The fact that the contract was governed by English law was the predominating factor to be borne in mind when deciding jurisdiction.
The court should be careful before describing as non-disclosure as material not included in an affidavit in support of a claim for jurisdiction. A failure to refer to arguments on the merits which the defendant may raise in answer to the claim should not generally be characterised as a failure to make a full disclosure unless they were of such weight that the omission might mislead the court in exercising its jurisdiction and its discretion whether or not to grant leave. Kerr J said: ‘the court should not consider the supporting affidavit as though it were marking an examination paper, deciding one way or the other merely on the basis of the extent to which the affidavit could have been improved. The primary question should be whether in all the circumstances the effect of the affidavit is to mislead the court in any material respect concerning its jurisdiction and the discretion under the rule.’
and ‘I think that the correct analysis is that the contract was made in London and amended in Dallas; not that it was made partly in London and partly in Dallas, or elsewhere. The 1967 amendment could not stand alone; it merely amended certain provisions of the 1960 agreement. The position would, of course, have been different if the 1967 amendment had operated as a discharge of the 1960 agreement and substituted a fresh agreement. The foregoing analysis is also in accord with what Denning LJ appears to have thought in Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation  2 QB 327, 334, where he preferred the view that an agreement made in one country and amended in another should be regarded as not having been made in the latter country.’
 3 All ER 879,  1 WLR 788
RSC Order 11 rule 1(d)(iii)
England and Wales
Cited – Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation CA 1955
The plaintiff traded from London, and telexed an offer to purchase cathodes to a company in Holland, who signified their acceptance by return, again by telex. Entores later wanted to sue the defendant, the parent company of the Dutch party. It was . .
Cited – Sawyer v Atari Interactive Inc ChD 1-Nov-2005
The claimant owned the copyright in several successful computer games. He had granted licenses for the use of the software, which licences were assigned to the defendants. Disputes arose as to the calculation of royalty payments, and the claimant . .
Cited – Stocznia Gdanska S A v Latvian Shipping Co and Others HL 22-Jan-1998
The parties had contracted to design, build, complete and deliver ships. The contract was rescinded after a part performance.
Held: It remained appropriate for payment to be made for the work already done in the design and construction stages: . .
Applied – Konamaneni v Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Limited ChD 20-Dec-2001
The claimants founded their action on the assertion that the defendants had been corrupt in obtaining contracts in India. The defendants argued that the English courts had no jurisdiction. The claimants held various small shareholdings in a company . .
Cited – Islamic Republic of Pakistan v Zardari and others ComC 6-Oct-2006
The claimant alleged that the defendants had funded the purchase of various properties by secret and unlawful commissions taken by them whilst in power in Pakistan. They sought to recover the proceeds. They now sought permission to serve proceedings . .
See Also – BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2) 1979
The contract between the parties relating to an oil concession in Libya had been frustrated by the nationalisation of the field.
Held: The court considered the setting of damages where the plaintiff had delayed in notifying the defendant of . .
See Also – BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No. 2) 1982
The court considered the application of interest to damages: ‘the basic principle . . that interest will be awarded from the date of loss’ and ‘the mere fact that it is impossible for the defendant to quantify the sum due until judgment has been . .
Cited – Novus Aviation Ltd v Onur Air Tasimacilik As CA 27-Feb-2009
The defendant appealed against a refusal to set aside the grant of leave to serve outside the jurisdiction granted to the claimant. Neither party conducted and business in England, and the contract was made in Switzerland, but was expressed to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.237263