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. . .
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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 . .
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 . .
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