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: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 21 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Welex Ag v Rosa Maritime Ltd [2002] EWHC 2035 (Comm);; [2002] 2 Lloyds Law Rep 701
2002
ComC
Steel J
Transport, Jurisdiction
The court granted the respondent an anti-suit injunction to restrain them issuing proceedings in Poland on closely related issues.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Konamameni v Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd [2002] 1 All ER 979
2002


Company, Jurisdiction
The entitlement to bring a derivative action in the English courts is governed by the law of the place of incorporation of the company in question.
1 Citers


 
TSN Kunststoffrecycling Gmbh v Harry Maria Jurgens Times, 20 February 2002; Gazette, 15 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 11
25 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Robert Walker, Lord Justice Rix, And, Lord Justice Dyson
Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules, European
The claimant sought to register and enforce here, a judgment obtained by default in Germany. It was argued that he had not had, under section 27(2) sufficient opportunity to make a proper reply to the proceedings, and that the Brussels Convention created a right of appeal outside the range of appeals under the Civil Procedure Rules. An initial two week period had been set by the German Court, but extended to five weeks, in effect two weeks after delivery of notice of the proceedings. The defendant was absent on holiday when the proceedings were served, and he argued that that should have been taken as exceptional reasons for extending the time allowed for answering the claim. Held: The needs to simplify registration of judgements abroad, and to safeguard those served with notice of proceedings commenced in a foreign court had to be balanced. The court should test the question of sufficient time against the full facts, and not merely enter judgement because there has been a default of appearance. The crucial time was the entire period up to judgement being entered. The appeal was dismissed, and reference to European Court refused.
courtcommentary.com For purposes of article 27(2) of Brussels Convention (service "in sufficient time” to enable party, against whom enforcement is sought, to arrange for defence), the relevant period of time begins with due service and ends with issue of default judgment
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 - Access to Justice Act 1999 - Civil Procedure Rules - Brussels Convention 1968 27(2)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Kenburn Waste Management Ltd v Bergmann Times, 04 February 2002
30 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Lord Justice Keene
Jurisdiction
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.
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

 
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Co v Employers Reinsurance Corporation [2002] EWHC 28 (Commercial)
5 Feb 2002
ComC

Insurance, Jurisdiction

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
American Motorists Insurance Co (Amico) v Cellstar Corporation and Another [2002] EWHC 421 (Commercial); Times, 01 April 2003; [2002] EWHC 253 (Comm)
15 Mar 2002
ComC

Jurisdiction, Insurance
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 contract might be settled under two schemes, the 2000 Act, and the Rome Convention, embodied in the 1990 Act. The first contained no explicit provision attempting to regulate these contracts which went beyond the second, namely that a severable part of a contract which had a closer connection with another country might, as an exception, be subject to the jurisdiction of that country. It was sought to rely upon that exception here. However, the connections were clearly with Texas, and the common law requirements for giving jurisdiction to Texas were satisfied. The proceedings in England had been correctly stayed.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 - Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Exter Shipping Ltd Stanley Shipping Ltd Wyndham Shipping Ltd Crest Shipping Ltd v Glencore International Ag [2002] EWCA Civ 524
18 Apr 2002
CA
The Vice-Chancellor Lord Justice Robert Walker And Lord Justice Rix
Jurisdiction
There had been complex multi-party litigation in England. The appellants sought discharge from an anti-suit injunction restraining them from taking some issues to their home court, Georgia in the USA. They contended that the reasons which surrounded the original reasons for litigation in London had now been discharged. Held: The section creates the power to grant an anti-suit injunction provided personal jurisdiction can be exercised, and it is 'just and convenient' to do so. The ship owners had submitted to the English courts by bringing their claims here. There was therefore personal jurisdiction. No legitimate interest in pursuing claims in Georgia had been shown, and no prejudice was suggested if restrained from proceeding in Georgia. The conclusion was that they acted against conscience. A need for the protection of an injunction had been shown.
Supreme Court Act 1981 37(1)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Glencore International Ag v Exter Shipping Ltd and others [2002] EWCA Civ 528; [2002] CLC 1090; [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 1
18 Apr 2002
CA
Rix LJ
Jurisdiction
The court was asked whether there is jurisdiction in the English court to impose an anti-suit injunction against four foreign shipowners in respect of their complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The shipowners have participated in complex multi-party litigation in England, known as the Metro litigation, but they submit that, partly because their participation was always limited and partly because over time that participation has been still further eroded by settlement and discontinuance, the English court lacks jurisdiction to make the order complained of.
[ Bailii ]
 
Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 650
24 Apr 2002
CA

Jurisdiction, Contract

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Perera v Perera [2002] EWCA Civ 714
8 May 2002
CA

Family, Jurisdiction

[ Bailii ]
 
Wim Harry Gerard Maronier v Bryan Larmer Times, 13 June 2002; Gazette, 11 July 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 774; [2003] QB 620
29 May 2002
CA
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Lord Justice Clarke
Human Rights, Jurisdiction
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 right of appeal. The claimant sought to enforce the judgement here. Held: The court could refuse to enforce a judgement obtained unfairly. The Brussels convention was intended to simplify the enforcement of judgements, and that would be frustrated by the courts of one country examining whether the procedures of another complied with the Human Rights Convention. Courts should only do so in exceptional circumstances, but there was a distinction between a decision on the facts and a procedure which operated in breach of the right to a fair trial. The Brussels Convention itself (art 27.2) recognised the need for a fair trial. The case had been re-activated after twelve years with no further notification. The judgement would not be enforced since the defendant had been denied his right to a fair trial.
European Convention on Human Rights 6 - Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 - Brussels Convention Art 27.2
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Brian McGowan v Summit at Lloyds Times, 11 July 2002
12 Jun 2002
SCS
Lord Marnoch and Lady Cosgrove and Lord Reed
Scotland, Contract, Jurisdiction
The contract provided for the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. The claimant challenged this under the Act. Held The 1982 Act modified art 17 of the Convention when putting it in effect. That difference did not lead to the conclusion that Parliament intended to prevent parties contracting to exclude the jurisdiction of one jurisdiction within the UK from another. The words had to be construed in accordance with their natural meaning. Surrounding factors could be considered, including whether either party could invoke it, its specific agreement, whether it was a pre-printed agreement, and whether the burden would fall one party more than the other. These factors are not exhaustive. Since English jurisdiction already existed, the clause must be declaratory or providing exclusivity. Some such factors did apply here and the clause would not be construed so as to restrict jurisdiction to eth English courts.
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Sch 4 Art 17 - Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 17
1 Cites

[ ScotC ]
 
Trafigura Beheer Bv v Golden Stavraetos Maritime Inc [2002] EWHC 1154 (Comm); [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 984
12 Jun 2002
ComC
Morison J
Jurisdiction
The defendant applied to strike out the claim as having no real prospect of success because of a point under the Hague Visby Rules.
[ Bailii ]
 
Owusu v Jackson, Mammee Bay Resorts Limited etc [2002] EWCA Civ 877; [2003] PIQR 186
19 Jun 2002
CA
Lord Justice Brooke
European, Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules
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 various ways. The defendants argued that the proper forum was Jamaica. Held: The decision as to forum conveniens was well within the judge's discretion. As to the issues of European Law, these were to be referred to the European Court. Here, the two competing jurisdictions were not separate European ones, but one European and one Jamaican. The issue had not been previously dealt with by the European Court.
Civil Procedure Rules 6.20(3) - Brussels Convention Art 2 - EC Treaty 220
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ennstone Building Products Ltd v Stanger Ltd Gazette, 12 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 916; [2002] 1 WLR 3059
28 Jun 2002
CA
Lords Justice Potter and Keene
Jurisdiction, Contract
Two companies with head offices in England and subsidiary offices in Scotland, contracted for work to be done in Scotland. The contract was silent as to the applicable law. Held: Where both companies traded in England, the presumptions under the convention were not to be set aside merely because the place of performance and direct control under the contract were in Scotland. The contract was most closely connected with England and issues arising were to be tried there.
Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990
[ Bailii ]
 
Bonnier Media Limited v Greg Lloyd Smith and Kestrel Trading Corporation Times, 10 July 2002
1 Jul 2002
SCS
Lord Drummond Young
Scotland, Media, Intellectual Property, Jurisdiction
The defenders registered internet domain names. The claimants alleged an intended infringement of their trade marks, saying the defenders had a history of opening sites intended to deceive. The defenders who were resident in Greece said that the 1982 Act could not be used for a threatened delict, but only for a completed one. Held: The procedure was available for a threatened delict. The difference between one threatened and one complete need not be substantial. Jurisdiction over the defendant was available where it could be seen that the web-site would be directed at the pursuers business. That was the case here.
Trade Marks Act 1994 - Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Sch 1
1 Cites

[ ScotC ]
 
Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Another Times, 27 November 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1643
14 Nov 2002
CA
Sir Martin Nourse, Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Pill
Jurisdiction, International
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.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka AS v Nomura International plc and Others; QBD 9-Dec-2002 - Times, 16 December 2002
 
Gutnick v Dow Jones [2002] HCA 56
10 Dec 2002


Commonwealth, Jurisdiction
(High Court of Australia) The Court rejected a challenge, in the context of Internet libel, to the applicability of such established principles as that vouchsafed in Duke of Brunswick: "It was suggested that the World Wide Web was different from radio and television because the radio or television broadcaster could decide how far the signal was to be broadcast. It must be recognised, however, that satellite broadcasting now permits very wide dissemination of radio and television and it may, therefore, be doubted that it is right to say that the World Wide Web has a uniquely broad reach. It is no more or less ubiquitous than some television services. In the end, pointing to the breadth or depth of reach of particular forms of communication may tend to obscure one basic fact. However broad may be the reach of any particular means of communication, those who post information on the World Wide Web do so knowing that the information they make available is available to all and sundry without any geographic restriction. . . . A publisher, particularly one carrying on the business of publishing, does not act to put matter on the Internet in order for it to reach a small target. It is its ubiquity which is one of the main attractions to users of it. And any person who gains access to the Internet does so by taking an initiative to gain access to it in a manner analogous to the purchase or other acquisition of a newspaper, in order to read it. . . Comparisons can, as I have already exemplified, readily be made. If a publisher publishes in a multiplicity of jurisdictions it should understand, and must accept, that it runs the risk of liability in those jurisdictions in which the publication is not lawful and inflicts damage."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Austlii ]

 
 The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament v The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Others; QBD 17-Dec-2002 - Times, 27 December 2002; [2002] EWHC 2759 (QB)
 
Rayner v Davies [2002] EWCA Civ 1880
19 Dec 2002
CA

Jurisdiction

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.