Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 4): CA 14 May 1998

When appealing against fully argued refusal of jurisdiction, parties may not bring in additional evidence at that appeal save in exceptional circumstances.

Judges:

Nourse, Pill, Waller LJJ

Citations:

Times 14-May-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 774

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoCanada Trust Company and others v Stolzenberg and others CA 28-Apr-1997
(Oral judgment, Millett LJ) The question was whether it is a proper exercise of discretion to refuse to make an order for the production of documents at an interlocutory hearing on the sole ground that they are wanted in order to establish the . .
See AlsoCanada Trust Company and others v Stolzenberg and others (2) CA 29-Oct-1997
The court looked at questions relating to domicile and jurisdiction; standard of proof, date to be determined and duties before service.
Held: The court is endeavouring to find an imprecise concept which reflects that the plaintiff must . .
See AlsoThe Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others ChD 10-Nov-1997
A foreign resident defendant failing to comply with an order for discovery should be barred from defending after having been given notice. . .

Cited by:

See alsoCanada 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.

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78867