A plaintiff whilst denying a contract can rely on the defendant’s assertion of it to found jurisdiction.

Citations:

Times 15-Apr-1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

International

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.78496

Payment by European Commission under Lome Convention was garnisheeable – it was not subject to any special trust.

Citations:

Times 28-Nov-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

International

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.84708

Links:

ICJ, ICJ

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

International

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.228074

An English court will not accede to a request for information from third parties here in circumstances in which an English court would not ask.

Citations:

Times 29-Jan-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

International

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.80332

Lord Sumner suggested that in the absence of a clear statement of the position from the Government, the court might be entitled to decide whether a defendat had the benefit of state immunity for itself on the basis of the evidence before it.
A foreign state cannot be impleaded in the English courts without its consent.
Lord Cave said that as regards state immunity: ‘It is the duty of the Court to accept the statement of the Secretary of state thus clearly and positively made as conclusive upon the point.’

Judges:

Lord Sumner, Lord Cave

Citations:

[1924] AC 797, [1924] All ER 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Reversed – British Wagon Co Ltd v Gray 1896
. .

Cited by:

Cited – NML Capital Ltd v Argentina SC 6-Jul-2011
The respondent had issued bonds but in 2001 had declared a moratorium on paying them. The appellant hedge fund later bought the bonds, heavily discounted. Judgment was obtained in New York, which the appellants now sought to enforce against assets . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.441560

ECJ (External Relations) Opinion – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement Free movement of workers Article 7, second paragraph, of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council The right of the child of a Turkish worker to respond to any offer of employment in the host Member State where he has completed a vocational training situation of the child who begins his training on a date on which his parents, who have been in regular employment in the host State for more than three years, have left that State for ten years Article 59 of the Additional Protocol More favorable treatment than that accorded to nationals of Member States

Citations:

C-462/08, [2009] EUECJ C-462/08 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Bekleyen v Land Berlin ECJ 21-Jan-2010
EEC-Turkey Association Agreement Second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council Right of the child of a Turkish worker to respond to any offer of employment in the host Member State in which that child has completed a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.380275

Line dividing continental shelf and fishery zones is special circumstance.

Citations:

Times 24-Jun-1993

International

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.83410

Citations:

C-34/81, [1981] EUECJ C-34/81

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

International

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215021

An action in rem indirectly impleaded a sovereign who was the owner of the vessel served because his property was affected by the judgment of the court. An unincorporated treaty cannot change the law of the land and, ‘the immunity of the sovereign as is as least as great as the immunity of an ambassador.’
Brett LJ said that the reason for a sovereign’s immunity is ‘the character of the sovereign authority, its high dignity, whereby it is not subject to any superior authority of any kind,’ and he referred to Vattel’s statement: ‘S’il est venu en voyageur, sa dignite seule, et ce qui est du a la nation qu’il represente et qu’il gouverne, le met a couvert de toute insulte, lui assure des respects et toute sorte d’egards, et l’exempte de toute juridiction.’
‘From all these authorities it seems to us, although other reasons have sometimes been suggested, that the real principle on which the exemption of every sovereign from the jurisdiction of every court has been deduced is that the exercise of such jurisdiction would be incompatible with his regal dignity – that is to say, with his absolute independence of every superior authority. By a similar examination of authorities we come to the conclusion, although other grounds have sometimes been suggested, that the immunity of an ambassador from the jurisdiction of the courts of the country to which he is accredited is based upon his being the representative of the independent sovereign or state which sends him, and which sends him upon the faith of his being admitted to be clothed with the same independence of and superiority to all adverse jurisdiction as the sovereign authority whom he represents would be.
It has been held that an ambassador cannot be personally sued, although he has traded; and in both cases because such a suit would be inconsistent with the independence and equality of the state which he represents. If the remedy sought by an action in rem against public property is, as we think it is, an indirect mode of exercising the authority of the court against the owner of the property, then the attempt to exercise such an authority is an attempt inconsistent with the independence and equality of the state which is represented by such an owner. The property cannot upon the hypothesis be denied to be public property; the case is within the terms of the rule; it is within the spirit of the rule; therefore, we are of opinion that the mere fact of the ship being used subordinately and partially for trading purposes does not take away the general immunity.’
. . And: ‘In a claim made in respect of a collision the property is not treated as the delinquent per se. Though the ship has been in collision and has caused injury by reason of the negligence or want of skill of those in charge of her, yet she cannot be made the means of compensation if those in charge of her were not the servants of her then owner, as if she was in charge of a compulsory pilot. This is conclusive to shew that the liability to compensate must be fixed not merely on the property but also on the owner through the property. If so, the owner is at least indirectly impleaded to answer to, that is to say, to be affected by, the judgment of the court … To implead an independent sovereign in such a way is to call upon him to sacrifice either his property or his independence. To place him in that position is a breach of the principle upon which his immunity from jurisdiction rests. We think that he cannot be so indirectly impleaded, any more than he could be directly impleaded. The case is, upon this consideration of it, brought within the general rule that a sovereign authority cannot be personally impleaded in any court.’

Judges:

Brett LJ

Citations:

(1880) LR 5 PD 197

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – The Parlement Belge AdCt 1879
Proceedings in rem were served on a mail packet owned by Belgium which had been involved in a collision. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Higgs and Mitchell v The Minister of National Security and others PC 14-Dec-1999
(Bahamas) The applicants appealed against sentences of death, saying that the executions would be unlawful while there was a pending appeal to the OAS.
Held: The appeals failed. The Bahamas was a member of the Organisation of American States, . .
Cited – Baccus SRL v Servicio Nacional Del Trigo CA 1956
The defendant organisation carried on business from Spain and was sued in England for damages for breach of a commercial contract. An appearance was entered by their solicitors in London and a consent order made for security for the organisation’s . .
Cited – Aziz v Republic of Yemen CA 17-Jun-2005
The claimant had made a claim for unfair dismissal. The defendant state had filed a defence instead of claiming state immunity. It then sought to assert such immunity. The claimant said the state had waived its immunity.
Held: Section 2(7) of . .
Cited – De Haber v The Queen of Portugal 1851
Orse In the Matter of Wadsworth and R of Spain In the Matter of De Haber and R of Portugal
Property in England, belonging to a foreign sovereign prince in his public capacity, cannot be seized under process in a suit instituted against him in . .
Cited – Aziz v Aziz and others CA 11-Jul-2007
The claimant sought return of recordings and of money paid to the defendant through an alleged fraud or threats. She was the former wife of the Sultan of Brunei and head of state, who now sought an order requiring the court to protect his identity . .
Cited – NML Capital Ltd v Argentina SC 6-Jul-2011
The respondent had issued bonds but in 2001 had declared a moratorium on paying them. The appellant hedge fund later bought the bonds, heavily discounted. Judgment was obtained in New York, which the appellants now sought to enforce against assets . .
Cited – Belhaj 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

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.182816

A Mareva order made ex parte freezing assets world-wide on an interim basis was nevertheless a judgment allowing jurisdiction for recognition and enforcement in foreign jurisdictions once it had been certified as such on an inter partes application.

Citations:

Gazette 10-Feb-1999, Times 06-Jan-1999

Statutes:

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 50

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

International

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.84331

Indonesia not accepting jurisdiction of International Court of Justice not bound by it. The Court refused, in the absence of Indonesia as a party, to entertain a claim brought by Portugal challenging Australia’s right to conclude a treaty with Indonesia to delimit the continental shelf in the area of the Timor Gap. Portugal’s claim was based on the proposition that it alone remained in law the administering power in respect of East Timor, despite the Portuguese authorities’ withdrawal from East Timor in 1975 followed by Indonesia’s intervention in and control of East Timor since 1975. Portugal’s claim against Australia necessarily depended upon showing that Indonesia had acquired no legal status in respect of East Timor and that Australia and Indonesia therefore had no right to enter into the Treaty. The very subject-matter of Portugal’s claim was the lawfulness of Indonesia’s conduct. But the Court also made clear that it was ‘not necessarily prevented from adjudicating when the judgment it is asked to give might affect the legal interests of a State which is not party to the case’

Citations:

Times 18-Jul-1995

Cited by:

Cited – Occidental 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78931

The doctrine of ‘forum non conveniens’ could be used to prevent the prosecution in the UK in respect of a matter agreed to be conducted in Texas, even though the proper applicable law was that England. The Act did not restrict the application of the doctrine in this way even for a non-contracting state, where the parties were subject to an express agreement or provision to this effect.

Citations:

Times 06-Sep-2000

Statutes:

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

Cited by:

Appeal From – Ace Insurance Sa/Nv v Zurich Insurance Co and Another CA 2-Feb-2001
The doctrine of forum non conveniens could be used to prevent the prosecution in the UK in respect of a matter agreed to be conducted in Texas, even though the proper applicable law was that England. The Act did not operate to restrict the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77626

An action is to be heard where the contract was to be performed despite the fact that there was no assertion of contract in claim.

Citations:

Times 28-Mar-1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

International

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.89402

Foreign judgment registered here despite claim that it was obtained by fraud.

Citations:

Gazette 29-Sep-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Reference from – Societe D’Informatique Service Realisation Organisation v Ampersand Software Bv ECJ 25-Sep-1995
Court’s refusal to stay enforcement of foreign court order cannot be appealed against. Different jurisdictions not to be used to get advantage on enforcement. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.89366

Court deciding whether to apply a foreign law had the discretion to allow for the conduct of international relations by that country and may refuse to give it effect. No absolute bar to such a decision.

Citations:

Times 12-May-1998

International

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.82859

United States Supreme Court – the Supreme Court reflected on matters of comity in relation to US competition law in the Sherman Act, saying that a state has jurisdiction to prescribe law with respect to ‘(a) conduct that, wholly or in substantial part, takes place within its territory; (b) the status of persons, or interests in things, present within its territory; (c) conduct outside its territory that has or is intended to have substantial effect within its territory’.
Breyer JA said: ‘this court ordinarily construes ambiguous statutes to avoid unreasonable interference with the sovereign authority of other nations. . . This rule of construction reflects principles of customary international law – law that (we must assume) Congress ordinarily seeks to follow. See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States sections 403(1), 403(2) (1986) (hereinafter Restatement) (limiting the unreasonable exercise of prescriptive jurisdiction with respect to a person or activity having connections with another state); Murray v Schooner Charming Betsy, 2 Cranch 64, 118 (1804) (‘[A]n act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains’);
This rule of statutory construction cautions courts to assume that legislators take account of the legitimate sovereign interests of other nations when they write American laws. It thereby helps the potentially conflicting laws of different nations work together in harmony-a harmony particularly needed in today’s highly interdependent commercial world.
No one denies that America’s antitrust laws, when applied to foreign conduct, can interfere with a foreign nation’s ability independently to regulate its own commercial affairs. But our courts have long held that application of our antitrust laws to foreign anticompetitive conduct is nonetheless reasonable, and hence consistent with principles of prescriptive comity, insofar as they reflect a legislative effort to redress domestic antitrust injury that foreign anticompetitive conduct has caused.
But why is it reasonable to apply those laws to foreign conduct insofar as that conduct causes independent foreign harm and that foreign harm alone gives rise to the plaintiff’s claim? Like the former case, application of those laws creates a serious risk of interference with a foreign nation’s ability independently to regulate its own commercial affairs. But, unlike the former case, the justification for that interference seems insubstantial. See Restatement section 403(2) (determining reasonableness on basis of such factors as connections with regulating nation, harm to that nation’s interests, extent to which other nations regulate, and the potential for conflict). Why should American law supplant, for example, Canada’s or Great Britain’s or Japan’s own determination about how best to protect Canadian or British or Japanese customers from anticompetitive conduct engaged in significant part by Canadian or British or Japanese or other foreign companies?’

Citations:

159 L Ed 2d 226, [2004] USSC 238, 542 US 155, 124 SCt 2359

Links:

Worldlii

Jurisdiction:

United States

Cited by:

Cited – The United States of America v Nolan SC 21-Oct-2015
Mrs Nolan had been employed at a US airbase. When it closed, and she was made redundant, she complained that the appellant had not consulted properly on the redundancies. The US denied that it had responsibility to consult, and now appealed.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.591915

(High Court of Australia) The A-G sought to prevent publication in Australia of the book Spycatcher, saying that it had been written by a former member of the British intelligence service and that it was derived from confidential material.
Held: The court should not enforce foreign public laws, in so much as it would not allow enforcement outside the territory of the foreign sovereign of claims based on or related to the exercise of foreign governmental power. Though it was difficult to identify the foreign laws or rights which fell within the general principle, the majority suggested that, rather than refer to ‘public laws’, it would be more apt to refer to ‘public interests’ or ‘governmental interests’ that is to claims enforcing the interests of a foreign sovereign which arise from the exercise of certain powers peculiar to government. This claim for relief ‘arises out of, and is secured by, an exercise of a prerogative of the Crown, that exercise being the maintenance of the national security. Therefore the right or interest asserted in the proceedings is to be classified as a governmental interest. As such, the action falls within the rule of international law which renders the claim unenforceable’.

Citations:

(1988) 165 CLR 30

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – Mbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another v Logo Ltd and others CA 23-Oct-2006
Foreign Public Law Not Enforceable Here
The claimant alleged a conspiracy by the defendants for his overthrow by means of a private coup d’etat. The defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction. The claimants appealed dismissal of their claim to damages.
Held: The claims were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.245577

(US) A claim was brought against British police officers and prosecuting counsel for knowingly and falsely stating, in the context of extradition proceedings against the claimant, that the United States had made a valid ‘provisional request’ for his extradition.
Held: The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 does not discuss the liability or role of natural persons, whether governmental officials or private persons’, the sovereign immunity which it grants was held to extend to such persons: ‘This is a logical approach, for a government does not act but through its agents’. ‘The standard for determining whether immunity is warranted does not depend on the identity of the person or entity so much as the nature of the act for which the person or entity is claiming immunity’. Since the activity complained of was governmental in nature and performed by officials of that government, the Court had no jurisdiction ‘over a foreign sovereign’ and that the FSIA was ‘absolute in this regard, no matter how heinous the alleged illegalities’.

Citations:

(1990) 747 F Supp 60

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – Jaffe v Miller 1993
(Ontario Court of Appeal) Florida state officials were sued for alleged conspiracy maliciously to prosecute and to kidnap and detain the claimant, in order to blackmail him into giving up a civil suit.
Held: It is the character of the act, . .
Cited – Jones v Ministry of Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya As Saudiya Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) and Another CA 28-Oct-2004
The claimants sought damages alleging torture by the respondent whilst held in custody in Saudi Arabia.
Held: Although the state enjoyed freedom from action, where the acts were ones of torture, and action could proceed against state officials . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.219449

(German Supreme Court) A claim to immunity by the defendant (the ‘Head of New Scotland Yard’) was not ‘derived from his person’, but was based on the fact that the act on which the claimant sued was ‘a sovereign act of State which can only be attributed to the British State and not to him or any other official acting on behalf of that State, because the State is always considered the actor when one of its functionaries performs acts which are incumbent on it’. The acts of the defendant, as the expressly appointed agent of the United Kingdom for the purpose of performance of a treaty between the United Kingdom and Germany, ‘cannot be attributed as private activities to the person authorised to perform them in any given case’ and that ‘any attempt to subject State conduct to German jurisdiction by targeting the foreign agent performing the act would undermine the absolute immunity of sovereign States in respect of sovereign activity’.

Citations:

(1978) 65 ILR 193

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jones v Ministry of Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya As Saudiya Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) and Another CA 28-Oct-2004
The claimants sought damages alleging torture by the respondent whilst held in custody in Saudi Arabia.
Held: Although the state enjoyed freedom from action, where the acts were ones of torture, and action could proceed against state officials . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.219448

Sovereign immunity

Judges:

Arden, Sales, Irwin LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1719, [2018] WLR(D) 460

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

International

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620464

Judgment – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine – Freezing of funds – List of persons, entities and bodies to which the freezing of funds and economic resources applies – Maintenance of the name of the applicant on the list – Rights of the defense – Principle of good administration – Misuse of powers – Right of property – Right to freedom of enterprise – Manifest error of assessment

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:232, [2018] EUECJ T-190/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

International

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609299