Judgment following the expedited hearing of: i) the Claimant’s application for directions for an expedited trial with a view to having its dispute with the Defendants determined before the end of this year; and ii) Apollo’s application for a stay of proceedings under Article 30(1) of the recast Brussels Regulation 1215/2012 Mr Justice Foxton  … Continue reading Lopesan Touristik Sa v Apollo European Principal Finance Fund Iii (Dollar A) LP and Others: ComC 8 Oct 2020
The local authority applied to the court for care orders and placement orders in respect of two young girls. The parents opposed the local authority’s applications. The mother was Hungarian. The father was Hungarian/Roma. The mother applied under Article 15(2)(a) of the Regulation for an order requesting that the Hungarian court should assume jurisdiction with … Continue reading J and E (Children: Brussels II Revised: Article 15): FC 11 Nov 2014
Application by the respondent to strike out the wife’s divorce petition . .
The father sought the return of his child to England after he was granted an application for contact.
Held: The procedures were inadequate, but a contact order was not an judgment requiring the return of a child to the UK. The court set out a . .
ECFI Officials – Elections of the local committee of the Commission staff based in Brussels – – Counting of ballots – Action for annulment – Staff Committee Action for damages’ . .
his appeal concerns the extent of the obligation upon the court in England and Wales to enforce a foreign order in relation to children. It directly concerns one provision of the Brussels II revised Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003) . .
Acquisition of Habitual Residence Habitual residence can in principle be lost and another habitual residence acquired on the same day. Held: The provisions giving the courts of a member state jurisdiction also apply where there is an alternative jurisdiction in a non-member state such as the United States. The Regulation also deals with how child … Continue reading A v A and another (Children) (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening): SC 9 Sep 2013
F had obtained an order in Romania for the custody of D. F obtained orders initially for the registration and enforcement of that order, but the High Court reversed that saying that neither the child nor his mother had been given adeuate opportunity to take part in the proceedings in Romania. F’s appeal to the … Continue reading In re D (A Child): SC 22 Jun 2016
Application by the mother seeking from it an exercise by the court of its discretion effectively to transfer the case to the courts in the Czech Republic.  NIFam 4 Bailii Brussels II Regulation Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 15 Northern Ireland Children, International Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513882
No abuse of process in service error The husband claimed that the W was guilty of abuse of process by issuing the divorce petion, but then not serving it for many months in an attempt to gain a tactical jurisdictional advantage under Brussels II. Held: H’s application was refused. W sent the papers to the … Continue reading Thum v Thum: FC 21 Oct 2016
References:  EWHC 2634 (Fam) Links: Bailii Coram: Mostyn J Ratio: The husband claimed that the W was guilty of abuse of process by issuing the divorce petion, but then not serving it for many months in an attempt to gain a tactical jurisdictional advantage under Brussels II. Held: H’s application was refused. W sent … Continue reading Thum v Thum; FC 21 Oct 2016
When a court looked at a choice of the jurisdiction clause, it was not necessary that the clause should withoutmore establish the jurisdiction. A clause could be effective where the forum will be ascertainable at the time by reference to a the circumstances. In this case of the clause required a dispute under a bill … Continue reading Handelsveem Bv and Others v Coreck Maritime GmbH: ECJ 1 Dec 2000
Two children were born in Norway to a British mother (M) and Norwegian father (F). Having lived in Norway, M brought them to England to stay, but without F’s knowledge or consent. M replied to his application for their return that the children would be at risk if returned, alleging psychological abuse by F. She … Continue reading Re E (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal): SC 10 Jun 2011
‘jurisdiction challenge involving the scope of the bankruptcy exception in Article 1.2(b) of Council Regulation 44/2001 (‘the Judgments Regulation’) which replicates an identical provision in the Brussels Convention. If the Judgments Regulation does not apply the question is whether, in view inter alia of Council Regulation 1346/2000 . . this court is forum non conveniens … Continue reading Polymer Vision R and D Ltd and Others v Van Dooren: ComC 17 Nov 2011
The first claimant was an English company all of whose shares were owned by a Turkish company. The second claimant as director caused changes to the company’s constitution and share structure. The parties disputed the jurisdiction of the UK Courts to hear the claim. Held: Lord Sales said: ‘I would allow the appeals by Koza … Continue reading Akcil and Others v Koza Ltd and Another: SC 29 Jul 2019
Europa Jurisdiction Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 Point 2 of Article 22 Disputes as to the validity of decisions of organs of companies Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State where the company has its seat Medical practitioners’ mutual defence organisation.In proceedings in Ireland relating to a medical negligence claim against the Health Board, two … Continue reading Hassett v South Eastern Health Board, Doherty v North Western Health Board, (Judgments Convention / Enforcement of Judgments): ECJ 2 Oct 2008
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US authorities. The claimant had asserted that no more … Continue reading Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel: CA 3 Feb 2005
Claims for freight charges are an exception to the general rule that all claims between parties must be resolved in one action. A claim for freight cannot be a claim ‘on the same grounds’ as a counter-claim for loss or damage arising out of the carriage, for there is no set off against freight. The … Continue reading Aries Tanker Corp v Total Transport Ltd; The Aries: HL 1977
The court considered applications to set aside some 180 petitions for divorce on the grounds that they appeared to be attempts to pervert the course of justice by wrongfully asserting residence in order to benefit from the UK jurisdiction. Held: It had been asserted that the English court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition in … Continue reading Rapisarda v Colladon (Irregular Divorces): FC 30 Sep 2014
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought as damages the costs incurred in the German litigation. The defendant asserted lack of jurisdiction saying that the alleged … Continue reading AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others: SC 1 Mar 2017
The defendant H appealed against a refusal of a stay of the action under the 1996 Act on the basis of Brussels I. Held: The appeal failed. Article 22 was to be narrowly construed, and it should be no wider than is needed to satisfy the objective of the provisions. However, the costs order had … Continue reading Magiera v Magiera: CA 15 Dec 2016
ECJ (Judgment) Public service – Disciplinary proceedings – Disciplinary Board – Temporary staff of the Court of Auditors appointed probationary official at the Commission – Change of place of employment – No declaration of change of duty station to the administration of the Court of accounts – simultaneous applications of the resettlement allowance in the … Continue reading FU v Commission: ECJ 11 Apr 2016
The claimant was injured in a car accident in France. The defendant insurer said that the quantification of damages was to be according to French law and the calculation of interest also. The claimant said that English law applied. Held: The assessment of damages is a procedural matter, and is governed by the law of … Continue reading Knight v Axa Assurances: QBD 24 Jul 2009
EAT Practice and Procedure: Preliminary Issues – A peripatetic employee, who was Danish and had his home in Switzerland, freely entered into a contract with the First Respondent, a company incorporated in Bermuda, by which he was to occupy an international role, based in Switzerland, as its Strategy and Business Development Director. The contract was … Continue reading Olsen v Gearbulk Services Ltd and Another (Practice and Procedure: Preliminary Issues): EAT 28 Apr 2015
Article 8 Positive obligations Article 8-1 Respect for family life Failure to conduct return proceedings under Brussels IIa regulation expeditiously and efficiently: violation Facts – The applicant is an Italian national whose partner (the first applicant in the case of Povse v. Austria*) removed their daughter from Italy, where the family lived, to Austria in … Continue reading MA v Austria: ECHR 15 Jan 2015
M appealed against English orders recognising and registering a decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal ordered that the custody of D who had lived with his mother in England since the age of eight weeks, should be transferred to his father in Romania. The order was registered for enforcement here. Held: Recognition of the … Continue reading MD v AA and Another: FD 31 Jul 2014
The parties disputed whether the claimant had a ‘good arguable case’ that the defendant had its central administration in England so as to give the court jurisdiction. Lord Dyson MR, Aikens LJ, Janet Smith D  EWCA Civ 1130,  WLR(D) 370 Bailii, WLRD Brussels 1 Regulation (Regulation EC 44/2001 60 England and Wales Jurisdiction … Continue reading Young v Anglo American South Africa Ltd and Others: CA 31 Jul 2014
HL Income tax, Schedule E – Non-resident employer – Employees working in U.K. sector of North Sea – Whether employer liable to deduct tax from emoluments – Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1973 – Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, s 181 and s 204 – Finance Act 1973, 5 38 – Continental Shelf Act 1964 … Continue reading Clark (Inspector of Taxes) v Oceanic Contractors Inc: HL 16 Dec 1982
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside the rule-maker’s power. Held: Even though the rule-making power is wide … Continue reading Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others: HL 30 Jul 2009
The father F sought the return to Greece of his two children. F had rights of custody, and for a time the children had been habitually resident in Greece. They disputed whether the return to England had been consensual. Held: M had established by oral evidence that the return was consensual. The move to Greece … Continue reading M v JM: FD 14 Jun 2007
The claimant newspapers complained of the spidering of the web-sites and redistribution of the materials collected by the defendants to its subscribers. The defendants including the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) denied that they needed a licence for the purpose. Held: The members of PRCA required licences from the claimants in order lawfully to receive … Continue reading The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others v Meltwater Holding Bv and Others: ChD 26 Nov 2010
EAT Practice and Procedure : Preliminary Issues – JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Working outside the jurisdiction The Claimant worked 3 weeks in 4 in Dubai, spending the 4th as ‘rest time’ at his home in the UK, under a contract made with a company registered in the Isle of Man, which provided that Manx courts would … Continue reading Powell v OMV Exploration and Production Ltd: EAT 23 Jul 2013
The court was asked whether the provisions of article 15 of Council Regulation(EC) Bo 2201/2003, commonly known as Brussels II Revised and hereafter ‘BIIR’, may be used to facilitate a transfer of proceedings between jurisdictions within the United Kingdom.  EWHC 2336 (Fam),  Fam Law 1531 Bailii England and Wales Children Updated: 19 November … Continue reading London Borough of Camden v Caratt and Others: FD 31 Jul 2013
One container loaded with cigarettes was allegedly hi-jacked in Belgium en route between Switzerland and The Netherlands in September 2011, while another allegedly lost 756 of its original 1386 cartons while parked overnight contrary to express instructions near Copenhagen en route between Hungary and Vallensbaek, Denmark. The consignors claimed against English main contractors who undertook … Continue reading British American Tobacco Denmark A/S v Kazemier Bv: SC 28 Oct 2015
The court was asked whether the English court has jurisdiction following judgment to grant an anti-suit injunction against foreign judgment debtors (one of whom has a domicile in a Brussels I Regulation State) restraining them from pursuing proceedings abroad seeking to re-litigate matters which have been decided by the English court. Held: The defendant’s appeal … Continue reading Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another (No 3): CA 6 Jun 2008
EAT The parties agreed that in the event of any employment dispute , the applicable law would be German, and the place of jurisdiction Frankfurt, which was where the claimant lived and from where she worked (though she came on occasion to the UK). She brought claims under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and Equal … Continue reading Simpson v Intralinks: EAT 15 Jun 2012
The claimant had produced the Star War films which made use of props, in particular a ‘Stormtrooper’ helmet designed by the defendant. The defendant had then himself distributed models of the designs he had created. The appellant obtained judgment against the respondent in the US for punitive damages, but these had not been collected, and … Continue reading Lucasfilm Ltd and Others v Ainsworth and Another: SC 27 Jul 2011
The child had been born in Britain to British citizen parents from Pakistan and India. There had been care proceedings, but later and with the court’s consent the father took him to Pakistan undertaking to return him, but then failed to do so. Contact was re-established, but the child was now habitually resident in Pakistan. … Continue reading In Re I (A Child): SC 1 Dec 2009
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 against a person domiciled in that State and other defendants domiciled in a non – Contracting State – Forum non … Continue reading Owusu v Jackson: ECJ 1 Mar 2005
The claimant appealed a finding that the court did not have jurisdiction over income payable to a trust governed by English law under which the claimant was beneficiary. Held: The appeal failed in part. Because Article 5 is in derogation from the basic principle of domicile in Article 2, the provisions of Article 5 are … Continue reading Gomez and others v Vives: CA 3 Oct 2008
The parties disputed the trusts upon which three Gurdwaras (Sikh Temples) were held. The Court of Appeal had held that the issues underlying the dispute were to be found in matters of the faith of the Sikh parties, and had ordered a permanent stay. Held: The appeal was allowed. The matter was justiciable and should … Continue reading Shergill and Others v Khaira and Others: SC 11 Jun 2014
The parties disputed ownership of shares in the football club Dynamo Kiev. Claims were to be made under Ukrainian company law and in equity. The claimant (a company registered in Mauritius) sought to proceed here. The defendants (largely companies registered in the UK) said that the Ukraine was the proper jurisdiction. Held: The court declined … Continue reading Pacific International Sports Clubs Ltd v Soccer Marketing International Ltd and Others: ChD 24 Jul 2009
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 in the UK. They argued that the terms of issue waived state immunity. Held: The … Continue reading NML Capital Ltd v Argentina: SC 6 Jul 2011
EC has sole jurisdiction over old cartels Several claimants alleged that the defendant airway had been part of a cartel which had overcharged for freight services. The court now heard arguments about whether it had jurisdition to deal with claims which preceded the measures which had brought into force the EU competition rules. The cartel … Continue reading Emerald Supplies Ltd and Others v British Airways Plc: ChD 4 Oct 2017
Rights of Custody under Convention The Court was asked as to what were ‘rights of custody’ within the Convention. M had at first left her child with the maternal grandmother in an informal but long term arrangement in Latvia when M moved to Northern Ireland. Later M removed the child to Northern Ireland against the … Continue reading In re K (A Child): SC 15 Mar 2014
Defamation across borders – Jurisdiction The claimant began an action for defamation in an online publication. The Norwegian resident defendant had begun an action there seeking a declaration negating liability. The Court was now asked by the defendant whether under Lugano, the UK action was as to the same cause between the same parties, and … Continue reading Wright v Granath: QBD 16 Jan 2020
ECJ (Judgment) Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 – Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction – Concept of ‘habitual residence’ of a child following the divorce of its parents – Lawful … Continue reading C v M: ECJ 9 Oct 2014
Jurisdiction in Cross border divorce The parties had divorced in Italy. After the wife sought possession of her house in London where H lived, he appealed against refusal of leave to apply for an order under the 1984 Act, the court having found insufficient substantial grounds for allowing the application to go ahead. Held: Leave … Continue reading Traversa v Freddi: CA 14 Feb 2011
The parties disputed whether the court had jurisdiction. The defendant insurer argued that parallel issues had been referred to arbitration in France. Held: the claim was outside the range of the arbitration agreement, and a stay, which would have been the appropriate remedy was not granted. Lord Justice Rix, Lord Justice Jacob and Lord Justice … Continue reading Youell and others v La Reunion Aerienne and others: CA 11 Mar 2009
Application to set aside service of the proceedings brought by the two sets of Claimants in England, on the grounds that the English Courts do not have jurisdiction under the Brussels Recast Regulation to hear the claims. . .
Application of Article 33 of the Brussels Recast Regulation (which applies to the proceedings, as they were commenced before 1 January 2021) in circumstances where the defendant is domiciled in England and the parties agreed to the non-exclusive . .
Appeal against care and placement order proceedings in relation to two Hungarian children, The orders were for the transfer of the case to Hungary.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. As to Article 15, the Court considered: What are the . .
Sir Andrew Morritt explained the relationship of the Regulation, the Model Law, and the still earlier European Convention on Insolvency Proceedings: ‘To understand the arguments and explain my conclusion it is necessary to consider the evolution of . .
(Gilbraltar) The parties disputed the management contract for a racing yacht, and also the juridiction of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar to hear the case. Bols said that under regulation 2(1) Gibraltar had no jurisdiction.
Held: The English . .
The Alexander T, owned by the appellant and insured by the respondents was a total loss. The insurers resisted payment, the appellant came to allege improperly, and the parties had settled the claim on full payment under a Tomlin Order. The owners . .
The seventh defendant sought to be excused from the case denying the court’s jurisdiction. He had been a director. . .
IPO Following the filing of a reference and statement by the claimant, the defendants (the proprietor and its exclusive licensee) in May 2004 sought a stay to await the outcome, initially of EPO opposition . .
The parties had disputed insurance claims after the foundering of the Alexandros T. After allegations of misbehaviour by the underwriters, the parties had settled the claims in a Tomlin Order. Five years later, however, the shipowners began . .
On a proper construction of the expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters as amended by the Convention . .
ECJ (Opinion) Regulation (EC) no 44/2001 Article 5, point 1 Competence in contractual matters Contract having as its object the supply of services Concept of’ services ‘License contract Intellectual property . .
On notice hearing with regard to without notice receivership order. . .
The court held a case management conference with regard to an intended application for committal for contempt of one of the defendants. . .
The applicant, and judgment creditor sought orders for committal for contempt by the defendant companies and officers after failing to comply with court orders. . .
The court heard matters relating to the recovery by the claimant of $63,000,000. . .
Application for an order to prevent some defendants pursuing action in other jurisdictions. . .
Application for interpretation of a receivership order. . .
Judgment on quantum. . .
Application for further order of payment of costs of action on account. . .
The third respondent sought to strike out an application for his committal for failure to comply with orders made in support of proceedings to enforce a substantial judgment. . .
The court was asked as to its jurisdiction to hear a divorce petition under the Regulation Brussels II Revised. . .
The clamants brought actions for damages for torts said to have been committed by the defendants in Russia. They said that the defendant was domiciled within the jurisdiction under the EU Regulation.
Held: Domicile for the issue of . .
The parties were born and lived in India and were Hindu. They came to the UK but after separation, returned to India, leaving no assets here. H began divorce proceedings in India, but W then issued a petition here. She now appealed against on order . .
Proceedings were brought in England. The respondents sought a stay, saying the company was subject to insolvency proceedings in Germany.
Held: Our domestic insolvency law was not applicable to foreign proceedings, and so could not be used to . .
The parties, both Swedish nationals had been habitually resident in England for fifteen years. They had properties in both countries. They disputed the proper forum to resolve their divorce.
Held: Referring to the Regulation, Holman J said: . .
Appeal from order with regard to management of receivership. . .
The creditors sought leave to appeal against orders made in the course of proceedings to recover a very substantial debt from a foreign resident company. . .
ECJ (Area Of Freedom, Security and Justice) Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 Article 15 (1) (c) Jurisdiction over consumer contracts Promise of consumer gain Conclusion of a contract Consumer protection Continuity . .
The judgment creditor appealed an order refusing to oblige the defendant company to attend court and provide information about its means. . .
The mother had brought the child from France to England. That removal was wrongful. The father, having begun proceedings in France, sought his return.
Held: The father had not co-operated readily with the UK courts in bringing his application, . .
The court was asked whether the Commercial Court had international jurisdiction to make an order for the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution, and a freezing order, in relation to the judgment debtors’ interest in the concession . .
The claimant, a customer of the defendant had been charged sums when he went overdrawn beyond his limit. He claimed that the sums were unlawful penalties under the Regulations. The bank said that it had refunded the charges. The claimant sought . .
The court was asked as to points of both law and fact under Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2203, commonly known as Brussels II (revised). The greek father and english mother and their children had lived in Greece and England. W began . .
The parties had each begun proceedings in different jurisdictions within the European Union. They disputed which court was first seised.
Held: The issue was decided by looking at when, in each case, the document instituting the proceedings was . .
A ship had foundered, and the owners disputed their insurance claim. The policy provided for arbitration in London, and one party sought an order to prevent the other commencing proceedings in another EU state in breach of the arbitration agreement. . .
The mother sought the return of her children to France. Her summons had been dismissed after balancing the policy of the Convention against the strength of the child’s objection to return together with certain welfare considerations. The . .
The defendants who were resident in Greece appealed a decision that the English court had jurisdiction over them, by virtue of a close connection of the matter with earlier proceedings heard here.
Held: The fact that the defendants were all . .
Preliminary Questions – The Brussels Tribunal de premiere instance referred a questions in proceedings relating to the enforceability of contracts between an authors’ royalties collecting society and its members who had assigned their copyrights to . .
The need to avoid conflict between trade marks registered in more than one country within the community was not dealt with by the Directive, but regard had to taken of the Convention. The Cour d’Appel had issued a final judgment in proceedings for . .
The husband had commenced proceedings for divorce in Germany. The husband was German, and the wife became German upon the marriage, but they had lived in London. The wife was second to issue, beginning proceedings in London. The district judge . .
Application by the Defendant insurer to dismiss, alternatively stay, this action pursuant to the lis pendens provisions of Articles 29 or 30 of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (‘Brussels 1 recast’). . .
‘ important issue of principle concerning the scope and effect of Article 31(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in . .
Brussels Convention – Interpretation of Article 17 – Validity of an oral jurisdiction agreement confirmed in writing by one party only.
‘It must be pointed out that . . article 17 of the Convention does not expressly require that the written . .
References:  EWFC 35 Links: Bailii Coram: Sir James Munby P FD The court considered applications to set aside some 180 petitions for divorce on the grounds that they appeared to be attempts to pervert the course of justice by wrongfully asserting residence in order to benefit from the UK jurisdiction. Held: It had been … Continue reading Rapisarda v Colladon (Irregular Divorces); FC 30 Sep 2014