a Singaporean exclusive jurisdiction clause . .
CitedBouygues Offshore SA v Caspian Shipping Company, and others CA 24-Jun-1998
A court need not first decide liability before applying grant of limitation of liability decree under the Act. That different Conventions were applied by UK and South Africa did not stop the establishment of a limitation fund for payment of damages . .
Appeal fromRoger Thomas Donohue v Armco Inc and others CA 29-Mar-2000
The claimant sought an order restraining the defendants from pursuing a claim in America. The parties were party to a contract governed by English law, but the allegation was one of fraud, and the defendants said this was outside the provisions of . .
ApprovedThe Eleftheria 1970
In general, and all other things being equal, it is more satisfactory (from the point of view of ensuring that justice is done) for the law of a foreign country to be decided by the courts of that country.
Brandon J said: ‘I further regard, . .
ApprovedThe El Amria 1981
The court set out the principles to be applied where a party seeks to enforce or act in breach of a choice of jurisdiction contract. If a party seek to sue here in breach of such a clause, the court has a discretion to stay, but a stay should be . .
At First InstanceR T Donohue v Armco Inc ComC 15-Jul-1999
ComC The individual claimant wished to prevent proceedings being brought against him in NY by 5 Defendant companies, who wished to sue him there for damages for conspiracy; fraud; breach of fiduciary duty and for . .

Cited by:

CitedExter 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 . .
CitedOT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corporation and others CA 13-Jun-2005
The parties to a contract had agreed that the proper law for the contract was England. One party commenced proceedings in Canada, and the courts of Canada had accepted jurisdiction as the most appropriate and convenient forum to resolve the dispute. . .
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.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167017

Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria: QBD 8 Apr 2011

The claimant had been defrauded by a customer of the defendant bank. He brought a claim against the bank, saying that they knew or ought to have known of the fraudster’s activities, and were liable. The Bank denied that the UK courts had jurisdiction saying in particular that no claim arose because it would be out of time, and denying forum conveniens.
Held: In respect of one Trust, but not the two others asserted, there was a serious issue to be tried, and England was clearly the forum conveniens, and service out of the jurisdiction was allowed.

Judges:

Supperstone J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 876 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedAK Investment CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd and Others PC 10-Mar-2011
Developing Law – Summary Procedures Very Limited
(Isle of Man) (‘Altimo’) The parties were all based in Kyrgyzstan, but the claimant sought a remedy in the Isle of Man which would be unavailable in Kyrgyzstan.
Held: Lord Collins said: ‘The general rule is that it is not normally appropriate . .
CitedDeripaska v Cherney CA 31-Jul-2009
The court considered where the trial of the action should take place.
Held: The defendant’s appeal failed. Even though the rights sought to be protected were of a proprietary nature, where the rights could properly be said to have arisen under . .
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. . .
CitedSoar v Ashwell CA 1893
Trustees under a will had entrusted the trust fund to a solicitor for investment. The solicitor exercised all of their administrative and investment powers for them and distributed part of the fund invested to the beneficiaries under the will but . .
CitedRoyal Brunei Airlines SDN BHD v Tan PC 24-May-1995
(Brunei) The defendants were a one-man company, BLT, and the one man, Mr Tan. A dishonest third party to a breach of trust was liable to make good a resulting loss even though he had received no trust property. The test of knowledge was an objective . .
CitedDubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
Highly PersuasivePeconic Industrial Development Ltd v Lau Kwok FAI 27-Feb-2009
Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. The limitation period for a claim in dishonest assistance is 6 years. For limitation purposes a distinction is to be made between two kinds of constructive trustees: those who are fiduciaries and those who are . .
CitedGL Baker Ltd v Medway Building and Supplies Ltd CA 11-Jan-1958
A claim was made by a company to recover money entrusted to its auditor who fraudulently had paid away some of it to a company of which he was a director. Amendments of pleadings for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy . .
CitedRG Carter Ltd v Clarke CA 1990
Even in an Order 14 application, the court will, on suitable occasions, be prepared to decide complicated and difficult questions of law.
Lord Donaldson MR said: ‘If a judge is satisfied that there are no issues of fact between the parties, it . .
CitedCattley and Another v Pollard and Another ChD 7-Dec-2006
The first defendant solicitor misappropriated money from an estate he was administering. The beneficiaries later commenced proceedings against his wife, alleging knowing assistance. She said that that claim was out of time. The claimant responded . .
CitedICI Chemicals and Polymers Ltd v TTE Training Ltd CA 13-Jun-2007
The Defendant had applied for summary judgment under CPR Part 24. One argument was a short point of construction. The Judge suggested the parties agree that he should decide the point as a preliminary issue. They were unwilling so he proceeded on . .
CitedStatek Corporation v Alford and Another ChD 17-Jan-2008
Evans-Lombe J said: ‘In my judgment, section 21(1) of the Limitation Act 1980, following the decision of Mr Justice Danckwerts in the G.L. Baker Ltd case and the obiter dicta of Lord Esher and Bowen LJ in Soar v Ashwell, is to be construed as . .
CitedHenry v Hammond KBD 1913
Channell J said: ‘It is clear that if the terms upon which the person receives the money are that he is bound to keep it separate, either in a bank or elsewhere, and to hand that money so kept as a separate fund to the person entitled to it, then he . .
CitedSchulman v Hewson and others ChD 2002
Blackburne J assumed that a plea of accessory liability was covered by s.21(1)(a). . .

Cited by:

See AlsoWilliams 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 . .
See AlsoCentral Bank of Nigeria v Williams CA 3-Apr-2012
The claimant alleged that he had been defrauded and accused the appellant of involvement in the fraud. The Bank appealed against a finding that the claim against it was not time limited.
Held: The appeal failed. The action was by a beneficiary . .
See AlsoWilliams v Central Bank of Nigeria CA 2-Jul-2013
The claimant appealed against an order dis-allowing service on it out of the jurisdiction.
Held: Dr Williams’ appeal in respect of the Nigerian law claim was allowed but rejected in respect of the trust claim and the contract claim. . .
See AlsoWilliams v Central Bank of Nigeria SC 19-Feb-2014
Bank not liable for fraud of customer
The appellant sought to make the bank liable for a fraud committed by the Bank’s customer, the appellant saying that the Bank knew or ought to have known of the fraud. The court was asked whether a party liable only as a dishonest assistant was a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.431904

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

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

Judges:

Lord Justice Henry, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Lord Justice Rix

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1570, [2002] 1 WLR 907

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBAS Capital Funding Corporation, Deutsche Bank Ag London, Paine Webber Capital Inc, PW Exe Lp, Pw Partners 1999 Lp v Medfinco Limited, Abacus Holdings Limited, Andreas W Gerdes, HTC Inc, etc ChD 25-Jul-2003
The claimants wanted to bring actions in respect of various matters under shareholders agreements in complex international joint ventures. Leave was given to serve English proceedings in Malta, and the claim form and particulars of claim were faxed . .
CitedBasil Shiblaq v Kahraman Sadikoglu (No 2) ComC 30-Jul-2004
The court considered whether there had been effective service of proceedings on defendants in Turkey. Evidence was given as to the effectiveness of such service in Turkish law.
Held: The defendant’s application to set aside the judgment in . .
See AlsoKnauf UK Gmbh v British Gypsum Ltd and Another ComC 23-Apr-2002
. .
CitedNussberger 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 . .
CitedPhillips 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 . .
CitedAbela and Others v Baadarani SC 26-Jun-2013
The claimants sought damages alleging fraud in a company share purchase. They said that their lawyer had secretly been working for the sellers. The claim form had been issued, but the claimant had delayed in requesting permission for its service . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166838

Al Skeini and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Another: Admn 14 Dec 2004

Several dependants of persons killed in Iraq by British troops claimed damages.
Held: The court considered extensively the scope and applicability of Article 1 duties. In general an English court would have no jurisdiction over deaths abroad at the hands of British troops in a war situation. One death however had occurred whist the deceased was in the custody of the British Forces whilst they were the occupying power. Here sufficient jurisdiction and duties of care arose, and the family were entitled to a proper investigation of the circumstances of the death.

Judges:

Mr Justice Forbes Lord Justice Rix

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2911 (Admin), Times 20-Dec-2004, [2007] QB 140, [2005] 2 WLR 1401, [2005] HRLR 3, [2005] UKHRR 427, [2005] ACD 51

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention of Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBankovic v Belgium ECHR 12-Dec-2001
(Grand Chamber) Air strikes were carried out by NATO forces against radio and television facilities in Belgrade on 23 April 1999. The claims of five of the applicants arose out of the deaths of relatives in this raid. The sixth claimed on his own . .

Cited by:

CitedAl-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 12-Aug-2005
The claimant was born an Iraqi, but had been granted British Nationality. He was later detained in Iraq suspected of membership of a terrorist group. No charges were brought, and he complained that his article 5 rights were infringed. The defendant . .
Appeal fromRegina (on the Application of Mazin Mumaa Galteh Al-Skeini and Others) v The Secretary of State for Defence CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimants were dependants of Iraqi nationals killed in Iraq.
Held: The Military Police were operating when Britain was an occupying power. The question in each case was whether the Human Rights Act applied to the acts of the defendant. The . .
CitedGentle and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v the Prime Minister and others Admn 20-Dec-2005
The applicants sought leave to bring judicial review of the decisions which led to the invasion of Iraq. They were relatives of servicemen who had died there.
Held: The court’s only duty at this stage was to ask whether there was an arguable . .
At First InstanceSecretary of State for Defence v Al-Skeini and others (The Redress Trust Intervening) HL 13-Jun-2007
Complaints were made as to the deaths of six Iraqi civilians which were the result of actions by a member or members of the British armed forces in Basra. One of them, Mr Baha Mousa, had died as a result of severe maltreatment in a prison occupied . .
CitedSmith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) SC 30-Jun-2010
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2.
At AdmnAl-Skeini and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
(Grand Chamber) The exercise of jurisdiction, which is a threshold condition, is a necessary condition for a contracting state to be able to be held responsible for acts or omissions imputable to it which give rise to an allegation of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Armed Forces, Jurisdiction, Coroners

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.220287

Attock Cement Co v Romanian Bank for Foreign Trade: CA 1989

Where the parties to a contract have agreed to an English forum it would require strong grounds for one of the parties to resist the exercise of jurisdiction by the English court: ‘We should also look with favour on a choice of our own jurisdiction, when it appears to have been made in order to find a court which is neutral rather than one that is convenient.’

Judges:

Staughton LJ

Citations:

[1989] 1 WLR 1147

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBAS Capital Funding Corporation, Deutsche Bank Ag London, Paine Webber Capital Inc, PW Exe Lp, Pw Partners 1999 Lp v Medfinco Limited, Abacus Holdings Limited, Andreas W Gerdes, HTC Inc, etc ChD 25-Jul-2003
The claimants wanted to bring actions in respect of various matters under shareholders agreements in complex international joint ventures. Leave was given to serve English proceedings in Malta, and the claim form and particulars of claim were faxed . .
CitedBols Distilleries VB (T/A As Bols Royal Distilleries) and Another v Superior Yacht Services Ltd PC 11-Oct-2006
(Gilbraltar) The parties disputed the management contract for a racing yacht, and also the juridiction of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar to hear the case. Bols said that under regulation 2(1) Gibraltar had no jurisdiction.
Held: The English . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.186475

SISRO v Ampersand Software: ECJ 11 Aug 1995

ECJ Article 37(2) and the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, are to be interpreted as meaning that a decision by which a court of a Contracting State, seised of an appeal against authorization to enforce an enforceable judgment of a court in another Contracting State, refuses a stay or lifts a stay previously ordered does not constitute a ‘judgment given on the appeal’ within the meaning of the said Article 37(2) and therefore cannot be contested by an appeal in cassation or similar form of appeal limited to the examination of points of law only. Moreover, the court seised of such an appeal on a point of law under Article 37(2) of the Convention does not have jurisdiction to impose or reimpose such a stay.

Citations:

C-432/93, [1995] EUECJ C-432/93

Links:

Bailii

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161214

Danvaern Production v Schuhfabriken Otterbeck: ECJ 13 Jul 1995

ECJ Judgment – Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Special jurisdiction – Counterclaim – Definition – Claim by the defendant in the main proceedings seeking the pronouncement of a separate judgment or decree Defence seeking to set off a claim by the defendant against a claim by the plaintiff – Excluded

Citations:

[1995] ECR I-2053, C-341/93, [1995] EUECJ C-341/93

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161168

H J Banks and Co Ltd v British Coal Corporation: ECJ 13 Apr 1994

The European Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over ECSC treaty disputes. The duty of sincere cooperation imposed the obligation on the national court to mitigate as far as possible in the interests of the Community the risk of a conflicting ruling. ‘As a body which supervises compliance with the Community rules of competition and has specialised departments for that purpose, the Commission has many years of experience with the result that its findings carry a degree of authority, although such authority is not binding. However, it is self-evident that no obstacles may be placed in the path of third parties seeking to challenge before the national court findings which the Commission has arrived at in a decision of that kind. If, on the basis of the parties’ arguments, the national court comes to the conclusion that the issues of fact and/or law decided by the Commission are incorrect or insufficient, or if at any rate it has serious doubts in that regard, then in the light of the Delimitis judgment it must take the following course of action: in the case of findings which carried no weight in the final decision and do not therefore underlie the reasoning of the Commission, the national court is at liberty to adopt a different interpretation: in those circumstances the risk of conflicting decisions and the resultant impairment of the principle of legal certainty is extremely small. On the other hand, in the case of findings which have an influence on the final decision arrived at by the Commission, the national court is well advised, in accordance with the provisions of its national procedural law, to suspend the proceedings in the case and to seek the necessary information from the Commission or make a direct reference to the court for a preliminary ruling concerning the validity of the decision in question or the interpretation of the relevant Community competition rules.’

Judges:

Advocate-General Van Gerven

Citations:

Times 13-May-1994, C-128/92, [1994] 5 CMLR 30, [1994] EUECJ C-128/92, [1994] ECR I-1209

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

CitedFoto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Lubeck-Ost ECJ 22-Oct-1987
ECJ Lack of jurisdiction of national courts to declare acts of Community institutions invalid – Validity of a decision on the post-clearance recovery of import duties. . .
CitedStergios Delimitis v Henninger Brau AG ECJ 28-Feb-1991
ECJ A beer supply agreement is prohibited by Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty if two cumulative conditions are met. The first is that, having regard to the economic and legal context of the agreement at issue, it . .
CitedHurd v Jones (Judgment) ECJ 15-Jan-1986
‘ . . . [A] provision produces direct effect in relations between the Member States and their subjects only if it is clear and unconditional and not contingent on any discretionary implementing measure.’ and ‘According to a consistent line of . .

Cited by:

CitedCrehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) CA 21-May-2004
The claimant had taken two leases, but had been made subject to beer ties with the defendant. He claimed damages for the losses, saying he had been forced to pay higher prices than those allowed to non-tied houses, and that the agreement was . .
CitedConsorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v Asda Stores Limited and others HL 8-Feb-2001
The name ‘Parma Ham’ was controlled as to its use under Italian law, and the associated mark, the ‘corona ducale’, was to be applied to a sale of Parma Ham, including any packaging. Proper Parma Ham was imported and resold through the defendant’s . .
At ECJH J Banks and Co Ltd and Others v British Coal Corporation QBD 10-Aug-1994
No cause of action could be pursued where the European Commission only can decide liability and no decision had yet been made. An action would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction rather than be stayed until the decision was made. . .
At ECJCoal Authority v H J Banks and Company Ltd; H J Banks and Company Ltd v The Coal Authority and Anoher ComC 20-Dec-1996
ComC Summary judgment under RSC Order 14 – claim for royalties – previous decision of the European Commission – claim for damages for breach of article 4 European Coal and Steel Treaty. The defence to the Coal . .
First ReferenceHJ Banks and Co Ltd v The Coal Authority and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ECJ 20-Sep-2001
Europa Reference for a preliminary ruling: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) – United Kingdom. ECSC Treaty – Licences to extract raw coal – Discrimination between producers – Special charges – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Utilities, Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.160920

Tavoulareas 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 not bound to enforce such a judgment.

Judges:

Longmore LJ

Citations:

Times 05-Jan-2007

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/200 34(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoTavoulareas v Alexander G Tsavliris and Sons Maritime Company ComC 24-Nov-2005
. .
Appeal fromTavoulareas v Tsavliris and others ComC 9-Mar-2006
Formal recognition of judgment from Greek court. . .
CitedHendrikman and Feyen v Magenta Druck and Verlag ECJ 10-Oct-1996
Judgment – Where proceedings are initiated against a person without his knowledge and a lawyer appears before the court first seised on his behalf but without his authority, such a person is quite powerless to defend himself and must be regarded as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, European

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.247773

Sparkasse Hilden Ratingen Velbert v Benk and Another: ChD 29 Aug 2012

The claimant bank said that the court had had no jurisdiction to make the order it had on the respondent’s bankruptcy, saying that his ‘centre of activity’ had been Germany, and not England.

Judges:

Purle QC J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2432 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 282(1)(a), Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29th May 2000 on Insolvency Proceedings

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insolvency, Jurisdiction, European

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.463776

Sonntag v Waidmann, Waidmann and Waidmann: ECJ 21 Apr 1993

Europa 1. A claim for compensation for loss to an individual resulting from a criminal offence, even though made in the context of criminal proceedings, is civil in nature unless the person against whom it is made is to be regarded as a public authority which acted in the exercise of its powers. That is not the case where the activity called in question is the supervision by a state-school teacher of his pupils during a school trip. It follows that ‘civil matters’ within the meaning of the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters covers a claim for damages brought before a criminal court against a state-school teacher who, during a school trip, occasioned loss to a pupil as a result of a culpable and unlawful breach of his duties of supervision, even where there is coverage by a scheme of social insurance under public law. 2. The second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention must be interpreted as precluding any appeal by interested third parties against the judgment given on an appeal against authorization to enforce a judgment given in another Contracting State, even where the domestic law of the State in which enforcement is sought confers on such third parties a right of appeal. 3. Since non-recognition of a judgment given in another Contracting State for the reasons set out in Article 27(2) of the Convention is possible only where the defendant was in default of appearance in the original proceedings, that provision may not be relied upon where the defendant appeared. A defendant is deemed to have appeared for the purposes of Article 27(2) of the Convention where, in connection with a claim for damages made in the context of the criminal proceedings pending before the criminal court, the defendant, through defence counsel of his own choice, answered the criminal charges at the trial but did not express a view on the civil claim, on which oral argument was also submitted in the presence of his counsel.
A claim was made by the parents and brother of a pupil who suffered a fatal accident during a school trip. One of the questions referred to the ECJ was whether an action for damages against a teacher in a state school was a ‘civil’ matter within the meaning of the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of the Brussels Convention.
Held: ‘It follows from the judgments in the LTU and Ruffer cases cited above that such an action falls outside the scope of the Convention only when the author of the damage against whom it is brought must be regarded as a public authority which acted in the exercise of public powers.’ A teacher in a school is not exercising public powers. The substantive duties on a teacher were, so far as concerned the standards of care in relation to the pupils, identical to those owed by all individuals, state employees or not, to those in their care. It followed that the action was a civil matter within the meaning of the Convention.

Citations:

Ind Summary 24-May-1993, C-172/91, [1993] EUECJ C-172/91, [1993] ECR 1-1963

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters

Cited by:

CitedGrovit v De Nederlandsche Bank Nv and Others CA 24-Jul-2007
The claimants sought damages in defamation in respect of a letter faxed by the first defendant to the other defendants in London. The first defendant said that it had state immunity, and the other claimed similar benefits acting as the bank’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160734

Reichert and Kockler v Dresdner Bank: ECJ 26 Mar 1992

The case concerned article 16(5) of the Brussels Convention, among other articles.
Held: It is necessary to take account of the fact that the essential purpose of the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the place in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced is that it is only for the courts of the Member State on whose territory enforcement is sought to apply the rules concerning the action on that territory of the authorities responsible for enforcement.

Citations:

C-261/90, [1992] ECR 1-2149, [1992] EUECJ C-261/90

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Brussesl Convention 16(5)

Cited by:

CitedKuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK and others v UBS AG, Qabazard HL 12-Jun-2003
Mr Qabazard conspired with others to defraud the Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK and Sitka Shipping Inc of large sums of money. On 16 November 1998 Moore-Bick J gave judgment against him for over US$130m. Historically sums had been placed with the . .
CitedMazur Media Limited and Another v Mazur Media Gmbh in Others ChD 8-Jul-2004
Proceedings were brought in England. The respondents sought a stay, saying the company was subject to insolvency proceedings in Germany.
Held: Our domestic insolvency law was not applicable to foreign proceedings, and so could not be used to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160547

Van Dalfsen and others v Van Loon and others: ECJ 4 Oct 1991

(Rec 1991,p I-4743) (Judgment) 1. The second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters is to be interpreted as meaning that a decision taken under Article 38 of the Convention by which the court with which an appeal has been lodged against an order for the enforcement of a judgment given in another Contracting State has refused to stay the proceedings and has ordered the party to whom the enforcement order was granted to provide security does not constitute a ‘judgment given on the appeal’ within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention and may not, therefore, be contested by an appeal in cassation or similar form of appeal. The position is the same where the decision taken under Article 38 of the Convention and the ‘judgment given on the appeal’ within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention are given in a single judgment.
2. The first paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention is to be strictly interpreted so as not to prejudice the effectiveness either of Article 31, which lays down the principle that a judgment given in a Contracting State and enforceable in that State may be enforced in another Contracting State even if it has not yet become res judicata, or of the third paragraph of Article 34, which prohibits the courts of the State in which enforcement is sought from reviewing the substance of the judgment given in the first State.
Hence the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention is to be interpreted as meaning that a court with which an appeal is lodged against an order for the enforcement of a judgment given in another Contracting State may take into consideration, in a decision concerning an application for the proceedings to be stayed under that paragraph, only such submissions as the appellant was unable to put before the court of the State in which the judgment was given.

Citations:

C-183/90, [1991] EUECJ C-183/90, [1991] ECR I-4743

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160501

Aeolian Shipping SA v ISS Machinery Services Ltd: CA 20 Jul 2001

The respondent had purchased a substantial machine. It broke down, and they sought repairs under a claimed warranty. Spares were provided, but against an undertaking to pay for them. When the spares were not paid for the ship was arrested, and released on an undertaking, The undertaking provided for English law to apply, but said nothing about the main dispute. Under Japanese law, there would be no set off.
Held: The undertaking clearly applied English law to the undertaking, but there was no clear choice of English Law for the claim on which a set off would be based.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mance, Lord Justice Potter, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1162

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMeridien BIAO v Bank of New York 1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159928

Societe Eram Shipping Company Ltd v Compagnie International De Navigation and Others: CA 7 Aug 2001

Judgment creditors obtained a garnishee order nisi, but the bank objected to the order being made absolute. The account was in Hong Kong, where there was a real danger, that the law would not relieve them of their obligation to the account holders to pay the balance to them, after satisfaction of the garnishee debt.
Held: There is no longer reciprocal enforcement of judgment debts, between the UK and Hong Kong. The person garnisheed must be within the jurisdiction, but the debt need not be. The court should exercise its discretion not to make the order absolute unless the garnishee would be discharged from its own debt. That question was to be looked at according to the law of the jurisdiction in which that debt was due. In this case, because in part of the Bank’s own clear terms, and in part because of its right to restitutionary relief at common law, the risk of them failing to recover the debt from the debtor was not a real or substantial one.

Judges:

Mr Justice Keene, Lord Justice Mance, Lord Justice Schiemann

Citations:

Gazette 20-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1317, [2001] All ER (Comm) 721, [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 627, [2002] CLC 60, [2001] 2 LLR 627, [2001] CP Rep 112

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 50.1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoSociete Eram Shipping Co Ltd v Compagnie Internationale De Navigation and others CA 6-Apr-2001
. .
See AlsoSociete Eram Shipping Company Ltd v Compagnie Internationale De Navigation and others ComC 23-Jan-2001
. .

Cited by:

CitedPerry and Others v Serious Organised Crime Agency SC 25-Jul-2012
The first appellant had been convicted of substantial frauds in Israel. He appealed against world wide asset freezing (PFO) and disclosure (DO) orders made against him. Neither the appellant, nor his offences were connected with the UK. A bank . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Civil Procedure Rules, Jurisdiction, Commercial

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159871

Roger Thomas Donohue v Armco Inc and others: CA 29 Mar 2000

The claimant sought an order restraining the defendants from pursuing a claim in America. The parties were party to a contract governed by English law, but the allegation was one of fraud, and the defendants said this was outside the provisions of the contract.
Held: Where a remedy was available both in England and in a foreign jurisdiction, proceedings in the foreign jurisdiction would only be restrained by order here where the foreign proceedings were in some way abusive. An English court may decline an injunction or stay where there was an exclusive jurisdiction clause, but also claims outside the contract which would result in parallel and conflicting proceedings. In this situation there was an overwhelming advantage in securing one decision in the most appropriate forum, which was New York. Injunction refused under conditions.

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 94, [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 579, [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 641, [2000] CLC 1090

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromR T Donohue v Armco Inc ComC 15-Jul-1999
ComC The individual claimant wished to prevent proceedings being brought against him in NY by 5 Defendant companies, who wished to sue him there for damages for conspiracy; fraud; breach of fiduciary duty and for . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromDonohue 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. . .
CitedNational Westminster Bank v Utrecht-America Finance Company CA 10-May-2001
An agreement between the parties for assignment or novation of a credit agreement, contained a ‘take out’ agreement (‘TOA’). The defendant began proceedings in California to rescind the agreement, and the claimants obtained summary judgement under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Jurisdiction

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147127

Reichhold Norway ASA and Reichhold Chemicals Inc v Goldman Sachs International: CA 28 Jun 1999

An application was made to stay proceedings to await the decision of a foreign court. At first instance, Moore-Bick J had held that a Court has an interest in deciding the order in which related proceedings should be tried ‘not only because the existence of concurrent proceedings may give rise to undesirable consequences in the form of inconsistent decisions, but also because the outcome of one set of proceedings may have an important effect on the conduct of the other’ and the court may manage the order in which the proceedings are heard. Case management is appropriate even where the proceedings are taking place between different parties in different jurisdictions, but before an action which has been properly commenced here is stayed pending the outcome of proceedings between different persons in another jurisdiction is granted, the defendant must show ‘very strong reasons for doing so and the benefits which are likely to result from doing so clearly outweigh any disadvantage to the plaintiff’
Held: The appeal failed. Counsel had accepted ‘that the grant of stays such as this would be a rarity, account always being taken of the legitimate interests of plaintiffs and the requirement that there should be no prejudice to plaintiffs beyond that which the interest of justice were thought to justify.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham CJ

Citations:

Times 20-Jul-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1703, [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 567, [2000] 2 All ER 679, [1999] 2 LLR 567, [1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 174, [2000] 1 WLR 173

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNational Westminster Bank v Utrecht-America Finance Company CA 10-May-2001
An agreement between the parties for assignment or novation of a credit agreement, contained a ‘take out’ agreement (‘TOA’). The defendant began proceedings in California to rescind the agreement, and the claimants obtained summary judgement under . .
CitedCurtis and Another v Lockheed Martin UK Holdings Ltd ComC 20-Feb-2008
Application for stay pending completion of proceedings in Italy. . .
CitedClyde and Co Llp and Another v Winkelhof QBD 22-Mar-2011
The claimant firm of solicitors sought an order requiring the defendant to amend her employment tribunal claim so as to accord with the partnership agreement to which she was party, and to submit to arbitration. The defendant said that statutory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice, International

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146618

Chadha and Osicom Technologies Inc v Dow Jones and Co Inc: CA 14 May 1999

All the parties were resident in the United States. The alleged libel consisted in an article published in an American magazine. The total sales of the edition in question were 294,346 of which 283,520 were sold in the United States, 408 were sent to subscribers in the United Kingdom and 849 were sold at news stands here. Where a libel had been published abroad, a plaintiff had a duty first to show that there was a sufficient publication here, and where both plaintiff and defendant are non-resident, he must also show a reputation here capable of being damaged, before being given leave to issue and serve out of the jurisdiction. Returning to the judgment of Popplewell J he said: ‘This being a case where both plaintiff and defendant are outside the jurisdiction I am wholly unpersuaded that there is any presumption in favour of the plaintiff or that the authorities as to where a cause of action arises are of any assistance in the instant case.’ In my judgment there is nothing objectionable in that way of stating the law in this particular case. Here the appellants and the respondents were and are outside the jurisdiction and consequently it was for the appellants to show that they had sufficient connections with this country and a reputation to protect in this country.’

Judges:

Roch LJ Otton Pill LJJ

Citations:

Times 18-May-1999, Gazette 09-Jun-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1415, [2000] 1 WLR 1004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLewis and others v King CA 19-Oct-2004
The claimant sought damages for defamation for an article published on the Internet. The claimant Don King sued in London even though he lived in the US as did the defendants.
Held: A publication via the internet occurred when the material was . .
CitedDow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Jurisdiction

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146330

Ahmed v Director General of Security Service and Others: QBD 16 Dec 2020

The claimant, serving prison sentences for terrorism related offences sought damages from the defendant services, saying that they were responsible in law for his severe maltreatment in the custody of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Agency in Pakistan, having connived with them for his arrest and interrogation.

Judges:

Mr Justice Garnham

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 3458 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Torts – Other, Armed Forces, Police

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.656923

Turner v Grovit and Others: ChD 15 Apr 1999

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

Citations:

Times 15-Apr-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toTurner v Grovit and others CA 28-May-1999
A court has an inherent power to injunct a party not to institute or continue proceedings abroad, where they appear intended purely to harass another party in proceedings here. The two actions here were based upon the ‘same contractual relationship’ . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromTurner v Grovit and others CA 28-May-1999
A court has an inherent power to injunct a party not to institute or continue proceedings abroad, where they appear intended purely to harass another party in proceedings here. The two actions here were based upon the ‘same contractual relationship’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.90029

Tate v Allianz Iard Sa: QBD 27 Nov 2020

Application by the Defendant insurer to dismiss, alternatively stay, this action pursuant to the lis pendens provisions of Articles 29 or 30 of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (‘Brussels 1 recast’).

Judges:

Mr Justice Soole

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 3227 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.656449

Integral Petroleum Sa v Petrogat FZE and Another: ComC 17 Oct 2018

Reserved judgment on a jurisdictional challenge arising from an application by the claimant for the committal to prison of five individuals which in turn arose out of an ex parte interim order initially made by Morgan J against Petrogat FZE (‘Petrogat’) and San Trade GmbH (‘San Trade’) concerning delivery of a cargo of fuel oil.

Judges:

Moulder J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2686 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Contempt of Court

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.625939

Thomas Cook and James Charles Cook v Sir James Gordon Sprigg: PC 1 Aug 1899

Municipal courts have not and cannot have the competence to adjudicate upon or to enforce the rights arising out of transactions entered into by independent sovereign states between themselves on the plane of international law.
(Cape of Good Hope)

Judges:

Lord Halsbury LC

Citations:

[1899] AC 572, [1899] UKPC 61

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedOccidental Exploration and Production Company vRepublic of Ecuador CA 9-Sep-2005
The parties had arbitrated their dispute in London under a bilateral investment treaty between the US and Ecuador. The republic sought to appeal the arbitration. The applicant now appealed an order that the English High Court had jurisdiction to . .
CitedMiller and Dos Santos v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and Others QBD 13-Nov-2016
Article 50 Notice Requires Parliament’s Authority
The applicant challenged a decision by the respondent that he could use Crown prerogative powers to issue a notice under section 50 TUE to initiate the United Kingdom leaving the EU following the referendum under the 2015 Act.
Held: Once the . .
CitedBelhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Commonwealth

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.417269

In the Matter of a Civil Matter Now Pending In District Court for Second Judicial District, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota: CA 30 Jul 1997

When considering an application under the 1975 Act, the court must not only observe the restrictions imposed by the 1975 Act; it must also hold a fair balance between the interests of the requesting court and the interests of the witness. ‘because of the need to hold the balance between the requesting court and the witnesses who are to be examined, if the Request is given effect, the court will not allow uncertain, vague or other objectionable Requests to be implemented. A witness is entitled to know within reasonable limits the matters about which he or she is to be examined.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2241, [1997] ILP 170

Statutes:

Evidence (Proceedings In Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975, Rules of the Supreme Court 70

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedUnited States of America v Philip Morris Inc and others QBD 10-Dec-2003
Witness orders were sought in respect of professionals resident in England to support litigation in the US. They objected on the ground that the terms of the order sought suggested improper behaviour, and that an order would anticipate breach of . .
CitedFirst American Corporation and others v Sheik Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan and Others CA 12-May-1998
Letters of Request had been received for the production of document to be used in litigation in the US. It was complained that they were drafted so widely as to amount to a fishing expedition.
Held: ‘an English court must look at the issue of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.142638

Network Telecom (Europe) Ltd v Telephone Systems International Inc: QBD 2003

Burton J said: ‘Inasmuch as the application is made ex parte, full and fair disclosure is necessary, as in all ex parte applications, and the failure to make such full and fair disclosure shall justify the court in discharging the order, even though the party might afterwards be in a position to make another application.’ It made no difference that the Master took the view that he had not been materially misled.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2890 (QB)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMetropolitan International Schools Ltd. (T/A Skillstrain And/Or Train2Game) v Designtechnica Corp (T/A Digital Trends) and Others QBD 16-Jul-2009
The claimant complained that the defendant had published on its internet forums comments by posters which were defamatory of it, and which were then made available by the second defendant search engine. The court was asked what responsibility a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.349046

Hasselblad (GB) Ltd v Orbison: CA 1985

In the course of proceedings brought by the European Commission against Hasselblad, Mr Orbison wrote a letter to the Commission upon which the appellant then sued for damages for libel. The court considered the dangers of national and European courts separately examining evidence in cases where each had some jurisdiction.
Held: Sir John Donaldson MR said: ‘The first question which arises is whether this letter is to be regarded as sufficiently closely connected to the process of giving evidence for it to be necessary to extend absolute privilege to it, assuming always that absolute privilege would attach to evidence to the like effect given to the Commission.’ and as to jurisdiction ‘it cannot be right that the national courts and Community institutions shall both independently weigh the force of particular evidence with the possibility of inconsistent results.’ The privilege of immunity given to a court was a privilege that should not be extended.
Sir John Donaldson MR continued (obiter): ‘Mr Burton [counsel for the appellant] takes the point that an informer in England has only the benefit of qualified privilege: Shufflebottom v Allday (1857) 5 W.R. 315. Bringing the matter more up to date and relating it to an inquiry similar to that undertaken by the Commission, Mr Burton submits, rightly, that if Mr Orbison’s letter had been addressed to the Director General of the Fair Trading, he could have been sued for libel and would have had to be content with the defence of qualified privilege.’

Judges:

Sir John Donaldson MR

Citations:

[1985] 1 QB 475

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedShufflebottom v Allday 1857
The defendant had been robbed. He described the robber to a constable who arrested the plaintiff. Seeing him in custody, the defendant said: ‘That is the man’. After having been remanded in custody for two days, the plaintiff was then acquitted . .

Cited by:

CitedCrehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) CA 21-May-2004
The claimant had taken two leases, but had been made subject to beer ties with the defendant. He claimed damages for the losses, saying he had been forced to pay higher prices than those allowed to non-tied houses, and that the agreement was . .
CitedHeath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 20-Jul-2004
The female civilian officer alleged sex discrimination against her by a police officer. Her complaint was heard at an internal disciplinary. She alleged sexual harrassment, and was further humiliated by the all male board’s treatment of her . .
CitedWestcott v Westcott CA 15-Jul-2008
The defendant was the claimant’s daughter in law. In the course of a bitter divorce she made allegations to the police which were investigated but did not lead to a prosecution. The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for defamation on the . .
CitedThornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 16-Jun-2010
The claimant said that a review of her book was defamatory and a malicious falsehood. The defendant now sought summary judgment or a ruling as to the meaning of the words complained of.
Held: The application for summary judgment succeeded. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Jurisdiction, Defamation

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.197721

Etihad Airways Pjsc v Flother: CA 18 Dec 2020

‘ important issue of principle concerning the scope and effect of Article 31(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (‘Brussels Recast’). The issue, shortly stated, is whether Article 31(2), on its true interpretation as a matter of EU law, applies to an agreement conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of a Member State of the EU, in circumstances where the exclusive choice of court agreement applies to proceedings initiated by one party, but not (or not necessarily) to proceedings initiated by the other party. ‘

Judges:

Lord Justice Henderson

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 1707

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, European

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.656877

Charles Duke of Brunswick v The King of Hanover: 13 Jan 1844

Discussion of the question whether a sovereign prince was liable to the jurisdiction of the Courts of a foreign country, in which he happens to be resident, and as to the liability to suit of one who unites in himself the characters both of an independent foreign sovereign and a subject.
A sovereign prince, resident in the dominions of another, is ordinarily exempt from the jurisdiction of the Courts there.
A foreign sovereign may sue in this country, both at law and in equity; and, if he sues in equity, he submits himself to the jurisdiction, and a cross-bill may be filed against him, which he must answer on oath ; but a foreign sovereign does not, by filing a bill in Chancery against A, making himself liable to be sued in that Court for an independent matter by B.
The King of Hanover, after his accession, renewed his oath of allegiance, to the Queen of England, and claimed the rights of an English peer. Held, that he was exempt from the jurisdiction of the English Courts for acts done by him as a sovereign prince, but was liable to be sued in those Courts in respect of matters done by him as a a subject. Held, also, that the sovereign character prevailed where the acts were done abroad, and also where it was doubtful in which of the two characters they had been done.
A foreign sovereign prince, who was also an English peer, was made a Defendant to a suit and served with a letter missive. The Lord Chancellor refused to recall it.
The Defendant then appeared, and filed a demurrer for want of jurisdiction. Held, first, that the Lord Chancellor had not decided that the Defendant was liable to the jurisdiction of the Court ; and, secondly, that the Defendant had not, by appearing, waived any defence to the bill.

Citations:

[1844] EngR 95, (1843-1844) 6 Beav 1, (1844) 49 ER 724

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromDuke of Brunswick v The King of Hanover HL 31-Jul-1948
The Duke claimed that the King of Hanover had been involved in the removal of the Duke from his position as reigning Duke and in the maladministration of his estates.
Held: ‘A foreign Sovereign, coming into this country cannot be made . .
CitedBelhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.304687

Hatch v Baez: 1876

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

Citations:

(1876) 7 Hun 596

Jurisdiction:

United States

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Bartle and The Commissioner Of Police For The Metropolis and Others Ex Parte Pinochet Ugarte, Regina v Evans and Another and The Commissioner of Police For The Metropolis and Others (No 1) HL 22-Nov-1998
The government of Spain had issued an arrest warrant and application for extradition in respect of Pinochet Ugarte for his alleged crimes whilst president of Chile. He was arrested in England. He pleaded that he had immunity from prosecution.
CitedRegina v Bartle and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte; Regina v Evans and Similar (No 3) HL 24-Mar-1999
An application to extradite a former head of state for an offence which was not at the time an offence under English law would fail, but could proceed in respect of allegations of acts after that time. No immunity was intended for heads of state. . .
CitedBelhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, International

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.220684

Antec International Ltd v Biosafety USA Inc: QBD 27 Jan 2006

The defendant applied to set aside an order giving leave to serve abroad in a contractual claim where the contract contained a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause.
Held: summarised the effect of such a clause, as the law emerged from extensive citations of authority: ‘The fact that the parties have freely negotiated a contract providing for the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts and English law creates a strong prima facie case that the English jurisdiction is the correct one. In such circumstances it is appropriate to approach the matter as though the claimant has founded jurisdiction here as of right even though the clause is non exclusive . . The general rule is that the parties will be held to their contractual choice of English jurisdiction unless there are overwhelming or at least very strong reasons for departing from this rule . . It is not appropriate to embark upon a standard Spilliada balancing exercise [in those circumstances]. The defendant has to point to some factor which it could not have foreseen at the time the contract was concluded. Even if there is an unforeseeable factor or a party can point to some other reason which, in the interests of justice, points to another forum, this does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the court should exercise its jurisdiction to release a party from its contractual bargain; . . in particular the fact that the defendant has, or is about to institute proceedings in another jurisdiction not contemplated by the non-exclusive jurisdiction clause is not a strong or compelling reason to relieve the party from his bargain, notwithstanding the undesirability of parallel proceedings.’

Judges:

Mrs Justice Gloster DBE

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 47 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAbela and Others v Baadarani SC 26-Jun-2013
The claimants sought damages alleging fraud in a company share purchase. They said that their lawyer had secretly been working for the sellers. The claim form had been issued, but the claimant had delayed in requesting permission for its service . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.238453

Messier-Dowty Ltd and Another v Sabena Sa and Others: CA 21 Feb 2000

The defendants sought a declaration that they would not be liable in respect of their potential involvement in a pending action. The appellants asserted that such a declaration could not be granted since no proceedings were yet in issue. The court said that such orders might be useful in simplifying international court actions, and that a primary motive for seeking the order was to establish a UK jurisdiction was not determinative. Lord Woolf summarised the modern position on granting negative declarations: ‘The approach is pragmatic. It is not a matter of jurisdiction, it is matter of discretion. The deployment of negative declarations should be scrutinised and their use rejected where it would serve no useful purpose. However, where a negative declaration would help to ensure that the aims of justice are achieved the court should not be reluctant to grant such declarations. They can and do assist in achieving justice . . . While negative declarations can perform a positive role they are an unusual remedy insofar as they reverse the more usual roles of the parties. The natural defendant becomes a claimant and vice-versa. This can result in procedural complications and possible injustice to an unwilling ‘defendant’. This in itself justifies caution in extending the circumstances where negative declarations are granted, but, subject to the exercise of appropriate circumspection, there should be no reluctance to their being granted when it is useful to do so.’

Judges:

Lord Mustill, The Master Of The Rolls Lady Justice Hale

Citations:

Gazette 09-Mar-2000, Times 14-Mar-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 48, [2000] 1 WLR 2040

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromMessier-Dowty Ltd and Another v Sabena Sa and others ComC 3-Dec-1999
Application by 2 and 3 defendants for an order suspending proceedings in England pending production and consideration of expert report. Whether, pursuant to Supreme Court Act 1981 s. 49(3) and CPR 3.1(2)(f), there were ‘compelling circumstances’ . .
CitedGuarantee Trust Co of New York v Hannay and Co 1915
A negative declaration should be granted by the court only in exceptional circumstances: ‘I think that a declaration that a person is not liable in an existing or possible action is one that will hardly ever be made, but that in practically every . .

Cited by:

CitedFinancial Services Authority v Rourke ChD 19-Oct-2001
The applicant sought a declaration that the defendant had acted in breach of the Act, in accepting sums by way of deposit, without being authorised, and had made prohibited statements to attract such deposits. Could a civil court make such a finding . .
CitedTryg Baltic International (UK) Ltd v Boston Compania De Seguros Sa and others ComC 28-May-2004
Four defendants from Argentina sought to have set aside an order for them to be served, saying the appropriate jursidiction, if there was a triable issue, would be Argentina.
Held: The agreements were to be construed according to English Law. . .
CitedWell Barn Shoot Limited and Well Barn Farming Limited v Shackleton and Another CA 22-Jan-2003
The defendants had been tenant farmers of the plaintiff company which retained shooting rights over the land when part was sold to the defendants. The defendant object to the use of a roadway by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought to repurchase the . .
CitedPoint Solutions Ltd v Focus Business Solutions Ltd and Another ChD 16-Dec-2005
It was claimed that the defendant’s computer software infringed the copyright in software owned by the claimant. A declaration was sought beacause of allegations that assertions about infringement had been made to third parties.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135970

Petroleo Brasilero Sa v Mellitus Shipping Inc: CA 29 Mar 2001

Where, in the jurisdiction in which a potential defendant or contributor lived, there would be no remedy against him, a judge here who was asked to allow that defendant or contributor to be joined, as a necessary and proper party, could take into account that absence of a remedy abroad.

Citations:

Times 05-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 418

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules Part 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Civil Procedure Rules, Jurisdiction

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135519

Baltic Insurance Group v Jordan Grand Prix Limited and Others and Quay Financial Software Limited and Others (By Counter Claim and One Other Action): HL 20 May 1998

The Brussels Convention requires an insurance company to commence a claim against an insured in the country in which it operates. This applies also to non-convention countries, and a counterclaim may not add a new party from another jurisdiction.

Citations:

Times 17-Dec-1998, [1998] UKHL 49; [1999] 2 AC 127; [1999] 2 WLR 134; [1999] 1 All ER 289, [1999] 2 AC 127

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromJordan Grand Prix Limited v Baltic Insurance Group and others CA 24-Oct-1997
A counterclaim by insurers had to be limited to the original defendants. There is no jurisdiction to join additional third parties who were not within the jurisdiction. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toJordan Grand Prix Limited v Baltic Insurance Group and others CA 24-Oct-1997
A counterclaim by insurers had to be limited to the original defendants. There is no jurisdiction to join additional third parties who were not within the jurisdiction. . .
CitedDollfus Mieg et Cie v CWD International Ltd; LBJ Regents Ltd and another v Dolifus Mieg et Cie QBD 17-Mar-2003
The applicant was a Part 20 defendant in a cross action brought between two other parties. It sought to have its own claim against the original claimant heard as a counterclaim.
Held: Article 6 should not be construed so widely as to allow a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Insurance

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135152

Edate Advertising (Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice): ECJ 29 Mar 2011

ECJ (Opinion) Area of Freedom, Security And Justice – Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction ‘in tort or quasi-delict’ – Violation of personal rights that may have been committed by means of publishing information on Internet – Article 5, Section 3 – Definition of ‘place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ – Applicability Shevill jurisprudence of the Court of Justice – Directive 2000/31/EC – Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2 – Determination of the existence of a conflict rule on rights of personality.

Citations:

C-509/09, [2011] EUECJ C-509/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, Directive 2000/31/EC 3

Jurisdiction:

European

Information, Jurisdiction

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.431349

F Berghoefer GmbH and Co KG v ASA SA: ECJ 11 Jul 1985

Brussels Convention – Interpretation of Article 17 – Validity of an oral jurisdiction agreement confirmed in writing by one party only.
‘It must be pointed out that . . article 17 of the Convention does not expressly require that the written confirmation of an oral argument should be given by the party who is to be affected by the agreement. Moreover, as the various observations submitted to the Court have rightly emphasized, it is sometimes difficult to determine the party for whose benefit a jurisdiction agreement has been concluded before proceedings have actually been instituted.
If it is actually established that jurisdiction has been conferred by express oral agreement and if confirmation of that oral agreement by one of the parties has been received by the other and the latter has raised no objection to it within a reasonable time thereafter, the aforesaid literal interpretation of article 17 will also, as the Court has already decided in another context . . be in accordance with the purpose of that article, which is to ensure that the parties have actually consented to the clause. It would therefore be a breach of good faith for a party who did not raise any objection subsequently to contest the application of the oral agreement.’

Citations:

C-221/84, R-221/84, [1985] EUECJ R-221/84, [1985] ECR 2699

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedBols Distilleries VB (T/A As Bols Royal Distilleries) and Another v Superior Yacht Services Ltd PC 11-Oct-2006
(Gilbraltar) The parties disputed the management contract for a racing yacht, and also the juridiction of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar to hear the case. Bols said that under regulation 2(1) Gibraltar had no jurisdiction.
Held: The English . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.133963

Partenreederei Ms Tilly Russ and Ernest Russ v NV Haven- and Vervoerbedrijf Nova and NV Goeminne Hout: ECJ 19 Jun 1984

Europa Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments – jurisdiction agreement – jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading – validity – conditions (convention of 27 September 1968, art. 17)
a jurisdiction clause contained in the printed conditions on a bill of lading satisfies the conditions laid down by article 17 of the convention : if the agreement of both parties to the conditions containing that clause has been expressed in writing; or if the jurisdiction clause has been the subject-matter of a prior oral agreement between the parties expressly relating to that clause, in which case the bill of lading, signed by the carrier, must be regarded as confirmation in writing of the oral agreement; or if the bill of lading comes within the framework of a continuing business relationship between the parties, in so far as it is thereby established that the relationship is governed by general conditions containing the jurisdiction clause. As regards the relationship between the carrier and a third party holding the bill of lading, the conditions laid down by article 17 of the convention are satisfied if the jurisdiction clause has been adjudged valid as between the carrier and the shipper and if, by virtue of the relevant national law, the third party, upon acquiring the bill of lading, succeeded to the shipper ‘ s rights and obligations.

Citations:

C-71/83, R-71/83, [1984] EUECJ R-71/83, [1984] ECR 2417

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedBols Distilleries VB (T/A As Bols Royal Distilleries) and Another v Superior Yacht Services Ltd PC 11-Oct-2006
(Gilbraltar) The parties disputed the management contract for a racing yacht, and also the juridiction of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar to hear the case. Bols said that under regulation 2(1) Gibraltar had no jurisdiction.
Held: The English . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Transport, Jurisdiction

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.133626

Siegfried Zelger v Sebastiano Salinitri: ECJ 17 Jan 1980

The provisions of article 5(1) of the Convention, to the effect that in matters relating to a contract a defendant domiciled in a contracting state may be sued in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question, introduce a criterion for jurisdiction, the selection of which is at the option of the plaintiff and which is justified by the existence of a direct link between the dispute and the court called upon to take cognizance of it. By contrast, article 17 of the convention, which provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of the court designated by the parties in accordance with the prescribed form, puts aside both the rule of general jurisdiction – provided for in article 2 – and the rules of special jurisdiction – provided for in article 5 – and dispenses with any objective connexion between the legal relationship in dispute and the court designated. It thus appears that the jurisdiction of the court for the place of performance and that of the selected court are two distinct concepts and only agreements selecting a court are subject to the requirements of form prescribed by article 17 of the convention.
if the place of performance of a contractual obligation has been specified by the parties in a clause which is valid according to the national law applicable to the contract, the court for that place has jurisdiction to take cognizance of disputes relating to that obligation under article 5(1) of the convention , irrespective of whether the formal conditions provided for under article 17 have been observed.

Citations:

C-56/79, R-56/79, [1980] EUECJ R-56/79

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See AlsoSiegfried 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132852

Carver (Nee Mascarenhas) v Saudi Arabian Airlines: CA 17 Mar 1999

The applicant was recruited in Saudi Arabia in 1986 as a flight attendant under a contract expressed to be subject to Saudi Arabian law. After being trained in Jeddah, and then employed in India for four years, she was transferred to be based in London, from which all her tours of duty as a flight attendant thereafter commenced, and at which they ended. She complained of unfair dismissal and of sex discrimination.
Held: By reference to the relevant test at the time for the jurisdiction of UK tribunals in relation to unfair dismissal, she did not ordinarily work in Great Britain. So far as concerned the sex discrimination claim, the applicant’s appeal was allowed to the extent that the issue was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal to determine where the applicant wholly or mainly did her work at the relevant time. When a tribunal has to decide where an employee ‘ordinarily works’, the tribunal must look to the entire period of the contract, and not to some smaller, artificial, part. A contract begun and substantially worked in Jeddah was not subject to UK law. As to the term ‘ordinarily’: ‘Here the position was quite different. The Tribunal had to consider where at the time of the alleged discrimination the appellant was ‘wholly or mainly’ working [our underlining]. See Haughton v Olau Line (UK) Ltd [1986] ICR 357 in the Court of Appeal. However, the tribunal decided jurisdiction on where the applicant was ordinarily working. That was impermissible. Insofar as the tribunal purported to make a finding of fact as to where the applicant was wholly or mainly working, it seems to me that it did so without any evidential basis. The tribunal appears to have taken the monthly, minimum, flying time, namely 72 hours, required of the applicant and set it against a notional working week of 40 hours. By such a comparison it would seem that the applicant worked most of her time within Great Britain. But neither the 72 hours minimum flying time nor the notional 40-hour week had any relevance to the question which had to be determined. Consequently I would hold the finding to be without any foundation and as such to amount to an error of law. I would be minded therefore, to remit the question of jurisdiction under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to the tribunal, differently constituted, with a direction to determine the question of jurisdiction on the basis of where the applicant wholly or mainly did her work at the relevant time.’

Judges:

Mantell LJ, Beldam LJ and Ward LJ

Citations:

Times 24-Mar-1999, Gazette 27-Jun-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1002, [1999] ICR 991

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 196

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

DistinguishedTodd v British Midland Airways CA 2-Jan-1978
The court discussed the test to be applied to an employment to see whether a British court had jurisdiction over it: ‘But in other cases there is more difficulty. I refer particularly to the type of case we have here of the airline pilot. He is . .

Cited by:

CitedSerco Ltd v Lawson and Foreign and Commonwealth Office CA 23-Jan-2004
The applicant had been employed to provide services to RAF in the Ascension Islands. He alleged constructive dismissal. There was an issue as to whether somebody working in the Ascension Islands was protected by the 1996 Act. The restriction on . .
CitedSaggar v Ministry of Defence EAT 25-May-2004
Three Defence employees sought to bring claims of variously race and sex discrimination against the Ministry. In each case their services were provided almost entirely abroad, and the defendant argued that there was no jurisdiction to hear the case, . .
CitedSaggar v Ministry of Defence CA 27-Apr-2005
The claimant sought to bring an action for race discrimination. The defendant argued that the alleged acts of discrimination took place whilst he was on a posting abroad in Cyprus after serving 16 years in England, and that therefore the tribunal . .
CitedCrofts and others v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd and others CA 19-May-2005
The claimants were airline pilots employed by the respondent company with headquarters in Hong Kong. The court was asked whether an English Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear their complaints of unfair dismissal.
Held: The pilots were employed . .
CitedSerco Ltd v Lawson; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Limited HL 26-Jan-2006
Mr Lawson was employed by Serco as a security supervisor at the British RAF base on Ascension Island, which is a dependency of the British Overseas Territory of St Helena. Mr Botham was employed as a youth worker at various Ministry of Defence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Jurisdiction, Discrimination

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.118485

Von Horn v Cinnamond: ECJ 26 Nov 1997

Where action started in one country before the Convention, and second in another after the Convention came into effect, the second action must be stayed.

Citations:

Times 26-Nov-1997, C-163/95, [1997] EUECJ C-163/95

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968

Jurisdiction:

European

Jurisdiction

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90192

Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latreefers Inc; In re Latrefeers Inc; Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co and others (No 2): CA 15 Mar 2000

Possible claims against a foreign company for misfeasance, or wrongful or fraudulent trading might be sufficient to justify proceedings here to wind up a foreign registered company. A second requirement is that some person within this jurisdiction would be likely to achieve a substantial benefit from such an action, and third was that some person responsible for distribution of the company’s assets was somebody over whom a UK court could exercise a jurisdiction.

Citations:

Times 15-Mar-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 36, [2001] 2 BCLC 116

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 221

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoStocznia Gdanska S A v Latvian Shipping Co and Others HL 22-Jan-1998
The parties had contracted to design, build, complete and deliver ships. The contract was rescinded after a part performance.
Held: It remained appropriate for payment to be made for the work already done in the design and construction stages: . .
See AlsoStocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Company and Others ComC 25-May-2001
When a claimant commenced litigating several issues, but succeeded only on some of the them, the rule allowing an award of costs to the generally successful party was not dependent upon questions of whether the party was reasonable to have raised . .

Cited by:

See AlsoStocznia Gdanska S A v Latvian Shipping Co and Others HL 22-Jan-1998
The parties had contracted to design, build, complete and deliver ships. The contract was rescinded after a part performance.
Held: It remained appropriate for payment to be made for the work already done in the design and construction stages: . .
See AlsoStocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Company and Others ComC 25-May-2001
When a claimant commenced litigating several issues, but succeeded only on some of the them, the rule allowing an award of costs to the generally successful party was not dependent upon questions of whether the party was reasonable to have raised . .
CitedMcGrath and Honey v McMahon and Others, Re HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd and others CA 9-Jun-2006
The insurance company was to be wound up. It operated internationally but was registered in Australia. The Australian liquidator now sought an order for the transfer of assets held here to Australia.
Held: It was inevitable that cross border . .
See AlsoLatvian Shipping Company and Others v Stocznia Gdanska Sa CA 21-Jun-2002
A payment condition was just that and that a failure to pay entitled the seller to terminate at common law. Rix LJ said: ‘It is established law that, where one party to a contract has repudiated it, the other may validly accept that repudiation by . .
See AlsoStocznia Gdanska Sa v Latvian Shipping Company and others CA 23-Jul-2002
Application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Insolvency, Jurisdiction

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89567

Haqen v Zeehaqhe: ECJ 1990

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

Citations:

[1990] ECR 1-1845

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

Jurisdiction

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.512159

Raffelsen Zentralbank Osterreich Ag v Five Star General Trading Llc and Others: CA 1 Mar 2001

An assigned marine insurance policy was subject to a claim. The issue was the ability of an assignee to claim as a claim in contract where the proper law was that under which the contract was made, or a claim of an intangible right to claim against insurers, a proprietary right resolved by the lex situs of the attached debt, namely France. A three stage process was identified, involving the characterisation of the issue in question, the selection of the rule of conflict of laws which lays down a connecting factor for that issue and the identification of the system of law which is tied by that connecting factor to that issue, the overall aim being to identify the most appropriate law to govern the particular issue. This process of characterisation ‘falls to be undertaken in a broad internationalist spirit in accordance with the principles of conflicts of laws of the forum, here England.’ This claim fitted more readily a contractual model.
Mance LJ spoke of the principles governing the identification of the appropriate law, saying: ‘The overall aim is to identify the most appropriate law to govern a particular issue. The classes or categories of issue which the law recognises [when characterising the relevant issue] are man-made, not natural. They have no inherent value, beyond their purpose in assisting to select the most appropriate law. A mechanistic application, without regard to the consequences, would conflict with the purpose for which they were conceived.’
. . And: ‘There is a rule of practice that the assignor should be joined, but that rule will not be insisted upon where there is no need, in particular if there is no risk of a separate claim by the assignor.’

Judges:

Aldous LJ, Mance LJ, Charles J

Citations:

Times 21-Feb-2001, Gazette 01-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 68, [2001] CLC 84, [2001] 3 All ER 257, [2001] Lloyds Rep IR 460, [2001] 1 LLR 597, [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 597, [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 961, [2001] 2 WLR 1344, [2001] 1 QB 825

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (1980) 12, Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRaiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich Ag v Five Star General Trading Llc and Others QBD 21-Jun-2000
A marine insurance policy governed by English law but made with French insurers was assigned, but notice of the assignment was not made according to French law through a bailiff. Nevertheless recovery under the policy was ordered. Under the Rome . .
CitedMacmillan 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 . .

Cited by:

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 . .
CitedBuhr v Barclays Bank plc CA 26-Jan-2001
The bank took a second charge over property, but failed to get it registered. The chargors fell into debt and bankruptcy, and the property was sold. The proceeds were used to discharge the first charge, and then repay unsecured creditors. The bank . .
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 . .
CitedGorjat v Gorjat ChD 29-Jun-2010
The claimant, daughters of the deceased by his first marriage challenged a transfer of a significant sum by their father before his death, saying that he lacked mental capacity. . .
CitedCox v Ergo Versicherung Ag SC 2-Apr-2014
The deceased army officer serving in Germany died while cycling when hit by a driver insured under German law. His widow, the claimant, being domiciled in England brought her action here, claiming for bereavement and loss of dependency. The Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Jurisdiction

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85641

Handelsveem Bv and Others v Coreck Maritime GmbH: ECJ 1 Dec 2000

When a court looked at a choice of the jurisdiction clause, it was not necessary that the clause should withoutmore establish the jurisdiction. A clause could be effective where the forum will be ascertainable at the time by reference to a the circumstances. In this case of the clause required a dispute under a bill of lading to be decided in the country where the carrier had his principal place of business. The requirement under the convention, that the parties should have should of ‘agreed’ the jurisdiction was satisfied where they had agreed a method of establishing it. The Brussels convention applied only if, first, at least one of the parties to the original contract was domiciled in the contracting state and, second, the parties agreed to submit any dispute before the Court of a contracting state.
‘The Court has held that, by making the validity of a jurisdiction clause subject to the existence of an ‘agreement’ between the parties, article 17 of the Convention imposes on the court before which the matter is brought the duty of examining first whether the clause conferring jurisdiction upon it was in fact the subject of consensus between the parties, which must be clearly and precisely demonstrated, and that the purpose of the requirements as to form imposed by article 17 is to ensure that consensus between the parties is in fact established . . ‘

Citations:

Times 01-Dec-2000, C-387/98, [2000] ECR I-9337, [2000] EUECJ C-387/98

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedBols Distilleries VB (T/A As Bols Royal Distilleries) and Another v Superior Yacht Services Ltd PC 11-Oct-2006
(Gilbraltar) The parties disputed the management contract for a racing yacht, and also the juridiction of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar to hear the case. Bols said that under regulation 2(1) Gibraltar had no jurisdiction.
Held: The English . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Transport, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81216

Group Josi Reinsurance Company Sa v Universal General Insurance Company: ECJ 9 Aug 2000

The Brussels Convention rules allowing jurisdiction apply whenever the proposed defendant is domiciled in a convention country. The plaintiff need not be. The special rules on jurisdiction which apply to insurance cases do not apply to reinsurance contracts.

Citations:

Times 09-Aug-2000, C-412/98, [2000] EUECJ C-412/98

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968

Cited by:

CitedOwusu v Jackson, Mammee Bay Resorts Limited etc CA 19-Jun-2002
Defendants appealed against an order refusing an order to restrain service of the proceedings on certain defendants outwith the jurisdiction. The claimant was seriously injured holidaying at a resort managed by the several defendants in Jamaica in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Insurance, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81058

Michael Gayle v the Queen (Jamaica): PC 2 Jul 1996

The judicial Committee of the Privy-Council is not to be used as second court of appeal on matters of fact.

Citations:

Times 02-Jul-1996, Appeal No 40 of 1995, Appeal No 40 of 1995, [1996] UKPC 3, [1996] UKPC 18, [2012] ECHR 1636, [2012] ECHR 1635, [2012] ECHR 1637, [1990] ECHR 34, [2009] ECHR 619, [1980] ECHR 9, [1997] ECHR 205, [2014] ECHR 293, [1978] ECHR 8, [2010] ECHR 2263, [1994] ECHR 59, [2011] ECHR 2422, [1985] ECHR 14, [2016] ECHR 699, [2016] ECHR 704, [2016] ECHR 986, [2017] ECHR 32

Links:

PC, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction, Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80774