Tag Archives: Jurisdiction

Tolofson -v- Jensen; 1994

(Supreme Court of Canada) La Forest J said: ‘the purpose of substantive / procedural classification is to determine which rules will make the machinery of the forum court run smoothly as distinguished from those determinative of the rights of both parties.’

Date: 01-Jan-1994
Judges: La Forest J
References: (1994) 120 DLR (4th) 289,
Cited By:
  • Harding -v- Wealands, HL, Cited, (Times 06-Jul-06, Bailii, [2006] UKHL 32, [2006] 3 WLR 83, [2006] 2 CLC 193, [2006] RTR 35, [2006] 4 All ER 1)

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth, Jurisdiction

Kuwait 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 defendant, and garnishee orders were sought.
Held: It is not correct to characterise the garnishee or third party debt order as a claim in personam made against the third party in England. It is enforcement of the judgment in rem against the debt, which in this case was situated in Switzerland. The garnishee order was discharged.

Court: HL
Date: 12-Jun-2003
Judges: Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett
Statutes: Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 3A
Links: House of Lords, Bailii,
References: [2003] UKHL 31, Times, 13-Jun-2003, Gazette, 17-Jul-2003, [2003] 3 All ER 501, [2004] 1 AC 300, [2003] ILPr 45, [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 101, [2003] 1 CLC 1206, [2003] 3 WLR 14
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

AMT Futures Ltd -v- Marzillier, Dr Meier & Dr Guntner Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft Mbh; ComC 11-Apr-2014

Application by the Defendant for a declaration that the court does not have jurisdiction over it in respect of the subject matter of the claim and for an order setting aside service of the Claim Form.

Court: ComC
Date: 11-Apr-2014
Judges: Popplewell J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 1085 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich Aktiengesellschaft -v- National Bank of Greece Sa; QBD 25-Sep-1998

A term which had only been found to be implied into a contract could still prove to be central to its performance and so could be the deciding factor in a claim for jurisdiction under the Brussels Convention.

Court: QBD
Date: 25-Sep-1998
Statutes: Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 Art 5
Links: Times,
References:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Raiffeisen 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 Convention the validity of the assignment was governed by the law which in turn governed the underlying asset.

Court: QBD
Date: 21-Jun-2000
Judges: Longmore J
Statutes: Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 Sch 1
Links: Times, Gazette,
References: [2000] 2 Ll.R. 684,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Hi Hotel Hcf SARL -v- Uwe Spoering; ECJ 3-Apr-2014

ECJ Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – International jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict – Act committed in one Member State consisting in participation in an act of tort or delict committed in another Member State – Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred

Court: ECJ
Date: 03-Apr-2014
Judges: L. Bay Larsen, P
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 44/2001
Links: Bailii,
References: C-387/12, [2014] EUECJ C-387/12

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Jurisdiction

Twycross -v- Dreyfus; CA 1877

State immunity is not to be got around by suing the employees of the state. Here, the only possible case was against the state itself.
Sir George Jessel MR said: ‘the municipal law of this country does not enable the tribunals of this country to exercise any jurisdiction over foreign governments as such. Nor, so far as I am aware, is there any international tribunal which exercises any such jurisdiction. The result, therefore, is that these so-called bonds amount to nothing more than engagements of honour, binding, so far as engagements of honour can bind, the government which issues them, but are not contracts enforceable before the ordinary tribunals of any foreign government . . without the consent of the government of that country.’

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1877
Judges: Sir George Jessel MR
References: (1877) LR 5 Ch D 605,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under International, Jurisdiction

Overseas 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 set out therein must be applied irrespective of the domicile of the parties to the two sets of proceedings. Without prejudice to the case where the court second seised has exclusive jurisdiction under the Convention and in particular under Article 16 thereof, Article 21 of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning that, where the jurisdiction of the court first seised is contested, the court second seised may, if it does not decline jurisdiction, only stay the proceedings and may not itself examine the jurisdiction of the court first seised.

Court: ECJ
Date: 27-Jun-1991
Links: Bailii,
References: C-351/89, [1992] QB 434, [1991] EUECJ C-351/89
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Insurance, Jurisdiction

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.

Court: HL
Date: 20-May-1998
Statutes: Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968
Links: Times, House of Lords, Bailii,
References: [1998] UKHL 49; [1999] 2 AC 127; [1999] 2 WLR 134; [1999] 1 All ER 289, [1999] 2 AC 127
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Insurance, Jurisdiction