Click the case name for better results:

Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority and Others v Bestfort Development Llp and Others: ChD 16 Oct 2015

In an application notice pursuant to Section 25 of the 1982 Act, the Claimants, which are all, in one form or another, entities of the government of the Emirates of Ras Al Khaimah, one of the Emirates forming the United Arab Emirates (UAE) sand which I am going to call RAK appled for wide ranging … Continue reading Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority and Others v Bestfort Development Llp and Others: ChD 16 Oct 2015

Johnson v Gore Wood and Co: HL 14 Dec 2000

Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter. Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder to seek damages against advisers to … Continue reading Johnson v Gore Wood and Co: HL 14 Dec 2000

TSN Kunststoffrecycling Gmbh v Jurgens: CA 25 Jan 2002

The claimant sought to register and enforce here, a judgment obtained by default in Germany. It was argued that he had not had, under section 27(2) sufficient opportunity to make a proper reply to the proceedings, and that the Brussels Convention created a right of appeal outside the range of appeals under the Civil Procedure … Continue reading TSN Kunststoffrecycling Gmbh v Jurgens: CA 25 Jan 2002

Porzelack KG v Porzelack (UK) Ltd: 1987

When considering an application for security for costs against a litigant resident in the EU, the courts must allow for the new additional scope for enforcement of any judgment under the 1982 Act. In this case, an order for security for costs against a plaintiff German company was refused because these additional powers made it … Continue reading Porzelack KG v Porzelack (UK) Ltd: 1987

Nussberger and Another v Phillips and Another (No 4): CA 19 May 2006

A claim was issued in London in December 2004, and then served in part in Switzerland in January 2005. One copy was removed from the bundle by a Swiss official, seeing that it had been marked ‘Nor for service out of the jurisdiction.’ That marking had been in error. After proceedings were then issued in … Continue reading Nussberger and Another v Phillips and Another (No 4): CA 19 May 2006

Van den Boogaard v Laumen: ECJ 27 Feb 1997

ECJ If the reasoning of a decision rendered in divorce proceedings shows that the provision which it awards is designed to enable one spouse to provide for himself or herself, or if the needs and resources of each of the spouses are taken into consideration in the determination of its amount, the decision will be … Continue reading Van den Boogaard v Laumen: ECJ 27 Feb 1997

National Navigation Co v Endesa Generacion Sa (The Wadi Sudr): CA 17 Dec 2009

The court was asked whether a judgment of a fellow member state of the European Union ruling against a stay of proceedings on the basis that an arbitration clause was not incorporated in the contract can be relied on as creating an issue estoppel so as to prevent the English court deciding the point differently. … Continue reading National Navigation Co v Endesa Generacion Sa (The Wadi Sudr): CA 17 Dec 2009

A v A and another (Children) (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening): SC 9 Sep 2013

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

Kinnear and Others v Falconfilms Nv and Others: QBD 27 Jan 1994

The deceased had died in an accident whilst filming in Spain for the defendants. The plaintiff personal representatives sought damages here, while the defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction under the 1968 Convention, and said that the . .

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts