Officers of the claimant had been found to have defrauded the plaintiff of many millions of pounds. Money had been paid through the defendant, a Swiss bank, and a garnishee order was sought. There was no presumption that, merely because a debt was a foreign debt, garnishee relief should be refused. The real issue was … Continue reading Kuwait Oil Tanker Company S A K Sitka Shipping Incorporated v UBS Ag: CA 25 Jan 2002
The respondent had been refused an order for security for costs. He was US resident abroad but had assets in Switzerland, and the judge had considered herself unable to make the order under the Rules and the Convention. The assets would be easily removed, and may not even be capable of being pursued, and accordingly … Continue reading Hans David De Beer v Kanaar and Co (a Firm): CA 9 Aug 2001
An action relating to misrepresentation before a contract of re-insurance is, within the Lugano Convention, an action relating to a contract, rather than to insurance. Accordingly the appropriate forum for any litigation was the place where the obligation under question was to be performed rather than that of the domicile of the defendant. The assumption … Continue reading Agnew (Suing On His Own Behalf and In a Representative Capacity on Behalf of all Members of Lloyd’s Syndicates 672, 79, 1023 and 590) and Others v Lansforsakringsbolagens A B: HL 17 Feb 2000
An English claimant sued a Swiss bank for a negligent mis-statement made in a telephone call between England and Switzerland. The Swiss banker represented that the transmission of a copy payment order by the bank to the claimant was a guarantee that payment would be made for the amount referred. The claimant relied on the … Continue reading Domicrest Ltd v Swiss Bank Corporation: QBD 7 Jul 1998
A pre-contractual obligation is not an obligation under s5.1 of the Convention. Citations: Times 04-Aug-1994 Statutes: Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1988 5.1 Insurance Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.89962
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
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 at the issue of the writ. The defendant appealed. Held: Where one defendant was … Continue reading Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2): HL 12 Oct 2000
Conflict of laws. Re-insurers sought to invalidate a claim alleging misrepresentation or non-disclosure. Did the duty of disclosure continue after the contract was in place.
Evans LJ, dissenting said: ‘the reference in Article 5(1) to ‘the . .
Various parties had sought relief in the English courts and in Switzerland after an alleged fraud. There had been a mistake in service of the proceedings in England. The high court had dispensed with service an backdated the effect of the order to . .