Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Jurisdiction - From: 1997 To: 1997

This page lists 27 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
M v M (Abduction: England and Scotland) [1997] 2 FLR 263
1997
CA
Butler-Sloss LJ
Children, Jurisdiction, Scotland
A couple went to live in Scotland with their children. The father was Scottish: the mother English. The mother left the family home and took the children to England without the father's knowledge, and obtained an ex-parte residence order and a prohibited steps order to prevent the father from removing the children. She also issued a divorce petition. The Circuit Judge in England made an ex-parte injunction restraining the father from instituting proceedings in Scotland. The judge decided that England was the appropriate jurisdiction for the divorce proceedings. The father appealed. Held: The court allowed his appeal. The judge had been wrong to decide either that the children had no habitual residence or that they were habitually resident in England. The grant of an injunction was inconsistent with the legislative framework provided by the 1973 Act. Undeer Schedule 1, paragraph 8(1), if a petition was presented in that part of the United Kingdom where parties were habitually resident when they last lived together, then any earlier petition presented in a different part of the United Kingdom by the other party to the marriage had to be stayed in favour of the petition presented in the place where the parties were habitually resident. Parliament not only permitted the father to present his petition in Scotland, but expressly provided that if he did so, the mother's English proceedings should be stayed, and the English court should thereafter have no jurisdiction to make an order under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989 unless it was necessary to do so in order to deal with urgent matters.
Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973
1 Citers



 
 Union Bank of Finland Ltd v Lelakis; 1997 - [1997] 1 WLR 590
 
Camdex International Ltd v Bank of Zambia and Others (2) Times, 28 January 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 798
28 Jan 1997
CA
Simon Brown, Otton, Phillips LJJ
Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice
English Courts have no power to enforce foreign public law here.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Comdel Commodities Limited v Siporex Trade S a [1997] EWCA Civ 925; [1997] 1 Lloyd's Rep 424; [1997] 1 LLR 424
5 Feb 1997
CA
Butler-Sloss LJ, Peter Gibson LJ, Potter LJ
Arbitration, Jurisdiction, Contract
Comdel sought recovery of sums due under a performance bond. Held: Potter LJ discussed the authorities and said: "Those authorities are to the effect that it is implicit in the nature of a performance bond that, in the absence of some clear words to a different effect, when the bond is called, there will at some stage in the future be an 'accounting' between the parties to the contract of sale in the sense that their rights and obligations will finally be determined at some future date. The bond is a guarantee of due performance; it is not to be treated as representing a pre-estimate of the amount of damages to which the beneficiary may be entitled in respect of the breach of contract giving rise to the right to call for payment under the bond. If the amount of the bond is not enough to satisfy the seller's claim for damages, the buyer is liable to the seller for damages in excess of the amount of the bond. On the other hand, if the amount of the bond is more than enough to satisfy the seller's claim for damages, the buyer can recover from the seller the amount of the bond which exceeds the seller's damages.
It does not appear that there is anything in the words of the contracts of sale in this case to exclude the implication that there would at some stage be an 'accounting' between the parties in the sense that their rights and obligations would be finally determined at some future date."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Itzhak Tuvyahu v Joel Swigi [1997] EWCA Civ 964
7 Feb 1997
CA

Jurisdiction, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Itzhak Tuvyahu v Joel Swigi [1997] EWCA Civ 965
7 Feb 1997
CA

Costs, Jurisdiction

[ Bailii ]
 
Banque Cantonale Vaudoise v Waterlily Incorporated and Others [1997] 2 Lloyds Rep 347
25 Feb 1997
ComC
Cresswell J
Jurisdiction
ComC Conflict of laws - agreement conferring jurisdiction - concluded for benefit of a single party - Brussels Convention article 17 - Conflict of laws - agreement conferring jurisdiction - retention of right to proceed in any Contracting State with jurisdiction - commencement in separate Contracting States - Brussels Convention articles 21 & 22 - Conflict of laws - injunction to restrain foreign proceedings - risk of conflicting judgments

 
Michael Anthony Butler v Griselda Isabel Butler Gazette, 26 March 1997; Times, 06 March 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 1049; [1998] 1 WLR 1208
6 Mar 1997
CA

Family, Jurisdiction
In divorce proceedings, the issue of forum conveniens is decided by the balance of fairness including convenience. In the end the judge’s discretion is bounded by the statutory considerations which rest upon an evaluation of fairness to the parties rather than upon a comparison of the competing jurisdictions, save insofar as the comparison relates to convenience of witnesses, delay and expense.
Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 9(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Credit Lyonnais v New Hampshire Insurance Company [1997] EWCA Civ 1218; [1997] 2 Lloyds Rep 1
12 Mar 1997
CA

Jurisdiction, Insurance

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Pearce v Ove Arup Partnership Ltd and Others Times, 17 March 1997; Gazette, 16 April 1997
17 Mar 1997
ChD

Intellectual Property, Jurisdiction
A UK court may not decline jurisdiction in enforcing Dutch copyright law if it is asked to do so.
Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1968) (Cmnd 7395)
1 Citers


 
Isaac Jehuda Schapira v Jonathan Ahronson; Chanoch Marmari and Hotza'at Iton Ha'Aretz Ltd [1997] EWCA Civ 1303
21 Mar 1997
CA

Jurisdiction, Defamation

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Sameon Co SA v Nv Petrofina SA and Another [1997] EWCA Civ 1578
30 Apr 1997
CA

Jurisdiction

[ Bailii ]
 
Allied Irish Bank v Ashford Hotels Limited and Ashford Hotels Limited v Jay Francis Higgins; Charles Daniel Tyree and Emblem Bv [1997] EWCA Civ 1635; [1997] 3 All ER 309
8 May 1997
CA
Phillips LJ
Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction
The court asked itself whether it had power to require a cross-undertaking in favour of third parties as a condition of appointing a receiver. Held: Phillips LJ: "The Mareva injunction is a comparatively recent addition to the armoury of the court. Having discovered the existence of, or some would say invented, this weapon, the court went on to invent the ancillary weapon of the cross-undertaking in damages for the benefit of third parties (see Z Ltd v A [1982] QB 558). In that case the cross-undertaking approved by the court was one designed to protect third parties from the consequences of compliance with the injunction but the scope of the protection of the undertaking has since been expanded to embrace third parties adversely affected by the injunction.
For myself, I cannot accept that the jurisdiction of the court to require such an undertaking only exists where a Mareva injunction is ordered. Once the cross-undertaking for the benefit of third parties became a recognised feature of the court's jurisdiction in that context, it necessarily followed that the court could make use of it when granting other discretionary relief, at least where that relief was empowered under the same statutory provision."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
New Hampshire Insurance Company and others v Phillips Electronics North America Corporation [1997] EWCA Civ 1727; [1998] CLC 1062
16 May 1997
CA
Phillips LJ
Jurisdiction, Insurance
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 test the utility, or the futility, of seeking to determine the claim by means of a negative declaration in England, but also to ensure that inappropriate forum shopping is not allowed, let alone encouraged. 3. A negative declaration will not be appropriate where it is premature or hypothetical, viz where no claim has been made or threatened against the plaintiff. 4. The existence of imminent or a fortiori current foreign proceedings is always a highly relevant consideration, not only for the purpose of testing the utility of the English claim, but also so as to having in mind the need to avoid the twin dangers of forum shopping and of the vices of concurrent proceedings." England was the natural forum to resolve issues of construction of a policy which fell to be determined by English law, but those issues were to be dealt with first and discretely and if resolved in one way would obviate the need for any further trial.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bouygues Offshore S.A. v Caspian Shipping Company and Others; Ultisol Transport Contractors Ltd [v[ Bouygues Offshore S.A. (No. 5) [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 533; [1997] CLC 1497
23 May 1997
ComC
Timothy Walker J
Jurisdiction
Conflict of laws - English exclusive jurisdiction clause in Towcon contract - Proceedings in South Africa in breach of clause - whether anti-suit injunction previously granted by Clarke J (see [1996] 2 LI Rep 140) should be discharged
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Credit Suisse Fides Trust SA v Sergio Cuoghi; Credit Suisse Fides Trust SA and Amhurst Brown Colombotti (a Firm) Times, 03 July 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 1831; [1998] QB 818
11 Jun 1997
CA
Millett LJ
Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction
The claimant brought proceedings in Switzerland (a party to the Lugano Convention) against the defendant who was domiciled in England, alleging that he had conspired with one of the claimant's employees to misappropriate some US$ 21 million. It was conceded that there was a good arguable case against Mr Cuoghi, which would have justified worldwide Mareva relief if the action had been brought in England. Mr Cuoghi relied on earlier decisions in support of his argument that Mareva relief should be confined to his assets in England and Wales. No criterion or guide line is provided as to the test to be applied by the court in considering whether it is inexpedient to grant an order under the Act. "It is the ancillary or subordinate nature of the jurisdiction rather than its source which is material, and the test is one of expediency. The structure of sub-sections (1) and (2) and the way in which their scope has been progressively widened indicate . . an intention on the part of Parliament that the English courts should in principle be willing to grant appropriate interim relief in support of substantive proceedings taking place elsewhere, and that it should not be deterred from doing so by the fact that its role is only an ancillary one unless the circumstances of the particular case make the grant of such relief inexpedient."
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 25
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Kleinwort Benson Limited v City of Glasgow District Council; HL 19-Jun-1997 - Gazette, 19 November 1997; Times, 31 October 1997; [1997] UKHL 43; [1999] 1 AC 153; [1997] 4 All ER 641; [1997] 3 WLR 923

 
 Connelly v RTZ Corporation Plc and others; HL 24-Jul-1997 - Times, 04 August 1997; Gazette, 28 August 1997; [1997] UKHL 30; [1998] AC 854; [1997] 4 All ER 335; [1997] 3 WLR 373
 
In the Matter of a Civil Matter Now Pending In District Court for Second Judicial District, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota [1997] EWCA Civ 2241; [1997] ILP 170
30 Jul 1997
CA
Lord Woolf MR
Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice
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.”
Evidence (Proceedings In Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 - Rules of the Supreme Court 70
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
BMG Trading Limited v A S Mckay Limited and Azov Shipping Company [1997] EWCA Civ 2406
3 Oct 1997
CA

Jurisdiction
A contract for shipping was subject to the Hague Visby Rules, but provided that jurisdiction was for the place where the carrier had his business, in this case in Mariupol. The question was: where an application is made under O.12 r.8 to set aside leave to serve out granted under O.11 r.1(1)(c) should the court consider the validity of this head of jurisdiction on the basis of the facts pertaining when the application is heard or the facts pertaining when leave was given?
[ Bailii ]

 
 Fort Dodge Animal Health Limited, Arthur Webster Pty Ltd, Webster Animal Health (Uk) Ltd, Willows Francis Limited, Fort Dodge Animal Health Benelux B V v Akzo Novel N V, Intervet International B V; PatC 15-Oct-1997 - Times, 24 October 1997

 
 Republic of India and Another v India Steamship Co Ltd (Indian Endurance and Indian Grace) (No 2); HL 23-Oct-1997 - Gazette, 12 November 1997; Times, 23 October 1997; [1997] UKHL 40; [1997] 4 All ER 380; [1997] 3 WLR 818; [1998] AC 878
 
Jordan Grand Prix Limited v Baltic Insurance Group and others (By Original Action) and Baltic Insurance Group v; Quay Financial Software Limited; Dermot Desmond and Gerard Giblin (By Counterclaim) Gazette, 12 November 1997; Times, 14 November 1997; Gazette, 14 January 1998; [1997] EWCA Civ 2567; [1997] EWCA Civ 2568
24 Oct 1997
CA

Jurisdiction, Insurance, Litigation Practice
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.
Brussels Convention 1968 Art 11
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Fort Dodge Animal Health Ltd v Akzo Nobel Nv; CA 27-Oct-1997 - [1997] EWCA Civ 3096; [1998] FSR 222; [1998] ILPr 732

 
 Canada Trust Company and others v Wolfgang Otto Stolzenberg and others (2); CA 29-Oct-1997 - Times, 10 November 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 2592; [1998] 1 WLR 547; [1998] 1 All ER 318

 
 Sarrio Sa v Kuwait Investment Authority; HL 17-Nov-1997 - Times, 17 November 1997; [1997] UKHL 49; [1999] AC 32; [1997] 4 All ER 929; [1997] 3 WLR 1143; [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep 129; [1998] Lloyd's Rep Bank 57; [1997] CLC 1640; [1998] ILPr 319; Independent, 19 November 1997

 
 Von Horn v Cinnamond; ECJ 26-Nov-1997 - Times, 26 November 1997; C-163/95; [1997] EUECJ C-163/95
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.