Laker began an action in the US seeking damages under the US Sherman and Clayton Acts against other airlines, including British Airways and British Caledonian Airways. They said that the other airlines had combined in a conspiracy to undermine Lakers business by undercutting it. The plaintiffs now began a counter action seeking to restrain the US action, saying that the UK was a more convenient jurisdiction.
Held: Laker would have no such action available in England, and therefore could not be restrained from the US action.
 QB 142
Appeal from – British Airways Board v Laker Airways Limited CA 2-Jan-1984
The plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from pursuing an action in the US. That action alleged conspiracy by the plaintiffs to work together to put the defendant out of business on the North Atlantic route by anticompetitive . .
At First instance – British Airways Board v Laker Airways Limited HL 1985
The plaintiffs tried to restrain the defendant from pursuing an action in the US courts claiming that the plaintiffs had acted together in an unlawful conspiracy to undermine the defendant’s business.
Held: The action in the US were unlawful . .
Cited – Norris v United States of America and others HL 12-Mar-2008
The detainee appealed an order for extradition to the USA, saying that the offence (price-fixing) was not one known to English common law. The USA sought his extradition under the provisions of the Sherman Act.
Held: It was not, and it would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction, Torts – Other
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.270740