889457 Alberta Inc v Katanga Mining Ltd and others: ComC 5 Nov 2008

The parties had set out on a joint venture with deeds providing for control of the shareholdings in each other. The claimant asserted a breach of the deed and sought a remedy. The first defendant company, incorporated in Bermuda argued that the court should decline jurisdiction infavour of the courts in Congo. The second and third defendants argued against this saying that they were the principle defendants and that the case should be tried in England.
Held: Congo was not an appropriate forum since the normal infrastructure of state was not available.

Tomlinson J
[2008] EWHC 2679 (Comm), [2009] 1 BCLC 189, [2009] ILPr 14
England and Wales
CitedOwusu v Jackson ECJ 1-Mar-2005
ECJ Brussels Convention – Territorial scope of the Brussels Convention – Article 2 – Jurisdiction – Accident which occurred in a non – Contracting State – Personal injury – Action brought in a Contracting State . .
CitedSim v Robinow 1892
The task of the court in deciding jurisdiction is to identify the forum in which the case can be suitably tried for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice: . .
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 Rewia CA 1991
The court considered a jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading which referred to the carrier’s principal place of business. The central management and control of the company was in Germany and the question was whether that was also its principal . .
CitedMinistry of Defence and Support of the Armed Forces for the Islamic Republic of Iran v Faz Aviation Ltd and Another ComC 9-May-2007
Challenge by defendant to jurisdiction to bring claim. . .
CitedKing v Crown Energy Trading AG and another ComC 11-Feb-2003
The defendant, a company incorporated in Russia, sought to set aside proceedings served on it. The contract made the agreement subject to the laws of England and Wales, but the Convention made the jurisdiction clause unenforceable. Evidence . .
CitedCanada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2) HL 12-Oct-2000
The plaintiffs alleged the involvement of the defendant in a conspiracy to defraud. He had been domiciled in England, but had moved to Germany. He denied that the UK court had jurisdiction. The court of appeal said that jurisdiction was determined . .
CitedBritish Aerospace v Dee Howard 1993
Where a contract contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause providing for a case to be tried in the UK, it was relevant that the circumstances which might now suggest a trial elsewhere were perfectly foreseeable at the time of the contract. The new . .
CitedUnited Film Distribution Limited; United Pictures (India) Exports Private Limited v Chhabria; Chhabria; Spark Entertainments Limited; Spark Media Limited; Fairdeal Exports Private Limited and Mathilda International SA CA 28-Mar-2001
The court rules, which dealt with the grant of permission to serve documents out of the jurisdiction under rule 6.20(2), were no less wide than the power in the court with regard to the substitution, or addition, of parties under Rule 19.1(2). The . .
CitedKonkola Copper Mines Plc v Coromin Admn 10-May-2005
Re-insurers liability under Part 20 claims. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Company

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.277553