Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim and Others (No 4): CA 9 Sep 1992

A Court had jurisdiction to order the consolidation of actions even before their respective writs had been served. It became a ‘pending’ action under the Order on issue of the originating process.


Gazette 09-Sep-1992, [1992] 1 WLR 1176


Rules of the Supreme Court Ord 4 r9(1)


Appeal fromArab Monetary Fund v Nahiralulloom and Others ChD 8-Jul-1992
A ‘Pending’ action for consolidation purposes includes a writ not yet served. . .
DistinguishedDresser UK v Falcongate Freight Management Ltd; The Duke of Yare CA 1992
In England the court was first seised of a matter at the point when the proceedings were served, not when they were issued. Article 21 was metaphorically described as a ‘tie-break rule’ which operates on the basis of strict chronological . .

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77848