Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another (No 3): CA 6 Jun 2008

The court was asked whether the English court has jurisdiction following judgment to grant an anti-suit injunction against foreign judgment debtors (one of whom has a domicile in a Brussels I Regulation State) restraining them from pursuing proceedings abroad seeking to re-litigate matters which have been decided by the English court.
Held: The defendant’s appeal failed. The court had an ancillary power to grant such an injunction. Subject to the requirements of international comity, an English court can take a discretionary power over someone within its in personam jurisdiction to make ancillary orders in protection of its jurisdiction and its processes, including the integrity of its judgments. The defendant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the English Court, and the anti-suit injunction was available and appropriate to protect the integrity of its judgments.

Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Lawrence Collins
[2008] EWCA Civ 625, Times 25-Jun-2008, [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 301, [2008] ILPr 48, [2008] 1 CLC 887, [2009] Bus LR 216, [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 1146, [2009] 2 WLR 669, [2008] BLR 391, [2009] QB 503
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 4-Apr-2008
The court was asked whether the Commercial Court had international jurisdiction to make an order for the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution, and a freezing order, in relation to the judgment debtors’ interest in the concession . .
Appeal from – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 23-May-2008
Application for interpretation of a receivership order. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd ComC 17-May-2005
. .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd CA 24-Oct-2005
The defendants who were resident in Greece appealed a decision that the English court had jurisdiction over them, by virtue of a close connection of the matter with earlier proceedings heard here.
Held: The fact that the defendants were all . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 28-Jul-2006
. .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and others ComC 25-May-2007
Application for an order to prevent some defendants pursuing action in other jurisdictions. . .
Cited – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 11-Jul-2007
. .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 14-Mar-2007
Judgment on quantum. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 20-Dec-2007
. .

Cited by:
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and others CA 28-Jul-2008
The judgment creditor appealed an order refusing to oblige the defendant company to attend court and provide information about its means. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and Another ComC 17-Jun-2008
Application for further order of payment of costs of action on account. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 21-Oct-2008
The court heard matters relating to the recovery by the claimant of $63,000,000. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company Sal CA 6-Feb-2009
Appeal from order with regard to management of receivership. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and others CA 13-Nov-2008
The creditors sought leave to appeal against orders made in the course of proceedings to recover a very substantial debt from a foreign resident company. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others ComC 6-Oct-2010
The third respondent sought to strike out an application for his committal for failure to comply with orders made in support of proceedings to enforce a substantial judgment. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal ComC 21-Oct-2010
The court held a case management conference with regard to an intended application for committal for contempt of one of the defendants. . .
See Also – Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 21-Jan-2011
. .
See Also – Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 3-Feb-2011
. .
See Also – Masri and Another v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others ComC 3-Mar-2011
On notice hearing with regard to without notice receivership order. . .
See Also – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others ComC 5-May-2011
The applicant, and judgment creditor sought orders for committal for contempt by the defendant companies and officers after failing to comply with court orders. . .
Cited – NML Capital Ltd v Argentina SC 6-Jul-2011
The respondent had issued bonds but in 2001 had declared a moratorium on paying them. The appellant hedge fund later bought the bonds, heavily discounted. Judgment was obtained in New York, which the appellants now sought to enforce against assets . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.268766

Nussberger and Another v Phillips and Another (No 4): CA 19 May 2006

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 Switzerland, an appplication was now made to dispense with service of document marked in error.
Held: The procedure of dispensing with service of a document was not to be used to manipulate the priorities as between court as to who should be seised of the proceedings. The application was refused.

Mr Justice Wilson Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Neuberger
[2006] EWCA Civ 654, Times 17-Jul-2006, [2006] 1 WLR 2598, Gazette 08-Jun-2006
Bailii
Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1988, Civil Procedure Rules 6.9, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Phillips, Harland (Suing As Administrators of the Estate of Christo Michailidis) v Symes (A Bankrupt), Nussberger, Galerie Nefer Ag, Geoff Rowley ChD 19-Aug-2005
The court allowed the appellant’s application to dispense with service of a claim form under the rule. The High Court became seised of the matter as at 19 January 2005. Further directions were given. . .
See Also – Phillips and others v Symes and others ChD 12-Jul-2006
. .
Cited – Siegfried Zelger v Sebastiano Salinitri ECJ 7-Jun-1984
Article 21 of the Convention of 28 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that the court ‘first seised’ is the one before which the requirements for proceedings to become definitively pending are first fulfilled, such requirements to be . .
Cited – Dresser 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 – Neste Chemicals SA and Others v DK Line Sa and Another (‘The Sargasso’) CA 4-Apr-1994
An English Court becomes seised of a case on the service of the writ. Steyn LJ: ‘the general thrust of the Dresser UK Ltd case is not only binding on us but . . . is correct’. There were no ‘exceptions to the rule that date of service marks the time . .
Cited – Canada 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 . .
Cited – Knauf UK GmbH v British Gypsum Ltd and Another CA 24-Oct-2001
Permission was sought to use alternative service to serve proceedings on a company. There was no exceptional difficulty in ordinary service, but the claimant wanted to ensure that a claim was heard within the UK jurisdiction, and expected that he . .
Cited – Anderton v Clwyd County Council (No 2); Bryant v Pech and Another Dorgan v Home Office; Chambers v Southern Domestic Electrical Services Ltd; Cummins v Shell International Manning Services Ltd CA 3-Jul-2002
In each case, the applicant sought to argue that documents which had actually been received on a certain date should not be deemed to have been served on a different day because of the rule.
Held: The coming into force of the Human Rights Act . .
Cited – Wilkey and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another CA 22-Oct-2002
The applicant’s claim had been dismissed for late service. The defendant had in fact received the documents, but the service appeared deemed to be out of time. The subsequent decisions of Anderton and Godwin meant that the judge’s reasoning no . .
Cited – Cranfield and Another v Bridgegrove Ltd; Claussen v Yeates etc CA 14-May-2003
In each case claims had been late in being served and extensions in time were sought and refused.
Held: The recent authorities were examined. The words ‘has been unable to serve’ in CPR 7.6(3)(a) include all cases where the court has failed to . .
Cited – Molins Plc v G D Spa CA 29-Mar-2000
In a case where the national court which would deal with a matter was the court first seised of the matter, a stay could only be awarded where the proceedings until the proceedings were definitively pending in that court. Documents could be served . .
Cited – Tavoulareas v Tsavliris CA 5-Feb-2004
The court held that Greek proceedings required service for the purposes of establishing seisin, and therefore priority of jurisdiction. Mance LJ said: ‘Professor Antapassis says that, as a matter of Greek domestic law, the effect of art. 221 is that . .
Cited – Grupo Torras Sa and Another v Sheikh Fahad Mohammed Al Sabah and Others CA 26-May-1995
A UK court may continue to hear a Spanish company’s claim against it’s own directors if a court was first seized of the matter here. Where a case concerned matters as to the constitution of a company, the courts of the company in which the company . .
Cited – Basil Shiblaq v Kahraman Sadikoglu (No 2) ComC 30-Jul-2004
The court considered whether there had been effective service of proceedings on defendants in Turkey. Evidence was given as to the effectiveness of such service in Turkish law.
Held: The defendant’s application to set aside the judgment in . .
Cited – Erich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl ECJ 9-Dec-2003
The claimant Austrian company had for many years sold goods to the defendant an Italian company. Eventually it presented a claim before the court in Italy. Having obtained judgement, it later sought to enforce the order through the Austrian court . .
Cited – Turner v Grovit ECJ 27-Apr-2004
The claimant had been employed as a solicitor by the respondent at locations across Europe, and came to claim in England that they had wrongly implicated him in unlawful activity. The company sought to issue proceedings in Spain.
Held: The . .
Cited – Owusu v Jackson ECJ 1-Mar-2005
ECJ Brussels Convention – Territorial scope of the Brussels Convention – Article 2 – Jurisdiction – Accident which occurred in a non – Contracting State – Personal injury – Action brought in a Contracting State . .
Distinguished – Golden Ocean Assurance Ltd v Martin (‘The Goldean Mariner’) CA 1990
Various defendants were served out of the jurisdiction but with the wrong copies of the writs, receiving a copy addressed to another defendant. One defendant received no writ at all, but only a form of acknowledgment of service.
Held: The . .
Cited – BAS Capital Funding Corporation, Deutsche Bank Ag London, Paine Webber Capital Inc, PW Exe Lp, Pw Partners 1999 Lp v Medfinco Limited, Abacus Holdings Limited, Andreas W Gerdes, HTC Inc, etc ChD 25-Jul-2003
The claimants wanted to bring actions in respect of various matters under shareholders agreements in complex international joint ventures. Leave was given to serve English proceedings in Malta, and the claim form and particulars of claim were faxed . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Phillips and Another v Symes and others HL 23-Jan-2008
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.242148

Cordoba Shipping Co Ltd v National State Bank, Elizabeth, New Jersey (The Albaforth): CA 1984

A negligent misrepresentation was made in a telex sent from the United States but received and acted upon in England. The judge had set aside leave to serve the document out of the jurisdiction.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The transmission was a tort committed within the jurisdiction within the meaning of Order 11 rule 1(1)(h).
Robert Goff LJ said: ‘If the substance of the alleged tort is committed within a certain jurisdiction, it is not easy to imagine what other fact could displace the conclusion that the courts of that jurisdiction are the natural forum’ and
”Now it follows from those decisions that, where it is held that a Court has jurisdiction on the basis that an alleged tort has been committed within the jurisdiction of the Court, the test which has been satisfied in order to reach that conclusion is one founded on the basis that the Court, so having jurisdiction, is the most appropriate Court to try the claim, where it is manifestly just and reasonable that the defendant should answer for his wrongdoing. This being so, it must usually be difficult in any particular case to resist the conclusion that a Court which has jurisdiction on that basis must also be the natural forum for the trial of the action. If the substance of an alleged tort is committed within a certain jurisdiction, it is not easy to imagine what other facts could displace the conclusion that the courts of that jurisdiction are the natural forum.’
Ackner LJ said: ‘the jurisdiction in which a tort has been committed is prima facie the natural forum for the determination of the dispute. England is thus the natural forum for the resolution of this dispute.’

Ackner LJ, Robert Goff LJ
[1984] 2 Lloyd’s LR 91
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Lewis and others v King CA 19-Oct-2004
The claimant sought damages for defamation for an article published on the Internet. The claimant Don King sued in London even though he lived in the US as did the defendants.
Held: A publication via the internet occurred when the material was . .
Cited – Cooley v Ramsey QBD 1-Feb-2008
The claimant sought damages after being severely injured in a road traffic accident in Australia caused by the defendant. The defendant denied that the court had jurisdiction to permit service out of the jurisdiction. The claimant said that the . .
Cited – Batey v Todd Engineering (Staffs) Ltd QBNI 7-Mar-1998
. .
Cited – Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin ComC 21-Nov-2001
. .
Cited – Douglas, Zeta-Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Ltd, Hola Sa, Junco, The Marquesa De Varela, Neneta Overseas Ltd, Ramey ChD 27-Jan-2003
The claimants sought an order striking out the defendants’ defence on the grounds that, by destroying documents, the possibility of a fair trial had been prejudiced.
Held: Refusing the order, save as to certain paragraphs of the defence, the . .
Cited – Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin ComC 22-Oct-2003
. .
Cited – Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin CA 14-Oct-2004
The claimant sought damages from what were said to be speculative trades carried out by the defendant whilst working in Russia. The claims were in both equity and in tort. He was a director of the company which was incorporated in Guernsey.
Cited – Berezovsky v Forbes Inc and Michaels; Glouchkov v Same HL 16-May-2000
Plaintiffs who lived in Russia sought damages for defamation against an American magazine with a small distribution in England. Both plaintiffs had real connections with and reputations in England. A judgment in Russia would do nothing to repair the . .
Cited – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others SC 6-Feb-2013
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . .
Cited – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others SC 6-Feb-2013
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.220026

Canada 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 at the issue of the writ. The defendant appealed.
Held: Where one defendant was domiciled in the UK at the time of the issue of a writ it was permissible at the same time to issue proceedings against other defendants who were not domiciled here, even if that the defendant upon whose domicile the action was founded subsequently abandoned or lost that domicile. The date in question was not the date on which the writ was served, particularly upon other defendants. The words ‘sued’, and ‘issued proceedings’, and began proceedings were used interchangeably in the Convention.
The standard of proof which the Claimants have to achieve is that of ‘good arguable case’

Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Times 17-Oct-2000, Gazette 02-Nov-2000, [2000] UKHL 51, [2000] 4 All ER 481, [2000] 3 WLR 1376, [2002] 1 AC 1, [2001] CLC 118, [2001] IL Pr 40
House of Lords, House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii
Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1988 Art 6, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Canada 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 Also – The 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 – Siegfried Zelger v Sebastiano Salinitri ECJ 7-Jun-1984
Article 21 of the Convention of 28 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that the court ‘first seised’ is the one before which the requirements for proceedings to become definitively pending are first fulfilled, such requirements to be . .
Cited – Molnlycke AB v Proctor and Gamble Ltd 1992
The court considered the patentability of a baby’s disposable diaper. . .
Cited – Dresser 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 – 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. . .
Cited – Grupo Torras Sa and Another v Sheikh Fahad Mohammed Al Sabah and Others CA 26-May-1995
A UK court may continue to hear a Spanish company’s claim against it’s own directors if a court was first seized of the matter here. Where a case concerned matters as to the constitution of a company, the courts of the company in which the company . .
Cited – Neste Chemicals SA and Others v DK Line Sa and Another (‘The Sargasso’) CA 4-Apr-1994
An English Court becomes seised of a case on the service of the writ. Steyn LJ: ‘the general thrust of the Dresser UK Ltd case is not only binding on us but . . . is correct’. There were no ‘exceptions to the rule that date of service marks the time . .
Cited – Shearson Lehman Hutton v Fur Vermogenswaltung and Betechigungen (TVB) mbH ECJ 19-Jan-1993
ECJ Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Jurisdiction in proceedings concerning contracts concluded by consumers – Concept of ‘consumer’ – Plaintiff acting in pursuance of his trade or . .
Cited – Seaconsar Far East Ltd v Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran HL 15-Oct-1993
A plaintiff must show that there is a ‘serious issue for trial’ to support and justify an application for overseas service. The standard of proof in respect of the cause of action relied on is whether, on the evidence, there was a serious question . .
Cited – Mulox IBC v Hendrick Geels ECJ 13-Jul-1993
ECJ The terms used in the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters must be interpreted autonomously. Only such an interpretation is capable . .
Cited – PS Refson and Co Ltd v Saggers CA 1984
Though interlocutory relief may be granted before issue of a writ, it is always upon an undertaking to issue one. . .
See also – 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. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Mazur Media Limited and Another v Mazur Media Gmbh in Others ChD 8-Jul-2004
Proceedings were brought in England. The respondents sought a stay, saying the company was subject to insolvency proceedings in Germany.
Held: Our domestic insolvency law was not applicable to foreign proceedings, and so could not be used to . .
Cited – Mazur Media Limited and Another v Mazur Media Gmbh in Others ChD 8-Jul-2004
Proceedings were brought in England. The respondents sought a stay, saying the company was subject to insolvency proceedings in Germany.
Held: Our domestic insolvency law was not applicable to foreign proceedings, and so could not be used to . .
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 – Nussberger and Another v Phillips and Another (No 4) CA 19-May-2006
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 . .
Cited – 889457 Alberta Inc v Katanga Mining Ltd and others ComC 5-Nov-2008
The parties had set out on a joint venture with deeds providing for control of the shareholdings in each other. The claimant asserted a breach of the deed and sought a remedy. The first defendant company, incorporated in Bermuda argued that the . .
Mentioned – Varsani v Relfo Ltd CA 27-May-2010
The defendant appealed against refusal of a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. He said that he lived in Kenya, and the claimant had failed first to apply for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction. The claimant had . .
Cited – Bols Distilleries VB (T/A As Bols Royal Distilleries) and Another v Superior Yacht Services Ltd PC 11-Oct-2006
(Gilbraltar) The parties disputed the management contract for a racing yacht, and also the juridiction of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar to hear the case. Bols said that under regulation 2(1) Gibraltar had no jurisdiction.
Held: The English . .
Cited – High Tech International Ag and others v Deripaska QBD 20-Dec-2006
The clamants brought actions for damages for torts said to have been committed by the defendants in Russia. They said that the defendant was domiciled within the jurisdiction under the EU Regulation.
Held: Domicile for the issue of . .
Cited – Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie SC 19-Dec-2017
The claimant and her family were in a car crash while on holiday in Egypt. The claimant’s husband and his daughter died. The holiday had been booked in England and the car excursion booked in advance from England. The hotel operator was incorporated . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.159085

Harms Offshore AHT Taurus Gmbh and Co KG v Bloom and Others: CA 26 Jun 2009

The court had granted to the liquidators of a company a mandatory injunction requiring the appellant German companies to attempt to obtain the release of assets from attachment by the court in new York.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The statutory prohibition against creditors bringing proceedings against a company being wound up by the court is not extra-territorial. The protection of the assets of a company in administration is not to be regarded by the Court as differing in substance from the protection of the assets of a company in compulsory liquidation. In both cases, the assets of the company are dealt with by an officer appointed by the Court in accordance with statutory duties.
The conduct of the Appellants and the circumstances of the attachments brought it into the exceptional category in which the grant of injunctive relief is justified, notwithstanding comity and notwithstanding the outstanding application of the Administrators in New York.

Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton and Sir John Chadwick
[2009] EWCA Civ 632, Times 10-Jul-2009, [2009] Bus LR 1663, [2010] 1 Ch 187, [2010] 2 WLR 349
Bailii
Insolvency Act 1986
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In Re Oriental Inland Steam Company ex parte Scinde Railway Company CA 1874
The liquidator obtained an order requiring a creditor who had attached assets in India to return them to the company in liquidation.
Sir W M James LJ said: ‘The winding-up is necessarily confined to this country. It is not immaterial to . .
Cited – Mitchell v Carter ChD 1997
Section 183 of the 1986 Act, which precludes a creditor who levies execution or attaches a debt after commencement of a winding up, from retaining the benefit of his execution or attachment, does not apply to executions or attachments in foreign . .
Cited – Re Vocalion (Foreign) Ltd 1932
The section only applies only to proceedings pending in the UK, and not to proceedings in a foreign Court. The Court has an equitable jurisdiction in personam to restrain a respondent properly served in this country from proceeding with an action . .
Cited – Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak, Yong Joon Kim and, Lee Kui Jak (F) PC 14-May-1987
Brunei Darussalam – The Board was asked where a civil claim should be tried.
Held: The court stated some principles governing the grant of anti-suit injunctions restraining foreign proceedings. The inconvenience of a forum is of itself not a . .
Cited – Polly Peck International Plc v The Marangos Hotel Company Ltd and Others CA 7-May-1998
Leave had been given for the insolvent plaintiff company to bring proceedings. The defendant now challenged that leave.
Held: A claim that a massively insolvent company had wrongfully occupied Turkish Cypriot property would not allow a claim . .
Cited – Barclays Bank v Homan CA 1993
If the conduct of a creditor can be castigated as oppressive or vexatious the Court can and should grant relief in order to protect the performance by administrators of their functions and duties. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Insolvency

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.347220

Blohn v Desser: 1962

The plaintiff had obtained a default judgment in Austria against an Austrian partnership, and sought to enforce it in England against an English resident who was a sleeping partner in the firm. Her name was registered as a partner in the commercial register in Vienna.
Held: The claim against her failed. Although the defendant, as a partner in the firm, must be regarded as having carried on business in Vienna through an agent resident there and that, having permitted those matters to be notified to persons dealing with the firm by registration in a public register, she had impliedly agreed with those persons to submit to the jurisdiction of the court of Vienna, and that, therefore, the English courts would recognise the judgment, in this case, the judgment against the partnership firm was not enforceable against the defendant as either it was not a judgment against her personally or, if it was, by reason of the defences which would be available to her in Vienna it was not a final and conclusive judgment.
Diplock J said that it was ‘clear law that the contract . . to submit to the forum in which the judgment was obtained, may be express or implied’ and ‘It seems to me that, where a person becomes a partner in a foreign firm with a place of business within the jurisdiction of a foreign court, and appoints an agent resident in that jurisdiction to conduct business on behalf of the partnership at that place of business, and causes or permits, as in the present case, these matters to be notified to persons dealing with that firm by registration in a public register, he does impliedly agree with all persons to whom such a notification is made – that is to say, the public – to submit to the jurisdiction of the court of the country in which the business is carried on in respect of transactions conducted at that place of business by that agent.’

Diplock J
[1962] 2 QB 116
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Vizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and Another PC 3-Feb-2016
No Contractual Obligation to Try Case in New York
(Gibraltar) The appellant had invested in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff. They were repaid sums before the fund collapsed, and the trustees now sought repayment by way of enforcement of an order obtained in New York.
Held: The . .
Disapproved – Vogel v RA Kohnstamm Ltd 1973
Enforcement at common law wa sought of an Israeli default judgment in favour of an Israeli buyer of leather against an English company. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants were resident in Israel or had by implication agreed to submit . .
Wrongly decided – Adams v Cape Industries plc ChD 1990
The piercing of the veil argument was used to attempt to bring an English public company, which was the parent company of a group which included subsidiaries in the United States, within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. Where a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Contract

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.565112

Douglas, Zeta-Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Limited, Hola SA, Junco, The Marquesa De Varela, Neneta Overseas Limited, Ramey: CA 12 Feb 2003

The claimants claimed infringement of the privacy of their wedding celebrations. They requested permission for service out of the jurisdiction to join Mr Ramey as defendant, saying he had been the one who had taken some of the photographs in New York at issue. Mr Ramey resisted saying that, being resident in California, there was no good cause for the court to assume jurisdiction over him. It was accepted that in the imminent full trial, no issue could be taken against him.
Held: If there was a serious issue to be tried against him, England was the appropriate place to hear it. His alleged involvement was as a participator, and not just as an assistant. Appeal allowed.

Scott Baker, Rix Master Of The Rolls (Lord Phillips)
[2003] EWCA Civ 139, [2003] EMLR 585
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 6.20
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Berezovsky and Glouchkov v Forbes Inc and Michaels CA 31-Jul-2001
The claimant sought damages from the defendant for a magazine article claiming that he was involved in organised crime in Russia. The defendants appealed against the striking out of elements of the defence suggesting lesser meanings. Was meaning a . .
Appeal from – Douglas, Zeta-Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Ltd, Hola Sa, Junco, The Marquesa De Varela, Neneta Overseas Ltd, Ramey ChD 27-Jan-2003
The claimants sought an order striking out the defendants’ defence on the grounds that, by destroying documents, the possibility of a fair trial had been prejudiced.
Held: Refusing the order, save as to certain paragraphs of the defence, the . .

Cited by:
See Also – Douglas etc v Hello! Ltd etc ChD 11-Apr-2003
The claimants were to be married. They sold the rights to publish photographs of their wedding, but various of the defendants took and published unauthorised pictures.
Held: The claimants had gone to lengths to ensure the commercial value of . .
Cited – Ashton Investments Ltd. and Another v OJSC Russian Aluminium (Rusal) and others ComC 18-Oct-2006
The claimants sought damages for breach of confidence saying that the defendants had hacked into their computer systems via the internet to seek privileged information in the course of litigation. The defendants denied this and said the courts had . .
Cited – HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 11-Feb-2021
Defence had no prospect of success – Struck Out
The claimant complained that the defendant newspaper had published contents from a letter she had sent to her father. The court now considered her claims in breach of privacy and copyright, and her request for summary judgment.
Held: Warby J . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Civil Procedure Rules, Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.179038

Green v Sig Trading Ltd (Jurisdictional Points: Working Outside The Jurisdiction): EAT 24 May 2017

Jurisdiction – working outside Great Britain

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Working outside the jurisdiction
Jurisdiction – working outside Great Britain
The Respondent was a British company, which employed the Claimant as Managing Director of its business in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (‘KSA’). The Claimant had lived in the Middle East for some years and had no home in the UK. He continued to live in Lebanon, commuting to work in the KSA for two to four days each week. Given that the KSA operation had only recently been established, the Claimant reported to a manager based in the UK and other staff and support services were also located in the UK. Further, when offered the position, the Claimant was given one of the Respondent’s standard UK contracts which recorded that it was to be governed by English law and included references to British statutory employment protections. The ET found, however, that the budget for the KSA operation was an independent item within the UK budget and was administered separately. Balancing the various factors, it concluded that the Claimant was an expatriate employee who had stronger connections to KSA and the Middle East than to Great Britain and British employment law, and thus that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the Claimant’s claims. The Claimant appealed.
Held: allowing the appeal in part
The ET had been entitled to find that the KSA operation for which the Claimant was employed was subject to an independent budget, administered separately and to see this as a case where it was appropriate to balance the competing considerations in assessing whether the stronger connection was really with Great Britain and British employment law. In so doing, however, the ET had disregarded the fact that the parties had agreed the Claimant’s contract should be governed by English law. It was not suggested that the contractual term in this regard did other than properly represent the parties’ intentions and it was therefore wrong of the ET to have regard to the Respondent’s subjective explanation for this and to dismiss it as a relevant factor. Although the ultimate assessment as to the weight to be given to this and other factors was for the ET, the apparent failure to have regard to a relevant matter rendered the conclusion unsafe and the appeal would be allowed on this basis.

Eady QC HHJ
[2017] UKEAT 0282 – 16 – 2405, [2017] WLR(D) 458
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Employment, Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.590418

Owusu v Jackson: ECJ 1 Mar 2005

ECJ Brussels Convention – Territorial scope of the Brussels Convention – Article 2 – Jurisdiction – Accident which occurred in a non – Contracting State – Personal injury – Action brought in a Contracting State against a person domiciled in that State and other defendants domiciled in a non – Contracting State – Forum non conveniens – Incompatibility with the Brussels Convention.
Article 2 of the Brussels Convention ‘should be interpreted in such a way as to enable a normally well-informed defendant reasonably to foresee before which courts . . he may be sued.’ The Court also mentioned the requirement of ‘predictability of the rules of jurisdiction’ in the Convention, and to ‘the principle of legal certainty, which is the basis of the Convention.’
The English court could not decline jurisdiction: ‘application of the forum non conveniens doctrine, which allows the court seised a wide discretion as regards the question whether a foreign court would be a more appropriate forum for the trial of an action, is liable to undermine the predictability of the rules of jurisdiction laid down by the Brussels Convention, in particular that of Article 2, and consequently to undermine the principle of legal certainty, which is the basis of the Convention. . . the Brussels Convention precludes a court of a contracting state from declining the jurisdiction conferred on it by Article 2 of that Convention on the ground that a court of a non-contracting state would be a more appropriate forum for the trial of the action, even if the jurisdiction of no other contracting state is in issue or the proceedings have no connecting factors to any other contracting state’.

C-281/02, [2005] EUECJ C-281/02, Times 09-Mar-2005, [2005] ILPr 25, [2005] ECR I-553, [2005] 2 All ER (Comm) 577, [2005] QB 801, [2005] 1 CMLR 43, [2005] 1 Lloyds Rep 452, [2005] 1 CLC 246, [2005] 2 WLR 942, [2005] ECR I-1383
Bailii
Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001
European
Citing:
Reference from – Owusu v Jackson, Mammee Bay Resorts Limited etc CA 19-Jun-2002
Defendants appealed against an order refusing an order to restrain service of the proceedings on certain defendants outwith the jurisdiction. The claimant was seriously injured holidaying at a resort managed by the several defendants in Jamaica in . .

Cited by:
Cited – Nussberger and Another v Phillips and Another (No 4) CA 19-May-2006
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 . .
Cited – 889457 Alberta Inc v Katanga Mining Ltd and others ComC 5-Nov-2008
The parties had set out on a joint venture with deeds providing for control of the shareholdings in each other. The claimant asserted a breach of the deed and sought a remedy. The first defendant company, incorporated in Bermuda argued that the . .
Cited – Pacific International Sports Clubs Ltd v Soccer Marketing International Ltd and Others ChD 24-Jul-2009
The parties disputed ownership of shares in the football club Dynamo Kiev. Claims were to be made under Ukrainian company law and in equity. The claimant (a company registered in Mauritius) sought to proceed here. The defendants (largely companies . .
Cited – Lucasfilm Ltd and Others v Ainsworth and Another SC 27-Jul-2011
The claimant had produced the Star War films which made use of props, in particular a ‘Stormtrooper’ helmet designed by the defendant. The defendant had then himself distributed models of the designs he had created. The appellant obtained judgment . .
Cited – High Tech International Ag and others v Deripaska QBD 20-Dec-2006
The clamants brought actions for damages for torts said to have been committed by the defendants in Russia. They said that the defendant was domiciled within the jurisdiction under the EU Regulation.
Held: Domicile for the issue of . .
Cited – A v A and another (Children) (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening) SC 9-Sep-2013
Acquisition of Habitual Residence
Habitual residence can in principle be lost and another habitual residence acquired on the same day.
Held: The provisions giving the courts of a member state jurisdiction also apply where there is an alternative jurisdiction in a non-member . .
Distinguished – Mittal v Mittal CA 18-Oct-2013
The parties were born and lived in India and were Hindu. They came to the UK but after separation, returned to India, leaving no assets here. H began divorce proceedings in India, but W then issued a petition here. She now appealed against on order . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.223250

Gomez and others v Vives: CA 3 Oct 2008

The claimant appealed a finding that the court did not have jurisdiction over income payable to a trust governed by English law under which the claimant was beneficiary.
Held: The appeal failed in part. Because Article 5 is in derogation from the basic principle of domicile in Article 2, the provisions of Article 5 are to be construed restrictively. In this case, the beneficiary was being sued for overpayment as part of the trust. ‘It would be quite inconsistent with the restrictive approach to the special head of jurisdiction in Article 5(6) to read the words ‘as trustee’ in the expansive way, in which they would have to be read, to produce a result in favour of the claimants.’ Even if the powers on which the claim was based are classified as fiduciary, the first defendant is not being sued in the second claim ‘as a trustee . . of a trust created . . by a written instrument’ for the purposes of Article 5(6).

Lawrence Collins LJ, Jacobs LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1065
Bailii
Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 2 5(6), Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Gomez and others v Encarnacion Gomez-Monche Vives and others ChD 18-Feb-2008
The court had no jurisdiction in a claim by the three claimants against their mother, the first defendant, arising out of a trust created by their father. The family was Spanish and the trust was expressed to be governed by English law. The . .
Cited – Duke of Marlborough v Attorney General 1945
The Court was asked whether foreign shares held on trust were taxable as on a succession on the death of the beneficiary of the trust.
Held: The proper law of a marriage settlement ‘can only be the law by reference to which the settlement as . .
Cited – In re Diplock’s estate CA 1948
After considering a situation in which trust money had been applied in making alterations to the property of an innocent third party but had not added to the value of the property,
Held: The origin of the equitable rules of tracing were . .
Cited – Bonython v Commonwealth of Australia PC 1951
Lord Simonds defined the proper law governing a contract to be: ‘the system of law by reference to which the contract was made or that with which the transaction has its closest and most real connection.’ . .
Mentioned – Ministry of Health v Simpson; In re Diplock dec HL 1950
The will of Cable Diplock purported to make a gift to charity, and was distributed accordingly. The house however found the gift to be invalid.
Held: A personal remedy existed for the recovery of amounts wrongly paid in the distribution of an . .
Cited – Reisch Montage AG v Kiesel Baumaschinen Handels GmbH (Area Of Freedom, Security and Justice) ECJ 13-Jul-2006
Europa Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 6(1) – Cases where there is more than one defendant – Action brought in a Member State against a person domiciled in that State who is the subject of bankruptcy . .
Cited – Chellaram and Another v Chellaram and others (No 2) ChD 16-Apr-2002
One of the defendants had not been properly served by posting the proceedings to an address at which he stayed on his very occasional visits to London. The proceedings had not been issued for the purposes of service abroad, because at the time of . .
Cited – In re United Railways of the Havana v Regla Warehouses Ltd CA 1960
There had been a financing transaction by way of a lease by a Pennsylvania corporation, as trustee for foreign bondholders, to an English company carrying on business in Cuba, of assets in Cuba. By a Cuban decree the assets were transferred to the . .
Cited – Kleinwort Benson Limited v City of Glasgow District Council HL 19-Jun-1997
Restitution when Contract Void ab initio
A claim for restitution of money paid under a contract which was void ab initio is not a claim in contract, nor tort, nor delict, it was justiciable only in the court of domicile. The Brussels Convention does not decide jurisdiction. ‘But it is . .
Cited – Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schroder, Munchmeyer, Hengst and Co and others ECJ 27-Sep-1988
kalfelisECJ1988
ECJ For Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters to apply, a connection must exist between the various actions brought . .
Cited – In re United Railways of Havana and Regla Warehouses Ltd; Tomkinson v First Pennsylvania Banking and Trust Co HL 1960
A sum was held to be due from that company in US dollars under a lease and another agreement which were both governed by the law of Pennsylvania.
Held: The sum provable in the liquidation of the company was to be converted at the rates of . .
Cited – Mettoy Pension Trustees v Evans ChD 1990
Where a trustee acts under a discretion given to him by the terms of the trust the court will interfere with his action if it is clear that he would not have so acted as he did had he not failed to take into account considerations which he ought to . .
Cited – Re Freiburg Trust 2004
(Jersey) . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Trusts

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.276660

United Film Distribution Limited; United Pictures (India) Exports Private Limited v Chhabria; Chhabria; Spark Entertainments Limited; Spark Media Limited; Fairdeal Exports Private Limited and Mathilda International SA: CA 28 Mar 2001

The court rules, which dealt with the grant of permission to serve documents out of the jurisdiction under rule 6.20(2), were no less wide than the power in the court with regard to the substitution, or addition, of parties under Rule 19.1(2). The change from the old court rules had not either narrowed the power.

Times 05-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 416
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – 889457 Alberta Inc v Katanga Mining Ltd and others ComC 5-Nov-2008
The parties had set out on a joint venture with deeds providing for control of the shareholdings in each other. The claimant asserted a breach of the deed and sought a remedy. The first defendant company, incorporated in Bermuda argued that the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Civil Procedure Rules, Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.135524

Kabab-Ji Sal (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait): CA 20 Jan 2020

Lord Justice Flaux
[2020] EWCA Civ 6, [2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 269
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Kabab-Ji Sal (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) SC 26-Oct-2021
Governing law of an arbitration agreement which provides for arbitration in Paris but which is contained in a main agreement which is expressly governed by English law and (ii) as to whether the respondent became a party to the main agreement and/or . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Arbitration

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.646345

Nissan v The Attorney General: HL 11 Feb 1969

The plaintiff was a British subject with a hotel in Cyprus taken over by British troops on a peace-keeping mission. At first the men were there by agreement of the governments of Cyprus and the United Kingdom. Later they became part of a United Nations peace-keeping force. The plaintiff claimed compensation for the occupation of his hotel and damage allegedly done to his property by the British troops billeted there. Preliminary issues were tried which included the question whether the alleged actions of the British troops were acts of state so that no claim lay against the UK government.
Held: The defence of act of state was not available. While the making of the treaty (agreement) between the Cyprus government and the British, Greek and Turkish governments was an act of state and some acts done in performance of the treaty might be acts of state, the occupation of the hotel and the damage allegedly done to it were not sufficiently closely connected to the making of the treaty to fall within the scope of the doctrine.
The House considered the meaning of the phrase ‘act of state’. The way in which the government exercises its prerogatives in relation to foreign affairs and in its relations with foreign states does not give rise to rights which are cognisable by the domestic courts: ‘As regard such acts it is certainly the law that the injured person if an alien cannot sue in an British Court and can only have resort to diplomatic protest. How far this rule goes and how far it prevents resort to the courts by British subjects is not a matter on which clear authority exists.’
Lord Wilberforce cited the following definition of Crown acts of state: ‘An act of the executive as a matter of policy performed in the course of its relations with another state, including its relations with the subjects of that state, unless they are temporarily within the allegiance of the Crown.’ However: ‘This is less a definition than a construction put together from what has been decided in various cases; it covers as much ground as they do, no less, no more. It carries with it the warning that the doctrine cannot be stated in terms of a principle but developed from case to case.’
Lord Pearson said: ‘it is necessary to consider what is meant by the expression ‘act of state’, even if it is not expedient to attempt a definition. It is an exercise of sovereign power. Obvious examples are making war and peace, making treaties with foreign sovereigns, and annexations and cessations of territory. Apart from these obvious examples, an act of state must be something exceptional. Any ordinary governmental act is cognisable by an ordinary court of law (municipal not international): if a subject alleges that the governmental act was wrongful and claims damages or other relief in respect of it, his claim will be entertained and heard and determined by the court.’
Lord Reid said: ‘I think that a good deal of the trouble has been caused by using the loose phrase ‘act of state’ without making clear what is meant. Sometimes it seems to be used to denote any act of sovereign power or of high policy or any act done in the execution of a treaty. That is a possible definition, but then it must be observed that there are many such acts which can be the subject of an action in court if they infringe the rights of British subjects. Sometimes it seems to be used to denote acts which cannot be made the subject of inquiry in a British court. But that does not tell us how to distinguish such acts: it is only a name for a class which has still to be defined.’

Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Pearce, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Pearson
[1970] AC 179, [1969] UKHL 3
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence CA 21-Feb-1996
A soldier in the Artillery Regiment was serving in Saudi Arabia in the course of the Gulf war. He was injured when he was part of a team managing a Howitzer, which was firing live rounds into Iraq, and he was standing in front of the gun when it was . .
Cited – Bici and Bici v Ministry of Defence QBD 7-Apr-2004
Claimants sought damages for personal injuries incurred when, in Pristina, Kosovo and during a riot, British soldiers on a UN peacekeeping expedition fired on a car.
Held: The incidents occurred in the course of peace-keeping duties. It was . .
Cited – Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) SC 30-Jun-2010
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2.
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Jurisdiction, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.198143

JO v GO and Others; re PO; Re O (Court of Protection: Jurisdiction): CoP 13 Dec 2013

Jurisdiction of the Court of Protection

PO, a lady in her late eighties lacked capacity to decide her own care. She had been habitually resident in Hertfordshire. Her daughters now challenged their brother who had moved her to a care home in Scotland when he himself moved there. An interim guardianship order had been made by the Sheriff. When the sisters made the current application for an order, the now guardian Scottish local council said that she was now habitually resident in Scotland and that the present court had no jurisdiction.
Held: The matter was governed by section 83 of the 2005 which incorporated the 2000 Convention.

Sir James Munby P
[2013] EWHC 3932 (COP), [2013] EWCOP 3932, [2013] WLR(D) 495, [2014] COPLR 62, [2014] 1 Fam 197, [2014] 3 WLR 453, [2014] WTLR 337
Bailii, WLRD
Mental Capacity Act 2005 63, 2000 Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) HL 4-May-1989
Where a patient lacks capacity, there is the power to provide him with whatever treatment or care is necessary in his own best interests. Medical treatment can be undertaken in an emergency even if, through a lack of capacity, no consent had been . .
Cited – In re S (Adult patient) (Inherent jurisdiction: Family life); Sheffield City Council v S FD 2002
A court could only grant an order permitting treatment despite the absence of an adult patient’s consent by virtue of the doctrine of necessity.
Munby J said: ‘in our multi-cultural and pluralistic society the family takes many forms . . The . .
Cited – Re MN (Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Protective Measures) FD 2010
An elderly woman, MN, habitually resident in California, had been removed from there to Canada and thence to this country in circumstances which, it was said, involved a breach of the terms of Part 3 of an advance directive signed by her.
Cited – G v E (Deputyship and Litigation Friend) CoP 11-Oct-2010
Baker J considered the common law doctrine of necessity as it applied to the medical treatment of adults without mental capacity and the 2005 Act.
Held: As to section 5: ‘These provisions do not amount to a general authority to act on behalf . .
Cited – A v A and another (Children) (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening) SC 9-Sep-2013
Acquisition of Habitual Residence
Habitual residence can in principle be lost and another habitual residence acquired on the same day.
Held: The provisions giving the courts of a member state jurisdiction also apply where there is an alternative jurisdiction in a non-member . .

Cited by:
Cited – The Health Service Executive of Ireland v PA and Others CoP 3-Jun-2015
hsen_paCoP201506
The HSE sought orders under s.63 of and Schedule 3 to the 2005 Act recognising and enforcing orders by the Irish High Court for the detention of three young persons (‘PA’, ‘PB’, and ‘PC’) at a special unit known in Northampton.
Held: On an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Scotland, Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.518978

Google Inc v Vidal-Hall and Others: CA 27 Mar 2015

Damages for breach of Data Protection

The claimants sought damages alleging that Google had, without their consent, collected personal data about them, which was resold to advertisers. They used the Safari Internet browser on Apple products. The tracking and collation of the claimants’ browser generated information was contrary to the defendant’s publicly stated position that such activity could not be conducted for Safari users unless they had expressly allowed it to happen. The defendants denied that the allegation amounted to a tort, and that therefore the court had no jurisdiction, appealing against a refusal to strike out the claim.
Held: Google’s appeal failed, and the action should proceed. The court was not bound by the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hello!. The misuse of private information could work as a tort: ‘Misuse of private information is a civil wrong without any equitable characteristics. We do not need to attempt to define a tort here. But if one puts aside the circumstances of its ‘birth’, there is nothing in the nature of the claim itself to suggest that the more natural classification of it as a tort is wrong.’
Claimants may recover damages under the 1998 Act for a non-material loss.
Sub-section 13(2) of the 1998 Act fails effectively to implement Article 23 of the DP Directive, and has to be disapplied because it is incompatible with the Charter.

Lord Dyson MR, McFarlane, Sharp LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 311, [2015] CP Rep 28, [2015] EMLR 15, [2015] 3 WLR 409, [2015] WLR(D) 156, [2015] FSR 25, [2015] 3 CMLR 2, [2016] QB 1003
Bailii, WLRD
Data Protection Act 1998 13(2), Civil Procedure Rules, Directive 95/46/EC
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Vidal-Hall and Others v Google Inc QBD 16-Jan-2014
The claimants alleged misuse of their private information in collecting information about their internet useage when using Google products. Google now applied for an order setting aside consent for service out of the jurisdiction.
Held: The . .
Cited – AK Investment CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd and Others PC 10-Mar-2011
Developing Law – Summary Procedures Very Limited
(Isle of Man) (‘Altimo’) The parties were all based in Kyrgyzstan, but the claimant sought a remedy in the Isle of Man which would be unavailable in Kyrgyzstan.
Held: Lord Collins said: ‘The general rule is that it is not normally appropriate . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
Cited – Johnson v The Medical Defence Union CA 28-Mar-2007
The claimant asserted that the 1998 Act created rights between the parties that are in substance though not in form of a contractual nature; and rights to compensation for infringement of those primary rights of a nature that did not previously . .
Cited – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others CA 20-Jun-2012
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . .
Cited – A v B plc and Another (Flitcroft v MGN Ltd) CA 11-Mar-2002
A newspaper company appealed against an order preventing it naming a footballer who, they claimed, had been unfaithful to his wife.
Held: There remains a distinction between the right of privacy which attaches to sexual activities within and . .
Cited – Wainwright and another v Home Office HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant and her son sought to visit her other son in Leeds Prison. He was suspected of involvement in drugs, and therefore she was subjected to strip searches. There was no statutory support for the search. The son’s penis had been touched . .
Cited – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
Cited – Ash and Another v McKennitt and others CA 14-Dec-2006
The claimant was a celebrated Canadian folk musician. The defendant, a former friend, published a story of their close friendship. The claimant said the relationship had been private, and publication infringed her privacy rights, and she obtained an . .
Cited – Lord Browne of Madingley v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 3-Apr-2007
The appellant sought to restrict publication by the defendants in the Mail on Sunday of matters which he said were a breach of confidence. He had lied to a court in giving evidence, whilst at the same time being ready to trash the reputation of his . .
Cited – Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
Cited – Metal und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette Inc CA 27-Jan-1989
The claimants sued for negligent advice and secured judgment. The defendant company became insolvent, and so the plaintiff now sued the US parent company alleging conspiracy. The court considered a tort of malicious prosecution of a civil claim, . .
Cited – Kitechnology BV v Unicor GmbH CA 1995
The plaintiffs owned confidential information relating to novel plastic coated pipes; the defendants were German companies and individuals domiciled in Germany, who it was alleged had used the plaintiffs’ confidential information. One issue the . .

Cited by:
Applied – TLT and Others v The Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another QBD 24-Jun-2016
Damages for Publication of Asylum Applicants Data
The claimants had been part of the family returns process, returning failed asylum seekers to their countries of origin. The defendant collected data about the process and published a spreadsheet which was intended to provide an anonymous summary of . .
Cited – NT 1 and NT 2 v Google Llc QBD 13-Apr-2018
Right to be Forgotten is not absolute
The two claimants separately had criminal convictions from years before. They objected to the defendant indexing third party web pages which included personal data in the form of information about those convictions, which were now spent. The claims . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Information, Jurisdiction, Human Rights

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.544905

Canada 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 properly satisfy the court that it is right to take jurisdiction. That may involve considering matters which go both to jurisdiction and to the matter to be argued, e.g. the existence of a contract. ‘The question before the court should be decided on affidavits from both sides and without full discovery and/or cross-examination . . [The] ‘good arguable case’ test, although obviously applicable to the ex parte stage becomes of most significance at the inter partes stage. In the interlocutory context: ‘Good arguable case’ reflects that one side has a much better argument on the material available. It is the concept which the phrase reflects on which it is important to concentrate, i.e. of the court being satisfied or as satisfied as it can be having regard to the limitations which an interlocutory process imposes that factors exist which allows the court to take jurisdiction. It is a threshold below ‘ proved on a balance of probabilities but higher than ‘ serious question to be tried ‘good arguable case ‘ is a concept with some degree of flexibility depending on the issue.’

Waller, Nourse, Pill LJJ
Times 10-Nov-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2592, [1998] 1 WLR 547, [1998] 1 All ER 318
Bailii
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Canada 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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – Staines v Walsh, Howard ChD 14-Mar-2003
The claimant sought an account from the defendant share broker for the proceeds of share transactions. The defendant said the matter should be tried in Hong Kong.
Held: The claimant must show a good arguable case. Here there was evidence to . .
Cited – Mazur Media Limited and Another v Mazur Media Gmbh in Others ChD 8-Jul-2004
Proceedings were brought in England. The respondents sought a stay, saying the company was subject to insolvency proceedings in Germany.
Held: Our domestic insolvency law was not applicable to foreign proceedings, and so could not be used to . .
Appeal from – Canada 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 . .
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 . .
See Also – The 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. . .
See Also – 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. . .
Cited – Ashton Investments Ltd. and Another v OJSC Russian Aluminium (Rusal) and others ComC 18-Oct-2006
The claimants sought damages for breach of confidence saying that the defendants had hacked into their computer systems via the internet to seek privileged information in the course of litigation. The defendants denied this and said the courts had . .
Cited – Fiona Trust Holding Corp and others v Privalov and others ComC 21-May-2007
Allegations were made of different varieties of fraud. Applications were made for freezing orders. . .
Cited – Varsani v Relfo Ltd CA 27-May-2010
The defendant appealed against refusal of a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. He said that he lived in Kenya, and the claimant had failed first to apply for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction. The claimant had . .
Approved – Bols Distilleries VB (T/A As Bols Royal Distilleries) and Another v Superior Yacht Services Ltd PC 11-Oct-2006
(Gilbraltar) The parties disputed the management contract for a racing yacht, and also the juridiction of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar to hear the case. Bols said that under regulation 2(1) Gibraltar had no jurisdiction.
Held: The English . .
Cited – Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria QBD 24-Jan-2012
The claimant asserted involvement by the defendant bank in a fraud perpetrated against him. Jurisdiction had already been admitted for one trust , and now the claimant sought to add two further claims.
Held: ‘None of the gateways to English . .
Cited – Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie SC 19-Dec-2017
The claimant and her family were in a car crash while on holiday in Egypt. The claimant’s husband and his daughter died. The holiday had been booked in England and the car excursion booked in advance from England. The hotel operator was incorporated . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.142991

Siegfried Janos Schneider: ECJ 3 Oct 2013

schneiderECH1013

ECJ Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Scope – Legal capacity of natural persons – Exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property – Scope – Non-contentious proceedings concerning the right of a person who has been placed under guardianship and is domiciled in a Member State to dispose of immovable property situated in another Member State

M Ilesic P
C-386/12, [2013] EUECJ C-386/12, [2013] WLR(D) 366
Bailii, WLRD
Regulation (EC) No 44/2001

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.516352

Schibsby v Westenholz: CA 1980

The parties were both Danish, the plaintiffs resident in France and the defendants in London. The plaintiffs now sought to enforce a judgment obtained against the defendangt in France in default of their appearance. The defendants had no property in France, and the contract was not made there. It had been obtained under standard practice in France.
Held: Foreign judgments are to be enforced here on the basis that there is a duty to submit to the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction. However, anything which might negative such a duty operates as a defence. Thesee defendants were not French subjects and owed no allegiance even temporary to France, wree not there when the contracual obligations arose, had had no participation in the proceedings and were not subject to French jurisdiction. They had no obligation to submit to a jurisdiction assumed over foreigners and the judgment could not be enforced against them here.

Blackburn J
(1870-1871) LR 6 QB 155, (1870) LR QB 155, [1861-73] All ER Rep 988, 40 LJqB 73, 24 LT 93, 19 WR 587
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Vizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and Another PC 3-Feb-2016
No Contractual Obligation to Try Case in New York
(Gibraltar) The appellant had invested in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff. They were repaid sums before the fund collapsed, and the trustees now sought repayment by way of enforcement of an order obtained in New York.
Held: The . .
Cited – Sirdar Gurdyal Singh v The Rajah of Faridkote PC 28-Jul-1894
(Punjab) THe Rajah of Faridkote had obtained in the Civil Court of Faridkote (a native state) ex parte judgments against Singh (his former treasurer), which he sought to enforce in Lahore, in British India. Singh was not then resident in Faridkote . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.565109

Hi Hotel Hcf SARL v Uwe Spoering: ECJ 3 Apr 2014

hihotel_ECJ0414

ECJ Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – International jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict – Act committed in one Member State consisting in participation in an act of tort or delict committed in another Member State – Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred

L. Bay Larsen, P
C-387/12, [2014] EUECJ C-387/12
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 44/2001

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.523561

Pacific International Sports Clubs Ltd v Soccer Marketing International Ltd and Others: ChD 24 Jul 2009

The parties disputed ownership of shares in the football club Dynamo Kiev. Claims were to be made under Ukrainian company law and in equity. The claimant (a company registered in Mauritius) sought to proceed here. The defendants (largely companies registered in the UK) said that the Ukraine was the proper jurisdiction.
Held: The court declined jurisdiction. The question of whether a party would receive a fair trial in a particular jurisdiction is peculiarly fact sensitive. Though there were grave doubts about the consistency of the Ukrainian courts, they were not sufficient to conclude that a fair trial was not possible. The dispute had no real connection with this country. The documents would be be Ukrainian and the witnesses would all have Ukrainian as their first language: ‘ the nature of dispute, the identity of the persons whose evidence will be material, the sensitivities involved (control of Ukraine’s most celebrated football club) and the very difficult legal issues that will have to be decided point overwhelmingly to Ukraine as the appropriate and indeed only natural forum fort the trial.’
The case of Owusu might still not allow a british court to decline jurisdiction in a case against the first defendant. However, that defendant was only a minor player in the action, and the tail should not be allowed to wag the dog.

Blackburne J
[2009] EWHC 1839 (Ch)
Bailii
Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .
Cited – Owusu v Jackson ECJ 1-Mar-2005
ECJ Brussels Convention – Territorial scope of the Brussels Convention – Article 2 – Jurisdiction – Accident which occurred in a non – Contracting State – Personal injury – Action brought in a Contracting State . .
Cited – The Abidin Daver HL 1984
The House considered the application of the doctrine of forum conveniens.
Held: A stay of an English action on the ground of forum non conveniens could be resisted on the ground that justice could not be obtained in the otherwise more . .
Cited – Cherney v Deripaska ComC 3-Jul-2008
Renewed application for leave to serve proceedings out of jurisdiction. The court considered a submission that a fair trial would not be possible in Russia: ‘An English court will approach with considerable circumspection any contention that a . .
Cited – Connelly v RTZ Corporation Plc and others HL 24-Jul-1997
The availability of legal aid to a party is not part of criteria for choosing jurisdiction save in exceptional circumstances.
Lord Goff discussed the Spiliada case: ‘the burden of proof rests on the defendant to persuade the court to exercise . .
Cited – OJSC Oil Company Yugraneft v Abramovich and others ComC 29-Oct-2008
The claimants sought damages alleging a massive fraud by the defendants. The court considered whether the parties could receive a fair trial of the action in Russia.
Held: They could. Christopher Clarke J said: ‘Firstly, this case is in no way . .
Cited – Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co HL 1983
A claimant must show good reason why service on a foreign defendant should be permitted. This head of jurisdiction was an exorbitant jurisdiction, one which, under general English conflict rules, an English court would not recognise as possessed by . .
Cited – Dexter Ltd v Vlieland-Boddy CA 2003
The court discussed the significance of Johnson v Gore Wood.
Clarke LJ said: ‘The principles to be derived from the authorities, of which by far the most important is Johnson v Gore Wood and Co [2002] 2 AC 1, can be summarised as follows:
Company, Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.361471

Lloyd v Google Llc: QBD 8 Oct 2018

No Damage – No extra jurisdiction Service

Application to serve proceedings here – allegation that over some months Google acted in breach its duty under the 1998 Act by secretly tracking the internet activity of Apple iPhone users, collating and using the information it obtained by doing so, and then selling the accumulated data. The method by which Google was able to do this is generally referred to as ‘the Safari Workaround’.
Held: The facts alleged in the Particulars of Claim did not support the contention that the Representative Claimant or any of those whom he claimed to represent had suffered ‘damage’ within the meaning of DPA s 13. The Representative Claimant failed to establish that the claim was one arguably within PD6B 3.1(9), or that it had a real prospect of success, and permission to serve these proceedings on Google outside the jurisdiction was refused.

Warby J
[2018] EWHC 2599 (QB), [2018] WLR(D) 636
Bailii, WLRD
Data Protection Act 1998
England and Wales

Information, Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.625543

Oak Leaf Conservatories Ltd v Weir and Another: TCC 24 Oct 2013

The claimant conservatory installers claimed wrongful repudiation of the contract by the defendant householders. The defendants, living in Ayrshire, said that the English courts had no jurisdiction over the contract.
Held: The court gave its reasons for accepting the defendants’ submission. The mere fact that Oak Leaf’s primary focus in advertising is on England did not correctly reflect the statutory test or determine the outcome of the application. While the primary focus of the claimant’s business may be in England and most of the business had been in England, it was apparent from its websites and its overall activity (including the acceptance of previous projects in Scotland as well as that of the Weirs) that Oak Leaf was envisaging doing business with consumers domiciled in Scotland. Accordingly, the action must be brought in Sotland.

Stuart-Smith J
[2013] EWHC 3197 (TCC)
Bailii
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 16(1) Sch 4
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied. – Peter Pammer v Reederei Karl Schluter GmbH and Co KG etc ECJ 7-Dec-2010
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 15(1)(c) and (3) – Jurisdiction over consumer contracts – Contract for a voyage by freighter – Concept of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Jurisdiction, Consumer

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.517363

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 under the Sherman and Clayton acts, but were not unlawful in English law. The English courts were therefore not the forum conveniens, and the injuncion was refused. In order for the court to issue a restraining injunction, it was necessary that the conduct of the party being restrained should fit ‘the generic description of conduct that is ‘unconscionable’ in the eye of English law’. ‘The interpretation of treaties to which the United Kingdom is a party but the terms of which have not either expressly or by reference been incorporated in English domestic law by legislation is not a matter that falls within the interpretative jurisdiction of an English court of law.’
Lord Diplock set out two principles: ‘The second proposition, that of English law, was understood by your Lordships to have been common ground between the parties, at any rate throughout the lengthy hearing of the appeal; no argument casting any doubt upon it was advanced. The proposition is that, even if the allegations against B.A. and B.C. in the complaint in the American action can be proved, they disclose no cause of action on the part of Laker against B.A. or B.C. that is justiciable in an English court. The Clayton Act which creates the civil remedy with threefold damages for criminal offences under the Sherman Act is, under English rules of conflict of laws, purely territorial in its application, while because the predominant purpose of acts of B.A. and B.C. that are complained of was the defence of their own business interests as providers of scheduled airline services on routes on which Laker was seeking to attract customers from them by operating its Skytrain policy, any English cause of action for conspiracy would be ruled out under the now well-established principle of English (as well as Scots) law laid down in a series of cases in this House spanning 50 years of which it suffices to refer only to Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow and Co [1892] AC 25 and Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch [1942] AC 435.’

Lord Diplock
[1985] AC 58, [1984] UKHL 7, [1984] 3 WLR 413, [1984] 3 All ER 39
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
At First instance – British Airways Board v Laker Airways Limited 1984
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 . .
Cited – Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Company Limited v Veitch HL 15-Dec-1941
The plaintiffs sought an interdict against the respondents, a dockers’ union, who sought to impose an embargo on their tweeds as they passed through the port of Stornoway.
Held: A trade embargo was not tortious because the predominant purpose . .
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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – Turner v Grovit and others HL 13-Dec-2001
The applicant was a solicitor employed by a company in Belgium. He later resigned claiming unfair dismissal, saying he had been pressed to become involved in unlawful activities. The defendants sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the English . .
Cited – South Carolina Insurance Co v Assurantie Maatschappij de Zeven Provincien NV HL 1987
There can be little basis for the grant of relief to a landowner providing protection from an action in nuisance if the landowner will not himself remedy the public nuisance. The House considered whether the circumstances gave the court power to . .
Cited – Occidental Exploration and Production Company vRepublic of Ecuador CA 9-Sep-2005
The parties had arbitrated their dispute in London under a bilateral investment treaty between the US and Ecuador. The republic sought to appeal the arbitration. The applicant now appealed an order that the English High Court had jurisdiction to . .
Cited – Serco Ltd v Lawson; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Limited HL 26-Jan-2006
Mr Lawson was employed by Serco as a security supervisor at the British RAF base on Ascension Island, which is a dependency of the British Overseas Territory of St Helena. Mr Botham was employed as a youth worker at various Ministry of Defence . .
Cited – Regina (on the application of Abassi and Another) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another CA 6-Nov-2002
A British national had been captured in Afghanistan, and was being held without remedy by US forces. His family sought an order requiring the respondent to take greater steps to secure his release or provide other assistance.
Held: Such an . .
Cited – Fourie v Le Roux and others HL 24-Jan-2007
The appellant, liquidator of two South African companies, had made a successful without notice application for an asset freezing order. He believed that the defendants had stripped the companies of substantial assets. The order was set aside for . .
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.

Litigation Practice, Torts – Other, Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.195992

Essex County Council v Essex Incorporated Congregational Church Union: HL 1963

No Power to Grant Jurisdiction By Consent

An attempt was made by the parties to confer jurisdiction upon the Lands Tribunal.
Held: Constitutive jurisdiction cannot be created by agreement or estoppel. A statutory tribunal cannot be given jurisdiction by an earlier mistake, agreement, order or failure to take the point as to jurisdiction.
Lord Reid said: ‘It is a fundamental principle that no consent can confer on a court or tribunal with limited statutory jurisdiction any power to act beyond that jurisdiction, or can estop the consenting party from subsequently maintaining that such court or tribunal has acted without jurisdiction.’

Lord Reid, Lord Hodson
[1963] AC 808
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Rydqvist v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 24-Jun-2002
The applicant had applied to the tribunal with regard to his entitlement to job-seeker’s allowance, but withdrew his application before the hearing. The tribunal had nevertheless heard the case and held against him. He appealed that finding. The . .
Cited – Ahsan v Carter CA 28-Jul-2005
The claimant sought to assert race discrimination by the Labour Party in not selecting him as a political candidate. The defendant, chairman of the party appealed.
Held: A political party when selecting candidates was not acting as a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.182288

Adams v Cape Industries plc: CA 2 Jan 1990

Proper Use of Corporate Entity to Protect Owner

The defendant was an English company and head of a group engaged in mining asbestos in South Africa. A wholly owned English subsidiary was the worldwide marketing body, which protested the jurisdiction of the United States Federal District Court in Texas in a suit by victims of asbestos. The defendant took no part in the United States proceedings and default judgments were entered. Actions on the judgment in England failed.
Held: The court declined to pierce the veil of incorporation. It was a legitimate use of the corporate form to use a subsidiary to insulate the remainder of the group from tort liability. There was no evidence to justify a finding of agency or facade.
There is an exception to the general rule, that steps which would not have been regarded by the domestic law of the foreign court as a submission to the jurisdiction ought not to be so regarded here, notwithstanding that if they had been steps taken in an English Court they might have constituted a submission to jurisdiction.
Slade LJ said: ‘Two points at least are clear. First, at common law in this country foreign judgments are enforced, if at all, not through considerations of comity but upon the basis of the principle explained thus by Parke B. in Williams v Jones
Secondly, however, in deciding whether the foreign court was one of competent jurisdiction, our courts will apply not the law of the foreign court itself but our own rules of private international law . .’ and ‘First, in determining the jurisdiction of the foreign court in such cases, our court is directing its mind to the competence or otherwise of the foreign court ‘to summon the defendant before it and to decide such matters as it has decided:’ see Pemberton v Hughes [1899] 1 Ch. 781, 790 per Lindley M.R. Secondly, in the absence of any form of submission to the foreign court, such competence depends on the physical presence of the defendant in the country concerned at the time of suit.
. . we would, on the basis of the authorities referred to above, regard the source of the territorial jurisdiction of the court of a foreign country to summon a defendant to appear before it as being his obligation for the time being to abide by its laws and accept the jurisdiction of its courts while present in its territory. So long as he remains physically present in that country, he has the benefit of its laws, and must take the rough with the smooth, by accepting his amenability to the process of its courts.’
‘[Counsel for Adams] described the theme of all these cases as being that where legal technicalities would produce injustice in cases involving members of a group of companies, such technicalities should not be allowed to prevail. We do not think that the cases relied on go nearly so far as this. As [counsel for Cape] submitted, save in cases which turn on the wording of particular statutes or contracts, the court is not free to disregard the principle of Salomon v Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 merely because it considers that justice so requires. Our law, for better or worse, recognises the creation of subsidiary companies, which though in one sense the creatures of their parent companies, will nevertheless under the general law fall to be treated as separate legal entities with all the rights and liabilities which would normally attach to separate legal entities.’

Slade, Mustill and Ralph Gibson LJJ
[1990] Ch 433, [1991] 1 All ER 929, [1990] 2 WLR 657, [1990] BCLC 479, [1990] BCC 786
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Pemberton v Hughes CA 1899
Lindley MR said: ‘There is no doubt that the courts of this country will not enforce the decisions of foreign courts which have no jurisdiction in the sense explained above – i.e., over the subject matter or over the persons brought before them . . . .
Cited – Williams v Jones 22-Jan-1845
An action of debt lies upon a judgment of a county court. And the declaration need not state that the defendant resided within the jurisdiction of the county court, or was liable to be summoned to that court for the debt ; it is enough to state that . .
Applied – Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council HL 15-Feb-1978
The House considered the compensation payable on the compulsory purchase of land occupied by the appellant, but held under a company name.
Held: The House declined to allow the principal shareholder of a company to recover compensation for the . .
Appeal from – Adams v Cape Industries plc ChD 1990
The piercing of the veil argument was used to attempt to bring an English public company, which was the parent company of a group which included subsidiaries in the United States, within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. Where a . .

Cited by:
Applied – Rakusens Ltd v Baser Ambalaj Plastik Sanayi Ticaret AS CA 11-Oct-2001
A company had sought and obtained leave to serve proceedings on a foreign based company, by serving documents on a local agent. The local agent was an independent contractor, who received and transmitted orders to the company, but who, themselves, . .
Cited – Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others (No 2) CA 12-Jun-2003
World-wide freezing orders had been made under the 1982 Act. The defendants were members of a Turkish family with substantial business interests in the telecommunications industry. In breach of orders made in the US some defendants had sought to . .
Cited – Harding v Wealands HL 5-Jul-2006
Claim in UK for Accident in Australia
The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
Held: . .
Cited – Rubin and Another v Eurofinance Sa and Others SC 24-Oct-2012
The Court was asked ‘whether, and if so, in what circumstances, an order or judgment of a foreign court . . in proceedings to adjust or set aside prior transactions, eg preferences or transactions at an undervalue, will be recognised and enforced in . .
Cited – Rubin and Another (Joint Receivers and Managers of The Consumers Trust) v Eurofinance Sa and Others CA 30-Jul-2010
. .
Cited – Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013
In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The . .
Cited – Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .
Cited – Public Joint Stock Company (‘Rosgosstrakh’) v Starr Syndicate Ltd and Others ComC 17-Jun-2020
Reserved judgment on the claimant’s application for summary judgment on its claim for recognition and enforcement of three judgments obtained in its favour in the Russian courts . .
Cited – Fetch.AI Ltd and Another v Persons Unknown Category A and Others ComC 15-Jul-2021
Cryptocurrency Action
The claimants sought damages and other remedies saying that the unknown defendants had obtained access to the private key guarding their crypto currency assets, and then sold them at an undervalue, acquiring substantial profits for themselves in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Company

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.179853

NML Capital Ltd v Argentina: SC 6 Jul 2011

The respondent had issued bonds but in 2001 had declared a moratorium on paying them. The appellant hedge fund later bought the bonds, heavily discounted. Judgment was obtained in New York, which the appellants now sought to enforce against assets in the UK. They argued that the terms of issue waived state immunity.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The respondent, under section 31 of the 1982 Act had submitted to the jurisdiction and had waived immunity by its actions. The doctrine of state immunity had over many years come to be restricted, and the 1978 Act now contained a complete statement of the law. Immunity remains, but does not attach to a sovereign authority’s commercial activities.
The phrase ‘proceedings relating to a commercial transaction’ was to be given a broad rather than narrow meaning.

Lord Phillips, President Lord Walker Lord Mance Lord Collins Lord Clarke
[2011] UKSC 31, UKSC 2010/0040
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, State Immunity Act 1978, Civil Procedure Rules 6.20(9)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – Republic of Argentina v NML Capital Ltd CA 4-Feb-2010
The appellant republic appealed against an order allowing the enforcement against it of a judgment obtained in the US by the claimant. There is no treaty between the US and the UK for the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments, and an . .
At First Instance – NML Capital Ltd v The Republic of Argentina ComC 29-Jan-2009
The defendant state sought to prevent the company enforcing a judgment entered against it in the USA.
Held: Where the judgment was properly obtained, a claim of sovereign immunity would not operate to allow avoidance of an enforcement of the . .
Cited – The Parlement Belge CA 1879
An action in rem indirectly impleaded a sovereign who was the owner of the vessel served because his property was affected by the judgment of the court. An unincorporated treaty cannot change the law of the land and, ‘the immunity of the sovereign . .
Cited – Mighell v Sultan of Johore CA 1-Dec-1893
In 1885 the Sultan of Johore came to England, and according to the plaintiff, Miss Mighell, took the name Albert Baker and promised to marry her.
Held: The Sultan was entitled to immunity even though up to the time of suit ‘he has perfectly . .
Cited – Duff Development Co v Kelantan Government HL 1924
Lord Sumner suggested that in the absence of a clear statement of the position from the Government, the court might be entitled to decide whether a defendat had the benefit of state immunity for itself on the basis of the evidence before it.
A . .
Cited – Compania Naviera Vascongado v Steamship ‘Cristina’ HL 1938
A state-owned ship that was used for public purposes could not be made the subject of proceedings in rem. Lord Atkin described the absolute immunity of a sovereign of a foreign state within this jurisdiction: ‘The foundation for the application to . .
Cited – Kahan v Pakistan Federation 1951
State immunity can only be lost by a submission to the jurisdiction when it was invoked, and not by an earlier act. . .
Cited – Rahimtoola v Nizam of Hyderabad CA 1957
The court considered the doctrine of state immunity. Lord Denning MR said: ‘If the dispute brings into question, for instance, the legislative or international transactions of a foreign government, or the policy of its executive, the court should . .
Cited – Trendtex Trading Corporation v Central Bank of Nigeria CA 1977
The court considered the developing international jurisdiction over commercial activities of state bodies which might enjoy state immunity, and sought to ascertain whether or not the Central Bank of Nigeria was entitled to immunity from suit.
Cited – Thai-Europe Tapioca Service Ltd v Government of Pakistan, Directorate of Agricultural Supplies 1975
Lord Denning said: ‘a foreign sovereign has no immunity when it enters into a commercial transaction with a trader here and a dispute arises which is properly within the territorial jurisdiction of our courts. If a foreign government incorporates a . .
Cited – AIC Limited v The Federal Government of Nigeria, the Attorney General of the Federation of Nigeria QBD 13-Jun-2003
AIC had used the 1920 Act to register a judgment obtained in Nigeria against the Nigerian Government. The underlying matter was a commercial transaction. Nigeria applied to set the registration aside, saying that registration was an adjudicative act . .
Cited – Svenska Petroleum Exploration Ab v Lithuania and Another (No 2) ComC 4-Nov-2005
The court was asked whether a claim to enforce an arbitration award constituted ‘proceedings relating to’ the transaction that gave rise to the award for the purposes of section 3(1)(a).
Held: It did not. . .
Approved – Svenska Petroleum Exploration Ab v Lithuania and Another (No 2) CA 13-Nov-2006
The defendant state could not now claim state immunity to avoid enforcement of an arbitration award, having agreed to the reference to arbitration in writing.
Held: A person against whom an award has been made is not bound to challenge it . .
To be confined to its facts – Parker v Schuller CA 1901
The plaintiffs had obtained leave to serve a writ out of the jurisdiction under Order 11, r 1(e) of the RSC on the ground that the claim was for breach of a contract within the jurisdiction. The breach alleged was of a CIF contract, and the . .
Cited – Holland v Leslie CA 1894
Leave to serve out of the jurisdiction had been granted in relation to a bill of exchange which had been erroneously described in the statement of claim indorsed on the writ.
Held: The Court upheld the order giving leave to amend the writ.
Cited – Metall und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette Inc CA 1990
There was a complicated commercial dispute involving allegations of conspiracy. A claim by the plaintiffs for inducing or procuring a breach of contract would have been statute-barred in New York.
Held: Slade LJ said: ‘The judge’s approach to . .
Cited – Re Jogia (A Bankrupt) 1988
Application was made for leave to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction in a claim for money had and received in connection with payments made to the defendant after a receiving order.
Held: A plaintiff who has been given permission to . .
Cited – White and others v Vandervell Trustees Ltd. (No. 2), Re Vandervell’s Trusts (No 2) CA 3-Jul-1974
Lord Denning MR described the modern practice concerning pleadings: ‘It is sufficient for the pleader to state the material facts. He need not state the legal result. If, for convenience, he does so, he is not bound by, or limited to, what he has . .
Cited – Waterhouse v Reid 1938
The court has no power to make orders against persons outside its territorial jurisdiction unless authorised by statute and that there is no inherent extra-territorial jurisdiction. . .
Cited – Beck v Value Capital Ltd (No 2) 1974
The plaintiffs had obtained leave to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction. They then sought to add a claim and argued that once an additional cause of action was shown to be generically within the scope of Order 11, that was an end of the . .
Cited – Bastone and Firminger Ltd v Nasima Enterprises (Nigeria) Ltd and Others ComC 20-May-1996
Banking – collecting banker – remitting banker – privity of contract Banking – remitting bank – right to damages – other than indemnity by customer Conflict of laws – RSC Order 11 r.1(1)(f) – ‘damage sustained within the jurisdiction’ – meaning . .
Cited – Donohue v Armco Inc and others HL 13-Dec-2001
The appellant had sought injunctions against the respondent US companies to restrain their commencing proceedings in the US against him. The parties had negotiated for the purchase of the run-off liabilities of a defunct insurance company. . .
Cited – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another (No 3) CA 6-Jun-2008
The court was asked whether the English court has jurisdiction following judgment to grant an anti-suit injunction against foreign judgment debtors (one of whom has a domicile in a Brussels I Regulation State) restraining them from pursuing . .
Cited – Twycross v Dreyfus CA 1877
State immunity is not to be got around by suing the employees of the state. Here, the only possible case was against the state itself.
Sir George Jessel MR said: ‘the municipal law of this country does not enable the tribunals of this country . .
Cited – UGS Finance Ltd v National Mortgage Bank of Greece CA 1964
Pearson LJ said: ‘As to the question of ‘fundamental breach’, there is a rule of construction that normally an exemption or exclusion clause or similar provision in the contract should be construed as not applying to a situation created by a . .
Cited – AK Investment CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd and Others PC 10-Mar-2011
Developing Law – Summary Procedures Very Limited
(Isle of Man) (‘Altimo’) The parties were all based in Kyrgyzstan, but the claimant sought a remedy in the Isle of Man which would be unavailable in Kyrgyzstan.
Held: Lord Collins said: ‘The general rule is that it is not normally appropriate . .
Cited – Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner and Keeler Ltd (No 2) HL 1966
An agency had to be proved in a search to identify an entity which the law recognised (a) existed and (b) was legally responsible for the acts in issue in the proceedings. The House was asked whether the fact that an issue had already been . .
Cited – Donegal International Ltd v Zambia and Another ComC 15-Feb-2007
Claim under settlement agreement. . .
Mentioned – Colt Telecom Group Plc, In the Matter of the Insolvency Act 1986 ChD 20-Dec-2002
. .
Mentioned – British Wagon Co Ltd v Gray 1896
. .
Cited – National Bank of Greece SA v Westminster Bank Executor and Trustee Co (Channel Islands) Ltd 1971
. .
Cited – Yemshaw v London Borough of Hounslow SC 26-Jan-2011
The appellant sought housing after leaving her home to escape domestic violence. The violence was short of physical violence, and the authority had denied a duty to rehouse her. She said that the term ‘domestic violence’ in the Act was not intended . .
Cited – Highberry Limited, Highberry Llc v Colt Telecom Group Plc; in Re Colt Telecom Group plc (No 1) ChD 25-Nov-2002
Application for disclosure of documents, the provision of information, and directions for cross-examination in an unusual petition for an administration order. No-action clauses have been the subject of discussion in the International Court of . .
Cited – Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd HL 28-Oct-1999
Same Sex Paartner to Inherit as Family Member
The claimant had lived with the original tenant in a stable and long standing homosexual relationship at the deceased’s flat. After the tenant’s death he sought a statutory tenancy as a spouse of the deceased. The Act had been extended to include as . .
Cited – Macaulay (Tweeds) Ltd v Independent Harris Tweed Producers Ltd 1961
The court considered an allegation of non-disclosure in the case of an application to serve proceedings abroad: ‘If the judge is satisfied that there was no intention to deceive and the mis-statement is not grossly negligent, he may think it better . .
Cited – Roberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others SC 19-May-2010
The claimant beneficiary in the estate sought damages against solicitors who had acted for the claimant’s brother, the administrator, saying they had allowed him to take control of the assets in the estate. The will provided that property was to be . .
Cited – Playa Larga (Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board) v I Congresso del Partido (Owners) HL 1983
The concept of absolute immunity for a Sovereign adopts a theory of restrictive immunity in so far as it concerns the activities of a State engaging in trade: (Lord Wilberforce) ‘It was argued by the [appellants] that even if the Republic of Cuba . .
Cited – Kuwait Oil Co (KSC) v Idemitsu Tankers KK, The Hida Maru CA 1981
. .
Cited – Helby v Rafferty CA 1979
The court declined to hold that a man who had lived with a woman tenant for five years before her death were part of the same family because they had deliberately opted to retain their formal independence and they had not been recognised as being . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.441502

Sheppard and Another, Regina v: CACD 29 Jan 2010

The defendants appealed against their convictions for publishing racially inflammatory material. They skipped bail during the trial, were convicted in their absence, and returned after being refused asylum in the US. The convictions related to materials published on their website which was hosted in the USA. It included materials calculated to create hatred of Jewish and black people. The defendants argued that the court did not have jurisdiction because the site were hosted in the US.
Held: The materials were created in the UK and were intended to be seen by people in the UK and offered re-distribution of printed material from the UK. The ‘substantial measure’ test was correctly applied in the context of the 1986 Act: ‘Whilst in 1986 the world-wide web was a thing of the future and computers were in their infancy it seems to us clear that ‘written material’ is plainly wide enough to cover the material disseminated by the website in the present case. The judge took the same view. He said that what was on the computer screen was first of all in writing or written and secondly that the electronically stored data which is transmitted also comes within the definition of written material because it is written material stored in another form.’

Lord Justice Scott Baker, Mr Justice Penry-Davey and Mr Justice Cranston
[2010] EWCA Crim 65, [2010] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 68, [2010] 1 Cr App R 26, [2010] 1 WLR 2779, [2010] 2 All ER 850, [2010] Crim LR 720
Bailii
Public Order Act 1986 19(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Treacy v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1970
Blackmail was alleged under section 21 of the 1968 Act, the letter making the unwarranted demand with menaces having been posted from England to an intended victim in Germany.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. To allow an English court to have . .
Cited – Smith (Wallace Duncan), Regina v (No 4) CACD 17-Mar-2004
The defendant appealed convictions for fraudulent trading and obtaining property by deception, saying that the English court could not prosecute an offence committed principally in the US.
Held: Provided some substantial element (here the . .
Cited – Somchai Liangsiriprasert v Government of the United States of America PC 1991
(Hong Kong) Application was made for the defendant’s extradition from Hong Kong to the USA. The question was whether a conspiracy entered into outside Hong Kong with the intention of committing the criminal offence of trafficking in drugs in Hong . .
Cited – Regina v Sansom CACD 2-Jan-1991
The appellants had been charged with conspiracy contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The court rejected the argument that the principle laid down in Somchai referred only to the common law and that it could not be applied to . .
Cited – Regina v Manning CACD 24-Jun-1998
The defendant appealed his conviction for obtaining property by deception where part of the offence had taken place abroad.
Held: Smith should be overturned. The last act or terminatory theory remains the binding common law of England and . .
Cited – Regina v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No 1) CACD 13-Nov-1995
In the offence of fraudulent trading, ‘creditors’ are those to whom money was owed, including future creditors, not just those who can presently sue. Deceptions practised in UK, but having their effect abroad are prosecutable here. The only feature . .
Cited – Regina v Perrin CACD 22-Mar-2002
The defendant had been convicted of publishing obscene articles for gain under the Act. He lived in London, and published a web site which was stored or hosted abroad, containing pornographic items. The investigating officer had called up the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.396487

Siegfried Zelger v Sebastiano Salinitri: ECJ 7 Jun 1984

Article 21 of the Convention of 28 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that the court ‘first seised’ is the one before which the requirements for proceedings to become definitively pending are first fulfilled, such requirements to be determined in accordance with the national law of each of the courts concerned: ‘the Court ‘first seised’ is the one before which the requirements for proceedings to become definitively pending are first fulfilled, such requirements to be determined in accordance with the national law of each of the courts concerned.’

C-129/83, R-129/83, [1984] EUECJ R-129/83, [1984] ECR 2397
Bailii
Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
European
Citing:
See Also – Siegfried Zelger v Sebastiano Salinitri ECJ 17-Jan-1980
The provisions of article 5(1) of the Convention, to the effect that in matters relating to a contract a defendant domiciled in a contracting state may be sued in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question, introduce a . .

Cited by:
Cited – Nussberger and Another v Phillips and Another (No 4) CA 19-May-2006
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 . .
Cited – Neste Chemicals SA and Others v DK Line Sa and Another (‘The Sargasso’) CA 4-Apr-1994
An English Court becomes seised of a case on the service of the writ. Steyn LJ: ‘the general thrust of the Dresser UK Ltd case is not only binding on us but . . . is correct’. There were no ‘exceptions to the rule that date of service marks the time . .
Cited – Grupo Torras Sa and Another v Sheikh Fahad Mohammed Al Sabah and Others CA 26-May-1995
A UK court may continue to hear a Spanish company’s claim against it’s own directors if a court was first seized of the matter here. Where a case concerned matters as to the constitution of a company, the courts of the company in which the company . .
Cited – Canada 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 . .
Cited – Phillips and Another v Symes and others HL 23-Jan-2008
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.133674

Walker v Wallem Shipmanagement Ltd and Another: EAT 16 Jan 2020

Jurisdiction – Discrimination Claims

Jurisdictional Points – Working Outside The Jurisdiction
The employment tribunal had not erred in law by deciding that it had no power to entertain the claimant’s claim for sex discrimination. The tribunal was correct to hold that the combined effect of section 81 of the Equality Act 2010 (the 2010 Act) and regulation 4 of the Equality Act (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011 (the 2011 Regulations) was that Part 5 of the 2010 Act did not apply to protect the claimant against sex discrimination in respect of her recruitment in England to work on foreign registered vessels outside Great Britain.
The Hong Kong based respondent is an employment service provider within section 55 of the 2010 Act. It provides personnel to serve on foreign registered ships sailing outside United Kingdom waters. The female claimant qualified as a cadet deck officer and applied in this country through the respondent for work on a foreign registered ship. The respondent informed the claimant that it would not offer her work because of her sex; the respondent recruited only men, not women, to work on its clients’ ships.
The first respondent admitted that this was an act of direct sex discrimination. The tribunal also found, subject to the jurisdiction point, that the claimant’s claim for victimisation would have succeeded, though her claim for harassment would have failed. The tribunal would have awarded compensation for injury to feelings of pounds 9,000. Her claim for loss of earnings would not have succeeded as she had since succeeded in obtaining employment with earnings sufficient to offset any such loss.
The appeal tribunal dismissed the claimant’s appeal with regret. The respondent’s conduct had been reprehensible, but the tribunal had been powerless to right the injustice done to the claimant. The 2011 Regulations, surprisingly, permit an offshore employment service provider to discriminate on United Kingdom soil on the ground of any of the protected characteristics in the 2010 Act when recruiting, in this country, personnel to serve on its clients’ foreign flagged ships sailing outside United Kingdom waters.
No international law obligation of the United Kingdom requires UK domestic law to permit such discrimination. It is, at least, doubtful whether the 2011 Regulations conform to the provisions of Directive 2006/54/EC (the Equal Treatment Directive). The claimant has no remedy against the respondent because the latter is not an emanation of the state. The claimant’s remedy, if any, lies against the United Kingdom itself.
The Secretary of State may well consider it wise to revisit the scope of the 2011 Regulations. A review and report on their impact is due to take place soon, in accordance with regulation 6.

Kerr J
[2020] UKEAT 0236 – 18 – 1601
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination, Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.646840

Mardas v New York Times Company and Another: QBD 17 Dec 2008

The claimant sought damages in defamation. The US publisher defendants denied that there had been any sufficient publication in the UK and that the court did not have jurisdiction. The claimant appealed the strike out of the claims.
Held: The master had made assessments on a summary hearing of facts which were in dispute. The judgment in default was set aside. ‘Although the Claimant is now resident in Greece (within the European Union), he is well known in this jurisdiction and lived here, I understand, from 1963 to 1996. Also, he has two children who live here and have British nationality. There is no artificiality about seeking to protect his reputation within this country’ and ‘what matters is whether there has been a real and substantial tort within the jurisdiction (or arguably so). This cannot depend upon a numbers game, with the court fixing an arbitrary minimum according to the facts of the case.’

Eady J
[2008] EWHC 3135 (QB), [2009] EMLR 8
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
Cited – Kroch v Rossell CA 1937
The plaintiff brought libel proceedings against the publishers of French and Belgian newspapers. He obtained permission to serve each defendant out of the jurisdiction on the ground that a small number of copies of each newspaper had been published . .
Cited – Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group Plc and others CA 28-Nov-2007
Aldi appealed against an order striking out as an abuse of process its claims against the defendant on a construction dispute. The defendant said the claims should have been brought as part of earlier proceedings.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .
Cited – Dingle v Associated Newspapers HL 1964
The plaintiff complained of an article written in the Daily Mail which included the reporting of a report of a Parliamentary select committee. The reporting of the select committee’s report was privileged under the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. At . .
Cited – Pfeifer v Austria ECHR 15-Nov-2007
The right to protect one’s honour and reputation is to be treated as falling within the protection of Article 8: ‘a person’s reputation, even if that person is criticised in the context of a public debate, forms part of his or her personal identity . .
Cited – Steinberg v Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another CA 3-Mar-2005
The defendant appealed dismissal of his defence to an action in defamation.
Held: The court proceeded in his absence, discerning two grounds of appeal from the papers. He had suggested that he awaited pro bono representation but was by . .
Cited – Shevill and Others v Presse Alliance SA HL 26-Jul-1996
A libel case against a French paper was rightly brought in UK despite the small (250 copies nationally and 5 in the plaintiff’s local area (Yorkshire)) circulation here. The Brussels Convention allows a claim for defamation in UK though the main . .
Cited – Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd HL 10-Feb-2005
The claimant wished to pursue his claim for defamation against the defendant, but was reluctant to return to the UK to give evidence, fearing arrest and extradition to the US. He appealed refusal of permission to be interviewed on video tape. Held . .
Cited – Affaire Radio France et autres v France ECHR 30-Mar-2004
A person’s right to protect his/her reputation is among the rights guaranteed by ECHR Article 8 as an element of the right to respect for private life. . .
Cited – Loutchansky v The Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (Nos 2 to 5) CA 5-Dec-2001
Two actions for defamation were brought by the claimant against the defendant. The publication reported in detail allegations made against the claimant of criminal activities including money-laundering on a vast scale. They admitted the defamatory . .
Cited – Schellenberg v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 2000
The claimant had settled defamation actions against the Guardian and the Sunday Times on disadvantageous terms, when it seemed likely that he was about to lose. He then pressed on with this almost identical action against the BBC.
Held: A . .
Cited – Berezovsky v Forbes Inc and Michaels; Glouchkov v Same HL 16-May-2000
Plaintiffs who lived in Russia sought damages for defamation against an American magazine with a small distribution in England. Both plaintiffs had real connections with and reputations in England. A judgment in Russia would do nothing to repair the . .
Cited – Gutnick v Dow Jones 28-Aug-2001
(High Court of Victoria) Callinan J said: ‘A publisher, particularly one carrying on the business of publishing, does not act to put matter on the Internet in order for it to reach a small target. It is its ubiquity which is one of the main . .

Cited by:
Cited – Haji-Ioannou v Dixon, Regus Group Plc and Another QBD 6-Feb-2009
The defendants sought to strike out the defamation claim on the basis that it was an abuse of process. It was brought by the founder of Easyjet against senior officers of a company in a new venture. The claimant had alleged misuse of confidential . .
Cited – Dhir v Saddler QBD 6-Dec-2017
Slander damages reduced for conduct
Claim in slander. The defendant was said, at a church meeting to have accused the client of threatening to slit her throat. The defendant argued that the audience of 80 was not large enough.
Held: ‘the authorities demonstrate that it is the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.278860

889457 Alberta Inc v Katanga Mining Ltd and others: ComC 5 Nov 2008

The parties had set out on a joint venture with deeds providing for control of the shareholdings in each other. The claimant asserted a breach of the deed and sought a remedy. The first defendant company, incorporated in Bermuda argued that the court should decline jurisdiction infavour of the courts in Congo. The second and third defendants argued against this saying that they were the principle defendants and that the case should be tried in England.
Held: Congo was not an appropriate forum since the normal infrastructure of state was not available.

Tomlinson J
[2008] EWHC 2679 (Comm), [2009] 1 BCLC 189, [2009] ILPr 14
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Owusu v Jackson ECJ 1-Mar-2005
ECJ Brussels Convention – Territorial scope of the Brussels Convention – Article 2 – Jurisdiction – Accident which occurred in a non – Contracting State – Personal injury – Action brought in a Contracting State . .
Cited – Sim v Robinow 1892
The task of the court in deciding jurisdiction is to identify the forum in which the case can be suitably tried for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice: . .
Cited – Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .
Cited – The Rewia CA 1991
The court considered a jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading which referred to the carrier’s principal place of business. The central management and control of the company was in Germany and the question was whether that was also its principal . .
Cited – Ministry of Defence and Support of the Armed Forces for the Islamic Republic of Iran v Faz Aviation Ltd and Another ComC 9-May-2007
Challenge by defendant to jurisdiction to bring claim. . .
Cited – King v Crown Energy Trading AG and another ComC 11-Feb-2003
The defendant, a company incorporated in Russia, sought to set aside proceedings served on it. The contract made the agreement subject to the laws of England and Wales, but the Convention made the jurisdiction clause unenforceable. Evidence . .
Cited – Canada 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 . .
Cited – British Aerospace v Dee Howard 1993
Where a contract contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause providing for a case to be tried in the UK, it was relevant that the circumstances which might now suggest a trial elsewhere were perfectly foreseeable at the time of the contract. The new . .
Cited – United Film Distribution Limited; United Pictures (India) Exports Private Limited v Chhabria; Chhabria; Spark Entertainments Limited; Spark Media Limited; Fairdeal Exports Private Limited and Mathilda International SA CA 28-Mar-2001
The court rules, which dealt with the grant of permission to serve documents out of the jurisdiction under rule 6.20(2), were no less wide than the power in the court with regard to the substitution, or addition, of parties under Rule 19.1(2). The . .
Cited – Konkola Copper Mines Plc v Coromin Admn 10-May-2005
Re-insurers liability under Part 20 claims. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Company

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.277553

Wright v Granath: QBD 16 Jan 2020

Defamation across borders – Jurisdiction

The claimant began an action for defamation in an online publication. The Norwegian resident defendant had begun an action there seeking a declaration negating liability. The Court was now asked by the defendant whether under Lugano, the UK action was as to the same cause between the same parties, and therefore the court was without jurisdiction.
Held: The defendant’s application was granted. The cases were as to the same facts and law, and the same object. Possible defences could not be considered at this stage. There was no need to struggle to fit the facts – the court should ask whether the cases were mirror images.

Jay J
[2020] EWHC 51 (QB), [2020] 4 WLR 28, [2020] WLR(D) 29
Bailii, WLRD
Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (2007) 27
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – The owners of the cargo lately laden on board the ship ‘Tatry’ v The owners of the ship ‘Maciej Rataj’ ECJ 6-Dec-1994
ECJ On a proper construction, Article 57 of the Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments as amended means that, where a Contracting State is also a contracting party to another . .
Cited – Gubisch Maschinenfabrik KG v Giulio Palumbo ECJ 8-Dec-1987
The claimant in Germany sought to enforce a contract by claiming the price of a delivered machine; the claimant in Italy asked for a declaration that no contract had been entered into or, if it had, that it had been discharged by repudiatory conduct . .
Cited – Gantner Electronic GmbH v Basch Exploitatie Maatschappij BV ECJ 8-May-2003
The dutch based claimant sought damages for wrongful termination of what it said was a long-term contract. The claimant in Austria claimed the price of goods sold and delivered pursuant to a number of one-off contracts to which the defendant . .
Cited – Maersk Olie and A/S v Firma M De Haan (Brussels Convention) ECJ 14-Oct-2004
Europa Brussels Convention – Proceedings to establish a fund to limit liability in respect of the use of a ship – Action for damages – Article 21 – Lis pendens – Identical parties – Court first seised – Identical . .
Cited – Folien Fischer AG and another v Ritrama SpA ECJ 25-Oct-2012
ECJ Area of freedom, security and justice – Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Special jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict – Action for a negative declaration (‘negative Feststellungsklage’) . .
Cited – JP Morgan Europe Ltd v Primacom Ag and Another ComC 5-Apr-2005
The claimant in England sought to recover a loan made pursuant to a facility agreement; the claimant in Greece sought a declaration that the facility agreement was invalid. The defendants sought a stay of the action brought against them here.
Cited – In re The Alexandros T SC 6-Nov-2013
The parties had disputed insurance claims after the foundering of the Alexandros T. After allegations of misbehaviour by the underwriters, the parties had settled the claims in a Tomlin Order. Five years later, however, the shipowners began . .
Cited – Easy Rent A Car Ltd and Another v Easygroup Ltd CA 20-Mar-2019
Application of articles 29 and 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (the Judgments Regulation) to proceedings for trade mark infringement and passing off issued in England by the respondent against the appellants, a month after the appellants had . .
Cited – Shevill, Ixora Trading Inc., Chequepoint SARL and Chequepoint International Ltd v Presse Alliance SA ECJ 7-Mar-1995
On a proper construction of the expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters as amended by the Convention . .
Cited – Allen v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 15-May-2019
‘(1) At common law, a statement is defamatory of the claimant if, but only if, (a) it imputes conduct which would tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking people generally, and (b) the imputation crosses the common law . .
Cited – eDate Advertising GmbH v X ECJ 25-Oct-2011
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ – Directive . .
Cited – Bolagsupplysningen and Ilsjan (Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Judicial Cooperation In Civil Matters Area of Freedom, Security and Justice : Judgment) ECJ 17-Oct-2017
. .
Cited – Euroeco Fuels (Poland) Ltd and Others v Szczecin and Swinoujscie Seaports Authority Sa and Others CA 11-Nov-2019
Appeal from order declining jurisdiction.
Lewison LJ pointed out: ‘So far as the question of irreconcilable judgments is concerned, I wish to reserve my opinion for a case in which it matters. I simply make the following observations. Judgment . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Defamation

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.647453

Land Berlin v Sapir And Others: ECJ 28 Nov 2012

lb_sapirECJ2012

ECJ Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 1(1) – Article 6(1) – Notion of ‘civil and commercial matter’ – Amount unduly paid by a public authority – Claim for repayment of the amount paid in judicial proceedings – Jurisdiction based on a factual connection – Closely connected claims – Defendant domiciled in a third country.

AG Trstenjak
C-645/11, [2012] EUECJ C-645/11, [2013] EUECJ C-645/11
Bailii, Bailii

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.466397

Leventis and Vafias v Malcon Navigation Co Ltd and another: ECJ 28 Jun 2017

Third Party not bound by jurisdiction clause

ECJ (Judicial Cooperation In Civil Matters Area of Freedom, Security and Justice : Judgment) Language of the case: Greek. for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001- Article 23 – Jurisdiction clause – Jurisdiction clause in a contract between two companies – Action for damages – Joint and several liability of representatives of one of those companies for tortious acts – Ability of the representatives to rely upon that clause

A Prechal P
ECLI:EU:C:2017:497, [2017] WLR(D) 428, [2017] EUECJ C-436/16
WLRD, Bailii
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 23
European

Jurisdiction, Contract, Company

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.588732

Youell and others v La Reunion Aerienne and others: CA 11 Mar 2009

The parties disputed whether the court had jurisdiction. The defendant insurer argued that parallel issues had been referred to arbitration in France.
Held: the claim was outside the range of the arbitration agreement, and a stay, which would have been the appropriate remedy was not granted.

Lord Justice Rix, Lord Justice Jacob and Lord Justice Lawrence Collins
[2009] EWCA Civ 175
Bailii, Times
Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, the Brussels I Convention
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Youell and others v La Reunion Aerienne and others ComC 22-Oct-2008
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, European

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.317958

In Re N (Children): SC 13 Apr 2016

The Court considered whether the future of two little girls, aged four and two years, should be decided by the courts of this country or by the authorities in Hungary. Both children were born in England and lived all their lives here. But their parents were Hungarian and the children were nationals of Hungary, not the United Kingdom.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the order for transfer set aside. Not only did the judge take the wrong approach to the ‘best interests’ question, he also left out of account some crucial factors in deciding upon the ‘better placed’ question: ‘what is encompassed in the ‘best interests’ requirement? The distinction drawn in In re I remains valid. The court is deciding whether to request a transfer of the case. The question is whether the transfer is in the child’s best interests. This is a different question from what eventual outcome to the case will be in the child’s best interests. The focus of the inquiry is different, but it is wrong to call it ‘attenuated’. The factors relevant to deciding the question will vary according to the circumstances. It is impossible to be definitive. But there is no reason at all to exclude the impact upon the child’s welfare, in the short or the longer term, of the transfer itself. What will be its immediate consequences? What impact will it have on the choices available to the court deciding upon the eventual outcome? This is not the same as deciding what outcome will be in the child’s best interests. It is deciding whether it is in the child’s best interests for the court currently seised of the case to retain it or whether it is in the child’s best interests for the case to be transferred to the requested court.’
The court considered the differences between articles 12 and 15: ‘the requirement in article 12.3 is quite different from the requirement in article 15.1. In article 12.3 (as also in article 12.1) it is the court which is deciding whether to accept jurisdiction, which it would not otherwise have, that has to decide whether to do so is in the best interests of the child. This is roughly equivalent to the requirement in article 15.5 that the court which is requested to take the case (here the Hungarian court) must consider that it is the best interests of the child to accept jurisdiction. Article 15.1 is directed towards the court which already has jurisdiction in an existing case. It imposes an additional requirement that the transferring court considers this to be in the best interests of the child. Obviously, the considerations applicable when deciding whether to relinquish jurisdiction may be somewhat different from the considerations applicable when deciding whether to accept it.’

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath
[2016] UKSC 15, [2016] WLR(D) 190, [2016] Fam Law 681, [2017] AC 167, [2016] 1 FLR 1082, [2016] 3 FCR 394, [2016] 2 WLR 1103, UKSC 2016/0013
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
England and Wales
Citing:
At FC – J and E (Children: Brussels II Revised: Article 15) FC 11-Nov-2014
The local authority applied to the court for care orders and placement orders in respect of two young girls. The parents opposed the local authority’s applications. The mother was Hungarian. The father was Hungarian/Roma. The mother applied under . .
Cited – In re J (A Child: Brussels II revised: Article 15: Practice and Procedure) FC 29-Oct-2014
Application to transfer children proceedings to anoher member state (Hungary)
Held: The order should be made. A Hungarian court might better be able to facilitate contact with siblings living there. . .
At CA – Re N (Children : Adoption: Jurisdiction) CA 2-Nov-2015
Appeal against care and placement order proceedings in relation to two Hungarian children, The orders were for the transfer of the case to Hungary.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. As to Article 15, the Court considered: What are the . .
Cited – In Re I (A Child) SC 1-Dec-2009
The child had been born in Britain to British citizen parents from Pakistan and India. There had been care proceedings, but later and with the court’s consent the father took him to Pakistan undertaking to return him, but then failed to do so. . .
Cited – In Re T (A Child: Article 15 of B2R) ((Care Proceedings: Request to Assume Jurisdiction) FD 13-Mar-2013
A pregnant 17 year old Slovakian girl ran away from a children’s home in Slovakia and gave birth to the baby in the UK.
Held: Although the court decided to transfer the case to Slovakia under article 15, Mostyn J said: ‘It is not disputed that . .
Cited – Somafer Sa v Saar-Ferngas Ag ECJ 22-Nov-1978
ECJ 1. The Convention of 27 September 1968 must be interpreted having regard both to its principles and objectives and to its relationship with the treaty. The question whether the words and concepts used in the . .
Cited – Criminal proceedings against Lindqvist ECJ 6-Nov-2003
Mrs Lindqvist had set up an internet site for her local parish containing information about some of her colleagues in the parish. She gave names, jobs, hobbies and in one case some of the person’s employment and medical details. The Court decided . .
Cited – Re CB (A Child) CA 6-Aug-2015
P was the child of now separated women. P was born in the UK but taken by one parent to Pakistan. The other parent now appealed from refusal of her request for the court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction or wardship to support her application . .
Cited – Ordre des barreaux francophones and Other v Conseil des Minsitres (Conseil des barreaux de l’Union eurpeenne and Ordre des avocats du barreau de Liege, interveners ECJ 26-Jun-2007
Bodies representing lawyers complained that the anti-money laundering Directive infringed their capacity to provide confidential advice to their clients, in turn infringing their right to a fair trial.
Held: The complaint failed. Insofar as . .

Cited by:
See Also – Child and Family Agency v D (RPD Intervening) ECJ 27-Oct-2016
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility – . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Jurisdiction, European

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.562188

Mbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another v Logo Ltd and others: CA 23 Oct 2006

Foreign Public Law Not Enforceable Here

The claimant alleged a conspiracy by the defendants for his overthrow by means of a private coup d’etat. The defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction. The claimants appealed dismissal of their claim to damages.
Held: The claims were not justiciable here. Public laws, like penal laws, may not be enforced directly or indirectly in the English Courts. The court approved the statement: ‘a foreign State cannot enforce in England such rights as are founded upon its peculiar powers of prerogative. ‘ The critical question is whether in bringing a claim, a claimant is doing an act which is of a sovereign character or which is done by virtue of sovereign authority; and whether the claim involves the exercise or assertion of a sovereign right. If so, then the court will not determine or enforce the claim. On the other hand, if in bringing the claim the claimant is not doing an act which is of a sovereign character or by virtue of sovereign authority and the claim does not involve the exercise or assertion of a sovereign right and the claim does not seek to vindicate a sovereign act or acts, then the court will both determine and enforce it. However, the claims pleaded were not founded on the claimants’ property interests. The alleged losses arose as a result of decisions taken by the claimants to protect the state and citizens of Equatorial Guinea. The defence of a state and its subjects is a paradigm function of government. The allegations of assault in that any threat was not immediate.

Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Lord Justice Dyson and Lord Justice Moses
Times 27-Oct-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1370, [2007] 2 WLR 1062
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Emperor of Austria v Day and Kossuth 1861
The defendants had printed banknotes in London. Kossuth intended to use the notes in Hungary after overthrowing the Emperor of Austria by revolution. The Emperor obtained an injunction restraining the defendants from continuing to manufacture them. . .
Cited – RCA Corporation v Pollard CA 1982
The illegal activities of bootleggers who had made unauthorised recordings of concerts, diminished the profitability of contracts granting to the plaintiffs the exclusive right to exploit recordings by Elvis Presley.
Held: The defendant’s . .
Cited – Attorney-General of New Zealand v Ortiz ChD 1984
The New Zealand government sought the return of a Maori carving which had been bought by the defendant after it had been illegally exported from New Zealand. The defendant replied that an English court should not itself enforce a foreign penal . .
Cited – Attorney-General of New Zealand v Ortiz CA 2-Jan-1982
The defendant was to sell a Maori carving which had been unlawfully exported from New Zealand. The Attorney General sought its recovery and an injunction to prevent its sale, relying on the Historical Articles Act 1962. The judge had ordered its . .
Cited – Attorney-General of New Zealand v Ortiz HL 3-Jan-1983
The Attorney General had sought the return of a valuable Maori carving which had been illegally exported from New Zealand and was to be sold by the defendant. He appealed against a finding that the provision (s12 Historical Articles Act 1962 of New . .
Cited – Government of India v Taylor HL 1955
The Government of India sought to prove in the voluntary liquidation of a company registered in the United Kingdom but trading in India for a sum due in respect of Indian income tax, including capital gains tax, which arose on the sale of the . .
Cited – Re State of Norway’s Application (No 2) HL 1989
The government of Norway sought evidence here to support a claim for tax in Norway.
Held: The State of Norway’s application requesting the oral examination of two witnesses residing in England did not fall foul of the Revenue rule. A claim . .
Cited – Kingdom of Spain v Christie, Manson and Woods Ltd 1986
The court questioned the basis of the cause of action asserted in Austria -v- Day. . .
Cited – The President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another v Bank of Scotland International PC 27-Feb-2006
(Guernsey) Lord Bingham said: ‘Norwich Pharmacal relief exists to assist those who have been wronged but do not know by whom. If they have straight forward and available means of finding out, then it will not be reasonable to achieve that end by . .
Cited – Powell and Another v Boladz and others QBD 19-Sep-2003
. .
Cited – King of the Hellenes v Brostrom 1923
Rowlatt J said: ‘It is perfectly elementary that a foreign government cannot come here — nor will the courts of other countries allow our government to go there — and sue a person found in that jurisdiction for taxes levied and which he is . .
Cited – Government of India v Taylor HL 1955
The Government of India sought to prove in the voluntary liquidation of a company registered in the United Kingdom but trading in India for a sum due in respect of Indian income tax, including capital gains tax, which arose on the sale of the . .
Cited – Peter Buchanan Limited and Macharg v McVey 1954
(Supreme Court of Ireland) The plaintiff was a company registered in Scotland put into compulsory liquidation by the revenue under a substantial claim for excess profits tax and income tax. The liquidator was really a nominee of the revenue. The . .
Cited – Williams and Humbert Ltd v W and H Trade Marks (Jersey) Ltd HL 1986
There had been an expropriation by Spanish decrees of shares in a Spanish company whose English subsidiary had rights in trade marks which it had sold to a Jersey company. The Spanish and English companies sought certain relief in relation to the . .
Cited – United States of America v Inkley CA 1989
The court allowed a third category of case (after penal and revenue) of provisions of foreign law where an English court would decline to enforce a provision: ‘that the fact that the right, statutory or otherwise, is penal in nature will not deprive . .
Cited – Attorney-General for the United Kingdom v Heinemann Publishers Australia Pty Ltd 1988
(High Court of Australia) The A-G sought to prevent publication in Australia of the book Spycatcher, saying that it had been written by a former member of the British intelligence service and that it was derived from confidential material.
Cited – Attorney-General for the United Kingdom v Wellington Newspapers Ltd 1988
(New Zealand) The British government sought to prevent the publication in New Zealand of a book (‘Spycatcher’) written by a retired secret service officer saying that it was based in part on information received by him in confidence.
Held: The . .
Cited – Huntington v Attrill HL 1893
In deciding how to characterise a claim, the court must examine its substance, and not be misled by appearances. The territorial principle requires attention to be paid to the place where the act was committed. The court defined what was meant by a . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v International Transport Roth Gmbh and others CA 22-Feb-2002
The Appellant had introduced a system of fining lorry drivers returning to the UK with illegal immigrants hiding away in their trucks. The rules had been found to be in breach of European law and an interference with their human rights. The . .
Cited – Stephens v Myers CCP 17-Jul-1830
Assault by Words Requires Means to Carry Out
In a turbulent parish council meeting, the meeting voted to have the defendant ejected. He refused, and advanced toward the chairman waving his clenched fist and saying he would rather throw him from the chair. He was stopped before getting within . .
Cited – Cobbett v Grey 1849
A prisoner complained that he had been falsely imprisoned in a part of a prison in which he could not lawfully be confined. . .
Cited – Collins v Wilcock QBD 1984
The defendant appealed against her conviction for assaulting a police constable in the execution of his duty. He had sought to caution her with regard to activity as a prostitute. The 1959 Act gave no power to detain, but he took hold of her. She . .
Cited – Regina v Burstow, Regina v Ireland HL 24-Jul-1997
The defendant was accused of assault occasioning actual bodily harm when he had made silent phone calls which were taken as threatening.
Held: An assault might consist of the making of a silent telephone call in circumstances where it causes . .
Cited – Thomas v NUM 1986
Threats made by pickets to miners going in to work were not an assault because the pickets had no capacity to put into effect their threats of violence whilst they were held back from the vehicles carrying the workers. . .
Appeal from – Mbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and others v Logo Ltd and others QBD 21-Sep-2005
The court was asked whether a crime, which was not an actionable tort, constituted unlawful means for the purposes of the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. . .
See Also – Mbasogo and Another v Logo Ltd and others CA 5-Apr-2006
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Total Network Sl v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 31-Jan-2007
The defendants suspected a carousel VAT fraud. The defendants appealed a finding that there was a viable cause of action alleging a ‘conspiracy where the unlawful means alleged is a common law offence of cheating the public revenue’. The defendants . .
Cited – Iran v The Barakat Galleries Ltd QBD 29-Mar-2007
The claimant government sought the return to it of historical artefacts in the possession of the defendants. The defendant said the claimant could not establish title and that if it could the title under which the claim was made was punitive and not . .
Cited – Total Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.245561

Elefanten Schuh Gmbh v Pierre Jacqmain: ECJ 24 Jun 1981

ECJ 1. Article 18 of the convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters applies even where the parties have by agreement designated a court which is to have jurisdiction within the meaning of article 17 of that convention.
2. Article 18 of the Convention of 27 september 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that the rule on jurisdiction which that provision lays down does not apply where the defendant not only contests the court’s jurisdiction but also makes submissions on the substance of the action, provided that if the challenge to jurisdiction is not preliminary to any defence as to the substance it does not occur after the making of the submissions which under national procedural law are considered to be the first defence addressed to the court seised.
3. Since the aim of article 17 of the Convention is to lay down the formal requirements which agreements conferring jurisdiction must meet, contracting states are not free to lay down formal requirements other than those contained in the Convention. When those rules are applied to provisions concerning the language to be used in an agreement conferring jurisdiction they imply that the legislation of a contracting state may not allow the validity of such an agreement to be called in question solely on the ground that the language used is not that prescribed by that legislation.

[1982] 3 CMLR 1, R-150/80, [1981] EUECJ R-150/80, [1981] ECR 1671
Bailii
Cited by:
Cited – Winkler and Another v Shamoon and Others ChD 15-Feb-2016
The claimants sought a declaration as against the residuary beneficiaries (wife and daughter) under the will, saying that the claimants had a beneficial interest in company shares within the estate. The defendants fild acknowledgments of service but . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.214991

Moloobhoy and Another v Kanani: CA 23 Apr 2013

The court considered a case about the interplay between CPR 11 and CPR 24.

Longmore, Lloyd, Kitchin LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 600
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 11 24
England and Wales

Jurisdiction

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.510176

House of Spring Gardens v Waite: CA 1991

The principle of abuse of process is capable of applying where the relevant earlier proceedings have taken place before a foreign court (Ireland). In this case the defendants argued that the judgment obtained in Ireland had been obtained fraudulently. The defendant was estopped from mounting what was in effect a collateral challenge to the decision of Egan J. It was an abuse of process.
Stuart Smith LJ said: ‘The question is whether it would be in the interests of justice and public policy to allow the issue of fraud to be litigated again in this court, it having been tried and determined by Egan J. in Ireland. In my judgment it would not; indeed, I think it would be a travesty of justice. Not only would the plaintiffs be required to re-litigate matters which have twice been extensively investigated and decided in their favour in the natural forum, but it would run the risk of inconsistent verdicts being reached, not only as between the English and Irish courts, but as between the defendants themselves. The Waites have not appealed Sir Peter Pain’s judgment, and they were quite right not to do so. The plaintiffs will no doubt proceed to execute their judgment against them. What could be a greater source of injustice, if in years to come, when the issue is finally decided, a different decision is in Mr. McLeod’s case reached? Public policy requires that there should be an end of litigation and that a litigant should not be vexed more than once in the same cause.’
Lord Chief Justice Cumming-Bruce said: ‘The court has the power (and, I would add, the duty) to take such steps as are practicable upon an application of the plaintiff to procure that where an order has been made that the defendants identify their assets and disclose their whereabouts, such steps are taken as will enable the order to have effect as completely and successfully as the powers of the court can procure.’
and –
‘The purpose of the cross-examination would be to elicit with greater particularity the extent and the whereabouts of the defendants’ assets. The background of applications for Mareva injunctions is often a situation in which it is urgently necessary for the court to intervene in order to assist the plaintiff to prevent the defendant from frustrating the object of the proceedings. In such a situation an order to cross-examine upon an unsatisfactory affidavit already filed is one of the courses that the court has jurisdiction to take. When such cross-examination takes place it is entirely a matter for the judge presiding on cross-examination properly to control it.’ . . And further noted: Mr Lyons Q.C. on behalf of the respondent Mr Garcia submitted that courts are slow to make such orders. I am not sure that that is correct, although I acknowledge that the defendants need protection from being treated as ‘debtors in advance’ as Lord Ackner acknowledged in A.J. Bekhor and Company Limited v. Bilton [1981] EWCA Civ 8; [1981] Q.B. 923, 942; [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 491, 500. Also fishing expeditions must be prevented if that seems to be the object of the exercise. However it seems to me that the matter is at large and that it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case whether the exercise is unduly oppressive, unnecessary, insufficiently relevant, or whether the affidavit plainly requires better exposition that the deponent is prepared to give without the stimulus of cross-examination.’
Stuart Smith LJ, Lord Chief Justice Cumming-Bruce
[1991] 1 QB 241
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Nana Ofori Atta (II) v Nana Abu Bonsra (II) PC 1958
(West Africa) Care must be taken in respect of the notion that merely standing by and waiting to see the outcome of a case in which the non-party has an interest, without more, involves an abuse of process. The parties now disputed title to land, . .
Cited – Wytcherley v Andrews 1871
Lord Penzance said: ‘There is a practice in this court, by which any person having an interest may make himself a party to the suit by intervening; and it was because of the existence of that practice that the judges of the Prerogative Court held, . .

Cited by:
Cited – Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others (No 2) CA 12-Jun-2003
World-wide freezing orders had been made under the 1982 Act. The defendants were members of a Turkish family with substantial business interests in the telecommunications industry. In breach of orders made in the US some defendants had sought to . .
Cited – Wiltshire v Powell and others CA 7-May-2004
The claimant sought a declaration as to the ownership of an aircraft. Saying he had bought it in good faith from E H and S, who in turn similarly claimed to have bought it from Ebbs. The defendant had obtained a judgment that he was owner as against . .
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Cited – The Thomas and Agnes Carvel Foundation v Carvel and Another ChD 11-Jun-2007
The husband and wife had made mutual wills in the US with an express agreement not to make later alterations or dispositions without the agreement of the other or at all after the first death. The wife survived, but having lost the first will made a . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov and Others QBD 16-Oct-2009
Application by the claimants for an order that the first defendant attend for cross-examination upon his affidavits as to assets and as to his answers to questions posed. . .
Cited – XX and Others v YY and Others ChD 2-Jul-2021
The first defendant applies for an order that the claimants are not entitled to pursue legal action against his lawyers in respect of funds over which the claimants claim a proprietary interest and paid to the first defendant’s lawyers as legal fees . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 October 2021; Ref: scu.183512

Smith and Others v The Ministry of Defence: SC 19 Jun 2013

The claimants were PRs of men who had died or were severely injured on active duty in Iraq being variously fired at by mistake by other coalition forces, or dying in vehicles attacked by roadside bombs. Appeals were heard against a finding that the soldiers had been found to be outwith the jurisdiction, and by the respondent that it owed a duty of care within a battlefield situation.
Held: The soldiers were within the jurisdiction, and the duty of care was owed. The cases could proceed to trial.
Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath
[2013] UKSC 41, [2013] WLR(D) 239, [2014] AC 52, [2013] 4 All ER 794, [2014] 1 AC 52, [2013] 3 WLR 69, [2013] HRLR 27, [2014] PIQR P2
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, WLRD
European Convention on Human Rights 2, Armed Forces Act 2006 367(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Gentle, Regina (on the Application of) and Another v The Prime Minister and Another HL 9-Apr-2008
The appellants were mothers of two servicemen who had died whilst on active service in Iraq. They appealed refusal to grant a public inquiry. There had already been coroners inquests. They said that Article 2 had been infringed.
Held: The . .
Cited – Soering v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be . .
Cited – Bankovic v Belgium ECHR 12-Dec-2001
(Grand Chamber) Air strikes were carried out by NATO forces against radio and television facilities in Belgrade on 23 April 1999. The claims of five of the applicants arose out of the deaths of relatives in this raid. The sixth claimed on his own . .
Cited – Issa And Others v Turkey ECHR 16-Nov-2004
Accountability for violation of the Convention rights and freedoms of persons in another state stems from the fact that article 1 of the Convention cannot be interpreted so as to allow a state party to perpetrate violations of the Convention on the . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Defence v Al-Skeini and others (The Redress Trust Intervening) HL 13-Jun-2007
Complaints were made as to the deaths of six Iraqi civilians which were the result of actions by a member or members of the British armed forces in Basra. One of them, Mr Baha Mousa, had died as a result of severe maltreatment in a prison occupied . .
Cited – Al-Skeini and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
(Grand Chamber) The exercise of jurisdiction, which is a threshold condition, is a necessary condition for a contracting state to be able to be held responsible for acts or omissions imputable to it which give rise to an allegation of the . .
Cited – Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) SC 30-Jun-2010
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2.
Cited – Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain ECHR 26-Jun-1992
The applicants complained of the unfairness of their trial in Andorra (which the Court held it had no jurisdiction to investigate) and of their detention in France, which was not found to violate article 5.
Held: Member states are obliged to . .
Cited – WM v Denmark ECHR 14-Oct-1992
(Commission) The applicant lived in the German Democratic Republic (‘DDR’). He wished to move to the Federal Republic of Germany, but the DDR authorities refused him permission. At 1115 on 9 September 1988, together with 17 other DDR citizens, he . .
Cited – Gentilhomme, Schaff-Benhadji et Zerouki v France ECHR 14-May-2002
(French Text) In 1962 France and Algeria had signed a statement of principle on cultural co-operation which provided inter alia for French children residing in Algeria, including those having dual French and Algerian nationality under French law, to . .
Cited – Andrejeva v Latvia ECHR 18-Feb-2009
(Grand Chamber) The concept of jurisdiction for the purposes of article 1 reflects that term’s meaning in public international law and is closely linked to the international responsibility of the state concerned. . .
Cited – Hirsi Jamaa v Italy ECHR 23-Feb-2012
The court was asked whether the asylum seekers were subject to the jurisdiction of Italy while they were detained on the ship flying the Italian flag.
Held: The court need not concern itself with the question whether the state is in a position . .
Cited – Edwards and Others v The Attorney General of Canada PC 18-Oct-1929
(Canada) A constitutional Act act should not be interpreted narrowly or technically. Rights in conventions, treaties and like instruments are interpreted like a ‘living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits.’ (Lord Sankey . .
Cited – W v Ireland ECHR 28-Feb-1983
Admissibility – Commission – Article 1 of the Convention : The High Contracting Parties are bound to guarantee the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention in connection with all acts or omissions of their agents, even where such public . .
Cited – Vearncombe v Germany and United Kingdom ECHR 1989
. .
Cited – Loizidou v Turkey ECHR 23-Mar-1995
(Preliminary objections) The ECHR considered the situation in northern Cyprus when it was asked as to Turkey’s preliminary objections to admissibility: ‘although Article 1 sets limits on the reach of the Convention, the concept of ‘jurisdiction’ . .
Cited – Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) and Another v Brown PC 5-Dec-2000
The system under which the registered keeper of a vehicle was obliged to identify herself as the driver, and such admission was to be used subsequently as evidence against her on a charge of driving with excess alcohol, was not a breach of her right . .

Cited by:
Cited – Kennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .
Cited – Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police SC 8-Feb-2018
Limits to Police Exemption from Liability
The claimant, an elderly lady was bowled over and injured when police were chasing a suspect through the streets. As they arrested him they fell over on top of her. She appealed against refusal of her claim in negligence.
Held: Her appeal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.510917

Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corporation and Others v Lembergs: CA 19 Jun 2013

[2013] EWCA Civ 730, [2013] 2 CLC 44, [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 295, [2013] ILPr 36, [2013] 2 All ER (Comm) 781, [2013] 2 All ER (Comm) 781, [2014] Bus LR 239, [2013] 4 All ER 157
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.510918

B v B (Residence: Imposition of conditions): CA 28 May 2004

The court was asked whether it had jurisdiction to hear applications with regard to a child removed from Scotland. The father lived in Scotland, and the mother and child in England. The child had been habitually resident in Scotland and removed to England without the father’s consent. The father sought transfer of the proceedings to Scotland.
Held: The county court had not had jurisdiction. However the child had lived for more than a year in England before the mother began proceedings. All the section did was to deem a child to be resident in the country from which he had been taken for a period of one year. It was wrong to suggest that the proceedings once tainted with unlawfulness must continue to be so. The father’s appeal was rejected.
Otherwise In re B (Court’s Jurisdiction)
Lady Justice Arden DBE and Lord Justice Wall
[2004] EWCA Civ 681, Times 07-Jul-2004, [2004] 2 FLR 741
Bailii
Family Law Act 1996, Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hadkinson v Hadkinson CA 1952
The courts adopt an approach similar to that of the United States courts where there has been a significant contempt on the part of a party to litigation. Denning LJ said: ‘Those cases seem to me to point the way to the modern rule. It is a strong . .
Cited – M v M (Abduction: England and Scotland) CA 1997
A couple went to live in Scotland with their children. The father was Scottish: the mother English. The mother left the family home and took the children to England without the father’s knowledge, and obtained an ex-parte residence order and a . .
Cited – Isaacs v Robertson PC 13-Jun-1984
(St Vincent and The Grenadines) Where the point at issue before the Board was as to a point of procedure with no direct comparable provision in UK law, the Board of the Privy Council should be reluctant to depart from the interpretation set down by . .
Cited – Johnson v Walton 1990
There was a continuing obligation to obey a court order until it was discharged. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Majera, Regina (on The Application of v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Oct-2021
The Court was asked whether the Government (or, indeed, anyone else) can lawfully act in a manner which is inconsistent with an order of a judge which is defective, without first applying for, and obtaining, the variation or setting aside of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.197803

Hirsi Jamaa v Italy: ECHR 23 Feb 2012

The court was asked whether the asylum seekers were subject to the jurisdiction of Italy while they were detained on the ship flying the Italian flag.
Held: The court need not concern itself with the question whether the state is in a position to guarantee Convention rights to that individual other than those it is said to have breached.
27765/09 – HEJUD, [2012] ECHR 1845
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Smith and Others v The Ministry of Defence SC 19-Jun-2013
The claimants were PRs of men who had died or were severely injured on active duty in Iraq being variously fired at by mistake by other coalition forces, or dying in vehicles attacked by roadside bombs. Appeals were heard against a finding that the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.465565

Al-Skeini and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 7 Jul 2011

(Grand Chamber) The exercise of jurisdiction, which is a threshold condition, is a necessary condition for a contracting state to be able to be held responsible for acts or omissions imputable to it which give rise to an allegation of the infringement of rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. The Chamber divided the general principles relevant to jurisdiction into three distinct categories: state agent authority and control; effective control over an area; and the Convention legal space.
Held: , Jurisdiction under article 1 is ‘primarily territorial’, but there are certain recognised exceptions one of which is in relation to the acts of diplomatic and consular agents which may amount to an exercise of jurisdiction ‘when these agents exert authority and control over others’
‘. . it is clear that the acts of diplomatic and consular agents, who are present on foreign territory in accordance with provisions of international law, may amount to an exercise of jurisdiction when these agents exert authority and control over others (Bankoviae, cited above, paragraph 73; see also X v Federal Republic of Germany, No. 1611/62, Commission decision of 25 September 1965, Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, vol. 8, pp. 158 and 169; X v the United Kingdom, no. 7547/76, Commission decision of 15 December 1977; WM v Denmark, no. 17392/90, Commission decision of 14 October 1993).’
Jean-Paul Costa, P
55721/07, [2011] ECHR 1093, 30 BHRC 561, (2011) 53 EHRR 18
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Citing:
At Admn – Al Skeini and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Another Admn 14-Dec-2004
Several dependants of persons killed in Iraq by British troops claimed damages.
Held: The court considered extensively the scope and applicability of Article 1 duties. In general an English court would have no jurisdiction over deaths abroad . .
At CA – Regina (on the Application of Mazin Mumaa Galteh Al-Skeini and Others) v The Secretary of State for Defence CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimants were dependants of Iraqi nationals killed in Iraq.
Held: The Military Police were operating when Britain was an occupying power. The question in each case was whether the Human Rights Act applied to the acts of the defendant. The . .
At HL – Secretary of State for Defence v Al-Skeini and others (The Redress Trust Intervening) HL 13-Jun-2007
Complaints were made as to the deaths of six Iraqi civilians which were the result of actions by a member or members of the British armed forces in Basra. One of them, Mr Baha Mousa, had died as a result of severe maltreatment in a prison occupied . .
Cited – Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Smith and Others v The Ministry of Defence SC 19-Jun-2013
The claimants were PRs of men who had died or were severely injured on active duty in Iraq being variously fired at by mistake by other coalition forces, or dying in vehicles attacked by roadside bombs. Appeals were heard against a finding that the . .
Cited – Long, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 15-Jul-2014
The claimant’s son had been one of six soldiers of the Royal Military police to have been murdered by an armed mob attacking a police station in Iraq in 2003. The said that their deaths had not been properly or sufficiently investigated. The corone . .
Cited – Sandiford, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Admn 4-Feb-2013
The claimant was facing trial in Bali which would eventually lead to a sentence of death. She complained of inadequate legal assistance before and at the trial. She had been represented by a local lawyer, paid with funds (andpound;5,000) raised by . .
Cited – Sandiford, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs CA 22-May-2013
The appellant, a British national and European citizen was in prison in Bali convicted of a criminal charge for which she might face the death penalty. Having insufficient funds she sought legal assistance from the respondent for hr appeal, and now . .
Cited – Sandiford, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 16-Jul-2014
The appellant a British Citizen awaited execution in Singapore after conviction on a drugs charge. The only way she might get legal help for a further appeal would be if she was given legal aid by the respondent. She sought assistance both on Human . .
Cited – Ismail, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 6-Jul-2016
The claimant ha been involved in the management of a company operating a ferry in Egypt. The claimant had been acquitted in Egypt of criminal liability, but then convicted in his absence on appeal, after submissions made on his behalf were . .
Cited – Privacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and Others SC 15-May-2019
The Court was asked whether the actions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal were amenable to judicial review: ‘what if any material difference to the court’s approach is made by any differences in context or wording, and more particularly the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.441608

Gutnick v Dow Jones: 10 Dec 2002

(High Court of Australia) The Court rejected a challenge, in the context of Internet libel, to the applicability of such established principles as that vouchsafed in Duke of Brunswick: ‘It was suggested that the World Wide Web was different from radio and television because the radio or television broadcaster could decide how far the signal was to be broadcast. It must be recognised, however, that satellite broadcasting now permits very wide dissemination of radio and television and it may, therefore, be doubted that it is right to say that the World Wide Web has a uniquely broad reach. It is no more or less ubiquitous than some television services. In the end, pointing to the breadth or depth of reach of particular forms of communication may tend to obscure one basic fact. However broad may be the reach of any particular means of communication, those who post information on the World Wide Web do so knowing that the information they make available is available to all and sundry without any geographic restriction . . A publisher, particularly one carrying on the business of publishing, does not act to put matter on the Internet in order for it to reach a small target. It is its ubiquity which is one of the main attractions to users of it. And any person who gains access to the Internet does so by taking an initiative to gain access to it in a manner analogous to the purchase or other acquisition of a newspaper, in order to read it. . . Comparisons can, as I have already exemplified, readily be made. If a publisher publishes in a multiplicity of jurisdictions it should understand, and must accept, that it runs the risk of liability in those jurisdictions in which the publication is not lawful and inflicts damage.’
[2002] HCA 56, 210 CLR 575, 77 ALJR 255, 194 ALR 433
Austlii
Australia
Citing:
Appeal from – Gutnick v Dow Jones 28-Aug-2001
(High Court of Victoria) Callinan J said: ‘A publisher, particularly one carrying on the business of publishing, does not act to put matter on the Internet in order for it to reach a small target. It is its ubiquity which is one of the main . .
Cited – Duke of Brunswick v Harmer QBD 2-Nov-1849
brunswick_harmerQBD1849
On 19 September 1830 an article was published in the Weekly Dispatch. The limitation period for libel was six years. The article defamed the Duke of Brunswick. Seventeen years after its publication an agent of the Duke purchased a back number . .

Cited by:
Appealed to – Gutnick v Dow Jones 28-Aug-2001
(High Court of Victoria) Callinan J said: ‘A publisher, particularly one carrying on the business of publishing, does not act to put matter on the Internet in order for it to reach a small target. It is its ubiquity which is one of the main . .
Cited – Lewis and others v King CA 19-Oct-2004
The claimant sought damages for defamation for an article published on the Internet. The claimant Don King sued in London even though he lived in the US as did the defendants.
Held: A publication via the internet occurred when the material was . .
Cited – Metropolitan International Schools Ltd. (T/A Skillstrain And/Or Train2Game) v Designtechnica Corp (T/A Digital Trends) and Others QBD 16-Jul-2009
The claimant complained that the defendant had published on its internet forums comments by posters which were defamatory of it, and which were then made available by the second defendant search engine. The court was asked what responsibility a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 October 2021; Ref: scu.220028

Weco Projects Aps v Piana and Others: ComC 5 Aug 2020

Application to set aside service of the proceedings brought by the two sets of Claimants in England, on the grounds that the English Courts do not have jurisdiction under the Brussels Recast Regulation to hear the claims.
Christopher Hancock QC
[2020] EWHC 2150 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 19 October 2021; Ref: scu.653090

Chep Equipment Pooling Bv v Its Ltd and Others: ComC 10 Sep 2021

Mr Justice Jacobs
[2021] EWHC 2485 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 19 October 2021; Ref: scu.667942

The Attorney-General v Lepine: 1789

[1789] EngR 2055, (1789-1817) 2 Ves Jun Supp 573, (1789) 34 ER 1232 (G)
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Attorney-General v Lepine 1818
The testator left part of his residuary estate for the benefit of a school for the poor in the parish of Dollar in Scotland.
Held: The English court declined jurisdiction. ‘I have always understood that, where a charity is to be administered . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.367686

The Indian Fortune: 1985

O let their vessel to C on a time charter. Pursuant to orders, the vessel loaded a cargo of rice at Bangkok for carriage to the Soviet Union. The bills of lading contained a clause providing that all disputes would be determined were the carrier had his principal place of business. P brought a cargo claim for short delivery. D sought a stay on the grounds that the parties had agreed to litigate all disputes in India.
Held: that 1) P had not shown strong cause that the proceedings should remain in England; neither party nor the dispute had any connection with England and 2) The fact that there was likely to be a delay if the matter litigated in India could not be relied upon by P since all the day to date was of P’s making and 3) the fact that P’s claim might be time-barred in India was not decisive.
Sheen J
[198] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 344
England and Wales

Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.653204

Jovicic and Others v The Serbian Orthodox Church-Serbian Patriarchy: QBD 13 Aug 2020

Cook M
[2020] EWHC 2229 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.653124

Commerzbank (Judicial Cooperation In Civil Matters – Jurisdiction – Opinion): ECJ 9 Sep 2021

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Lugano II Convention – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement in civil and commercial matters – Jurisdiction over consumer contracts – Consumer who transfers his domicile, after the contract has been concluded, to another State bound by the Convention – Pursuit of commercial or professional activities in the State bound by the Convention and in which the consumer is domiciled)
[2021] EUECJ C-296/20_O, ECLI:EU:C:2021:733
Bailii
European

Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.668605

Traxys Europe Sa v Sodexmines Nigeria Ltd: ComC 12 Aug 2020

Claim of lack of jurisdiction – not forum conveniens
Teare J
[2020] EWHC 2195 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.653089

The Attorney-General v Lepine: 22 Feb 1815

[1815] EngR 578, (1815) 19 Ves Jun 309, (1815) 34 ER 532 (A)
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Attorney-General v Lepine 1818
The testator left part of his residuary estate for the benefit of a school for the poor in the parish of Dollar in Scotland.
Held: The English court declined jurisdiction. ‘I have always understood that, where a charity is to be administered . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.336388

Carrick v Hancock: 1895

An action was brought upon a monetary judgment obtained in Sweden by an Englishman domiciled in Sweden against a defendant who resided and carried on business at Newcastle. The writ was served on the defendant during a short visit he was paying to Sweden and he duly appeared to answer it. Though he did not himself remain in Sweden, he was represented throughout the subsequent proceedings. He put in a defence and counterclaim and on three separate occasions appealed to the Court of Appeal at Gota.
Held: Notwithstanding his protestations that he had ‘only appeared under pressure, duress and compulsion of law,’ the English court could properly have enforced the foreign judgment on the ground that the defendant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Swedish court.’
(1895) 12 TLR 59
England and Wales

Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.653060

Plekhanov v Yanchenko: ComC 13 May 2020

Mrs Justice Cockerill
[2020] EWHC 1201 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.651173

Trafigura Beheer Bv v Kookmin Bank Co: ComC 5 Aug 2005

Entitlement to anti-suit injunction.
Cooke J
[2005] EWHC 2350 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Trafigura Beheer Bv v Kookmin Bank Co ComC 16-Jun-2006
The defendant bank had given the claimant a letter of credit, but when the goods under transport were discharged without the bills of lading,and the buyers became insolvent, the bank refused to pay. There had been proceedings in Korea, but the . .
See Also – Trafigura Beheer Bv v Kookmin Bank Co ComC 27-Jul-2006
Application for a post-trial anti-suit injunction restraining proceedings brought by the defendant (‘Kookmin’) in Seoul Central District Court. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.245919

Deutsche Bank Ag and others v Asia Pacific Broadband Wireless Communications Inc and Another: CA 13 Oct 2008

The court considered whether an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a contract would apply to control an argument that the agreement itself was invalid.
Laws LJ, Keene LJ, Longore LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1091, [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 129, [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 619, [2008] 2 CLC 520, [2009] ILPr 36
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.276837

Emerald Pasture Designated Activity Company and Others v Cassini Sas and Another: ChD 27 Aug 2021

His Honour Judge Kramer
[2021] EWHC 2443 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.667689

Siporex Trade SA v Comdel Commodities: 1986

The court should not absolve a defaulting party from the consequences of its neglect by maintaining a Mareva injunction order in force.
Bingham J
[1986] 2 Lloyds LR 428
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Tryg Baltic International (UK) Ltd v Boston Compania De Seguros Sa and others ComC 28-May-2004
Four defendants from Argentina sought to have set aside an order for them to be served, saying the appropriate jursidiction, if there was a triable issue, would be Argentina.
Held: The agreements were to be construed according to English Law. . .
Cited – Fourie v Le Roux and others HL 24-Jan-2007
The appellant, liquidator of two South African companies, had made a successful without notice application for an asset freezing order. He believed that the defendants had stripped the companies of substantial assets. The order was set aside for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.197879

GFH Capital Ltd v Haigh and Others: ComC 19 May 2020

Henshaw J
[2020] EWHC 1269 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.651168

FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) Llc v Brownlie: CA 29 Jul 2020

[2020] EWCA Civ 996
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.652897

Seismic Shipping Inc and Another v Total E and P UK plc, “The Western Regent”: AdCt 22 Mar 2005

Ships had collided. The ship at fault sought to limit its liability according to its tonnage under the Convention, and requested appropriate directions to calculate its liability.
Held: The court did have jurisdiction to apply the Convention even though no underlying proceedings by way of arbitration or otherwise yet existed in England.
Julian Flaux QC
Times 04-May-2005
Convention on Limitation of Liabillity for Maritime Claims 1976
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Seismic Shipping Inc and Another v Total E and P UK Plc ‘The Western Regent’ CA 29-Jul-2005
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 September 2021; Ref: scu.224879

KMM v NAM (Jurisidiction): FD 13 Aug 2021

The Hon Sir Jonathan Cohen
[2021] EWHC 2300 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 September 2021; Ref: scu.667756

Regina v Commissioner for the Special Purposes of the Income Tax Acts, Ex parte R W Forsyth Ltd: 1897

The Scottish taxpayer had agreed that this appeal againat an assessment to corporation tax issued in Scotland was better heard in England. He sought judicial review of a refusal to suspend an order for repayment pending his appeal.
Held: While the court had jurisdiction to make such an order, the proper forum was Scotland.
Macpherson J
[1987] 1 All ER 1035
Scotland
Cited by:
Cited – Tehrani v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 18-Oct-2006
The House was asked whether an asylum applicant whose original application was determined in Scotland, but his application for leave to appeal rejected in London, should apply to challenge those decisions in London or in Scotland.
Held: Such . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.245385

Owners of the cargo laden on Board the ship ‘Bergen’ v Owners of the ship ‘Bergen’: AdCt 20 Nov 1996

ComC Conflict of laws – jurisdiction – Brussels Convention – article 17 – ‘Arrest Convention’ 1952 article 7 – conflict – Brussels Convention – article 57 – resolution – Brussels Convention – article 21 – decline jurisdiction – meaning
Clarke J
Unreported, 20 November 1996
England and Wales

Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.186609

Compagnie Commercial Andre S A v Artibell Shipping Company Limited and the Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland: SCS 7 Jan 1999

The pursuers employed the defenders to carry sugar across Iraq. The voyage had been abandoned. The defenders challenged the proceedings as to jurisdiction and otherwise.
Lord MacFadyen
[1999] ScotCS 2
Bailii
Scotland
Cited by:
See also – Compangnie Commerciale Andre S A v Artibell Shipping Co Ltd and the Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland SCS 21-Feb-2001
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.163434

Norwich Corporation v Norwich Electric Tramways: CA 18 May 1906

There was a provision made by the Legislature that disputes mentioned in the section of the Act were to be determined by an Expert nominated by the Board of Trade and it was contended that though not in the strict technical sense estoppel, it was a waiver of the provisions introduced into the Statute for the benefit of private rights.
Held: An objection as to jurisdiction can be taken at any stage of the proceedings, and not only can but should be taken by the court of its own motion if apparent.
Vaughan Williams LJ said: ‘The case is not like that of a provision in an agreement which is for the benefit of one of the parties and which he may waive. This is a provision in an Act of Parliament, which, though to some extent it may be for the benefit of the parties to the difference, must be regarded as inserted in the interest of the public also.’
Vaughan Williams LJ, Stirling LJ, Fletcher Moulton LJ
[1906] 2 KB 119, [1906] UKLawRpKQB 69, (1906) 22 TLR 553, (1906) 95 LT 12, (1906) 70 JP 401, (1906) 75 LJKB 636
Commonlii
Tramways Act 1870 33
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ahsan v Carter CA 28-Jul-2005
The claimant sought to assert race discrimination by the Labour Party in not selecting him as a political candidate. The defendant, chairman of the party appealed.
Held: A political party when selecting candidates was not acting as a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.229697

Regina v Commissioners for the Special Purposes of the Income Tax: CA 27 Jun 1888

Lord Esher MR pointed out that while it is generally correct to say that a tribunal cannot give itself jurisdiction by a wrong decision on the facts there may be cases in which the legislature endows a tribunal with jurisdiction, provided that a certain state of facts exists and further endows it with jurisdiction to decide, without any appeal from their decision, whether or not that state of affairs does or did exist, that is, to decide whether a condition precedent was satisfied for the further exercise of jurisdiction: ‘But there is another state of things which may exist. The legislature may intrust the tribunal or body with a jurisdiction, which includes the jurisdiction to determine whether the preliminary state of facts exists as well as the jurisdiction, on finding that it does exist, to proceed further . . ‘
Lord Esher MR set out the complementary responsibilities of court and tribunal: ‘When an inferior court or tribunal or body, which has to exercise the power of deciding facts, is first established by Act of Parliament, the legislature has to consider what powers it will give that tribunal or body. It may in effect say that, if a certain state of facts exists and is shown to such tribunal or body before it proceeds to do certain things, it shall have jurisdiction to do such things, but not otherwise. There it is not for them conclusively to decide whether that state of facts exists, and, if they exercise the jurisdiction without its existence, what they do may be questioned, and it will be held that they have acted without jurisdiction.’
Lord Esher MR
(1888) 21 QBD 313
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ahsan v Carter CA 28-Jul-2005
The claimant sought to assert race discrimination by the Labour Party in not selecting him as a political candidate. The defendant, chairman of the party appealed.
Held: A political party when selecting candidates was not acting as a . .
Cited – Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission HL 17-Dec-1968
All Public Law Challenges are For a Nullity
The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.229691

Garthwaite v Garthwaite: CA 1964

The court discussed what was constitutive jurisdiction: ‘The ‘jurisdiction’ of a validly constituted court connotes the limits which are imposed upon its power to hear and determine issues between persons seeking to avail themselves of its process by reference (1) to the subject-matter of the issue or (2) to the persons between whom the issue is joined or (3) to the kind of relief sought, or to any combination of those factors.’
Diplock LJ
[1964] P 356
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Guaranty Trust Co of New York v Hannay and Co CA 1915
A claimant does not need to have a subsisting cause of action against a defendant before the court will grant a claimant a declaration. The court considered the ambiguity in the meaning of the word ‘jurisdiction’: ‘The first and, in my opinion, the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Ahsan v Carter CA 28-Jul-2005
The claimant sought to assert race discrimination by the Labour Party in not selecting him as a political candidate. The defendant, chairman of the party appealed.
Held: A political party when selecting candidates was not acting as a . .
Cited – Fourie v Le Roux and others HL 24-Jan-2007
The appellant, liquidator of two South African companies, had made a successful without notice application for an asset freezing order. He believed that the defendants had stripped the companies of substantial assets. The order was set aside for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.229690

Huawei Technologies Co Ltd v Conversant Wireless Licensing Sarl: CA 30 Jan 2019

[2019] EWCA Civ 38, [2019] RPC 6
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Conversant Wireless Licensing Sarl v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Others PatC 16-Apr-2018
Challenge by the Defendants to the jurisdiction of the English court in relation to a claim for infringement of UK patents, where the relief sought is the determination of a global FRAND licence. . .
See Also – Conversant Wireless Licensing Sarl v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Others ChD 8-May-2018
. .
See Also – Conversant Wireless Licensing Sarl v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Others ChD 2-Oct-2018
. .

Cited by:
See Also – Conversant Wireless Licensing Sarl v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Others PatC 4-Jul-2019
. .
See Also – Conversant Wireless Licensing Sarl v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Others PatC 8-Jan-2020
Patents essential to telecommunications standards. . .
See Also – Conversant Wireless Licensing Sarl v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and Others PatC 10-Feb-2020
Application for disclosure in a FRAND case. . .
See Also – Unwired Planet International Ltd and Another v Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd and Another SC 26-Aug-2020
The Court considered the licensing of Standard Essential Patents, those necessary for the design an use of smartphones. Huawei were said to have continued to use the technology despite the expiry of their licences. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.633086

Kruppa v Benedetti and Another: ComC 11 Jun 2014

Cooke J
[2014] EWHC 1887 (Comm), [2014] Bus LR 1104, [2014] WLR(D) 250
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.526432

Republic of India and Others v India Steamship Co Ltd (‘The Indian Endurance and The Indian Grace’) (No 1): HL 29 Mar 1993

Munitions were being carried to Cochin on board the defendants’ vessel. Some was jettisoned in a fire and the remainder was damaged. The cargo owners sought damages in India for short delivery under the bills of lading, as to the jettisoned cargo only. The defendants were held liable for the value of the undelivered cargo. The plaintiffs then sued in rem in London for the total loss. The claim in the Indian action was for short delivery and was advanced under one of the two bills of lading under which the consignment was shipped, pleading negligence in the shipowners. This was taken to refer to a breach of their duty as bailees (carriers for reward). It was either common ground (or found by the Indian judge) that the contract incorporated the Hague Rules. The claim in the English action was in the ordinary form for a damage to cargo claim, alleging against the shipowners (1) breach of contract and/or duty as carrier by sea for reward to deliver the goods in like good order and condition as when shipped; (2) negligence, in breach of duty as carriers and/or as bailees for reward; and (3) breach of their obligations under article III(1) and (2) of the Hague-Visby Rules, which apply to the contracts contained in or evidenced by the two bills of lading under which the goods were shipped. The House considered whether the causes of action alleged in the two actions were the same.
Held: Because the Act operated to bar the commencement of proceedings, rather than to exclude the jurisdiction of the court per se, the parties were entitled to contract explicitly, or by waiver or otherwise to exclude the operation of the Act, and to give jurisdiction to the UK court. The operation of the res judicata doctrine is subject to exception for plea of waiver or estoppel.
Lord Goff of Chieveley said: ‘the goods in question were shipped under a contract of carriage the terms of which (as set out in the Hague Rules or the Hague-Visby Rules) regulate the respective rights and obligations of the parties. In these circumstances, the mere fact that the pleader can, so to speak, get the case on its feet by alleging short delivery or delivery of the goods not in the like good order and condition as when shipped, does not in my opinion assist. For it is wholly unrealistic to regard the cause of action as being other than a cause of action arising under the contract, which provides for the relevant duties of the shipowners regarding the seaworthiness of the ship and the care of the goods. Even if attention is concentrated on the liability of the shipowner as bailee, the fact remains that he is a bailee for reward, and that accordingly his liability will be governed by the terms of the contract of carriage . . Here . . it is necessary to identify the relevant breach of contract; and if it transpires that the cause of action in the first action is a breach of contract which is the same breach of contract which constitutes the cause of action in the second, then the principle of res judicata applies, and the plaintiff cannot escape from the conclusion by pleading in the second action particulars of damage which were not pleaded in the first.’ and ‘[The present case] is rather concerned with a single incident, i.e., the fire during transit which broke out in the cargo over which the plaintiffs’ consignment of munitions was stowed, which resulted in the damage to that consignment and to loss (by jettison) of a small part of it. Furthermore, as appears from the pleadings, that loss or damage might have resulted from breach of more than one term of the contract, for example breach of the obligation to make the vessel seaworthy under article III, rule 1, of the Hague-Visby Rules, or breach of the obligation to load and stow, etc., the vessel carefully under article III, rule 2. However, for present purposes, there is no need to distinguish between the two breaches; because the factual basis relied upon by the plaintiffs as giving rise to the two breaches is the same, and indeed was referred to compendiously by the plaintiffs in the Cochin action as ‘negligence’. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that there is identity between the causes of action in the two sets of proceedings.’
Lord Goff of Chieveley
Gazette 07-Apr-1993, Ind Summary 29-Mar-1993, [1993] 2 WLR 461, [1993] AC 410, [1993] 1 All ER 998
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 34
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Republic of India and Others v India Steamship Co Ltd; The Indian Endurance and The Indian Grace CA 1992
Munitions were consigned to Cochin on board the defendants’ vessel. A fire occurred, and part was jettisoned, the remainder being damaged. The cargo owners first claimed damages in India for short delivery under the bills of lading for the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others ChD 30-Jan-2006
The applicant challenged the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage, saying that the mortgagee’s purposes included purposes not those under the mortgage. The parties had been involved in an attempted development of a penthouse.
Held: The . .
Cited – Sarwar v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc (Rev 1) ChD 27-Jul-2011
The claimant appealed against a finding of indebtedness to the bank. He had said at trial that the bank had been charging interest at 25%. The bank denied this, but after trial it became clear that he had been correct. The bank argued for abuse of . .
Cited – Moorjani and Others v Durban Estates Ltd and Another TCC 15-May-2019
Allegations of breach of landlords’ repairing obligations – defendants’ strike out application.
Held: ‘ the critical question is whether this second action is based on the same cause, or causes, of action, and not whether it pleads the same . .
See Also – Republic of India v India Steamship Co Ltd (Indian Endurance and Grace (No 2) CA 1-May-1996
An action against ship in rem prevents a personal action against the owner; there would be a risk of double jeopardy. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 September 2021; Ref: scu.88741

Ion Science v Persons Unknown: 21 Dec 2020

Butcher J said that the ‘. . lex situs of a cryptoasset is the place where the person or company who owns it is domiciled. . . There is apparently no decided case in relation to the lex situs for a cryptoasset. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that there is at least a serious issue to be tried that that is the correct analysis.’
As to the suggestion that AB Bank was wrongly decided, Butcher J said:’ I am not going on this interim application in circumstances where I have only heard one side of the argument to express a view as to whether the case of AB Bank Ltd is correctly decided. It seems to me that it is distinguishable on the basis that it related to Norwich Pharmacal orders, whereas what is here sought is a Bankers Trust order and on the basis that in MacKinnon v Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette Securities Corporation [1986] Ch 482 what was envisaged was that a Bankers Trust order might be one where there can be service out of the jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances and that those exceptional circumstances might include cases of hot pursuit. That is this type of case. As I say, I consider that there is a good arguable case that there is a head of jurisdiction under the necessary or proper party gateway. I should also say that it seems to me that there is a good arguable case that the Bankers Trust case can be said to relate wholly or principally to property within the jurisdiction on the basis of the argument which I have already identified, which is that the bitcoin are or were here and that the lex situs is where the owner resides or is domiciled. Accordingly, I consider there is a basis on which jurisdiction can be established.’
Butcher J
Unreported 21 December 2020
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – AB Bank Ltd, Off-Shore Banking Unit (Obu) v Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Pjsc ComC 12-Aug-2016
Application to set aside Norwich Pharmacal Order: ‘The application raises the question whether the court has jurisdiction to permit service out of the jurisdiction of an application for the grant of a Norwich Pharmacal Order.’
Held: An order . .

Cited by:
Adopted – Fetch.AI Ltd and Another v Persons Unknown Category A and Others ComC 15-Jul-2021
Cryptocurrency Action
The claimants sought damages and other remedies saying that the unknown defendants had obtained access to the private key guarding their crypto currency assets, and then sold them at an undervalue, acquiring substantial profits for themselves in . .
Cited – Fetch.AI Ltd and Another v Persons Unknown Category A and Others ComC 15-Jul-2021
Cryptocurrency Action
The claimants sought damages and other remedies saying that the unknown defendants had obtained access to the private key guarding their crypto currency assets, and then sold them at an undervalue, acquiring substantial profits for themselves in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 September 2021; Ref: scu.667435

Russian Commercial Bank (Cyprus) Ltd v Khoroshilov: ComC 12 May 2020

Before an alternative service order can be made, the court must be satisfied that there are special or exceptional circumstances for departing from the machinery which the Convention adopts for its signatory countries.
Mrs Justice Cockerill
[2020] EWHC 1164 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Russian Commercial Bank (Cyprus) Ltd v Khoroshilov ComC 5-Jul-2011
The claimant sought to set aside consent judgments and an arbitration award on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation by the respondent bank, and saying that the court should hold the status quo until the issue was decided. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Fetch.AI Ltd and Another v Persons Unknown Category A and Others ComC 15-Jul-2021
Cryptocurrency Action
The claimants sought damages and other remedies saying that the unknown defendants had obtained access to the private key guarding their crypto currency assets, and then sold them at an undervalue, acquiring substantial profits for themselves in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 August 2021; Ref: scu.651177

Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co Ltd v Celgard Llc: CA 9 Oct 2020

Lord Justice Arnold
[2020] EWCA Civ 1293
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Fetch.AI Ltd and Another v Persons Unknown Category A and Others ComC 15-Jul-2021
Cryptocurrency Action
The claimants sought damages and other remedies saying that the unknown defendants had obtained access to the private key guarding their crypto currency assets, and then sold them at an undervalue, acquiring substantial profits for themselves in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 August 2021; Ref: scu.654549

AB Bank Ltd, Off-Shore Banking Unit (Obu) v Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Pjsc: ComC 12 Aug 2016

Application to set aside Norwich Pharmacal Order: ‘The application raises the question whether the court has jurisdiction to permit service out of the jurisdiction of an application for the grant of a Norwich Pharmacal Order.’
Held: An order for the disclosure of information from a third party mixed up in another’s wrongdoings was not an interim order in the sense identified in para.3.1(5) of the Part 6B Practice Direction and was, in fact, final relief sought by the claimant against the respondent to such an application. On that basis, para.3.1(5) did not apply.
A Norwich Pharmacal application is one for final relief, not an interim remedy.
Teare J
[2016] EWHC 2082 (Comm), [2016] CP Rep 47, [2016] 2 CLC 372, [2017] 1 WLR 810, [2016] WLR(D) 490
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 2-Jan-1972
The plaintiffs sought discovery of the names of patent infringers from the defendant third party, submitting that by analogy with trade mark and passing-off cases, the Customs could be ordered to give discovery of the names.
Held: Buckley LJ . .

Cited by:
Cited – Ion Science v Persons Unknown 21-Dec-2020
Butcher J said that the ‘. . lex situs of a cryptoasset is the place where the person or company who owns it is domiciled. . . There is apparently no decided case in relation to the lex situs for a cryptoasset. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that . .
Cited – Fetch.AI Ltd and Another v Persons Unknown Category A and Others ComC 15-Jul-2021
Cryptocurrency Action
The claimants sought damages and other remedies saying that the unknown defendants had obtained access to the private key guarding their crypto currency assets, and then sold them at an undervalue, acquiring substantial profits for themselves in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 August 2021; Ref: scu.568020

Republic of India and Another v India Steamship Co Ltd (Indian Endurance and Indian Grace) (No 2): HL 23 Oct 1997

When a action in rem against a ship was in fact parallel to an action in personam begun in India and awaiting a decision; an action was not to be allowed here.
Lord Steyn: ‘It is settled that an estoppel by convention may arise where parties to a transaction act on an assumed state of facts or law, the assumption being shared by them both or made by one and acquiesced in by the other . . It is not enough that each of the parties acts on an assumption not communicated to the other. But it was rightly accepted by counsel for both parties that a concluded agreement is not a requirement for an estoppel by convention.’
Lord Steyn
Gazette 12-Nov-1997, Times 23-Oct-1997, [1997] UKHL 40, [1997] 4 All ER 380, [1997] 3 WLR 818, [1998] AC 878
House of Lords, Bailii
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Republic of India v India Steamship Co Ltd (Indian Endurance and Grace (No 2) CA 1-May-1996
An action against ship in rem prevents a personal action against the owner; there would be a risk of double jeopardy. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Ace Insurance Sa-Nv v Surendranath Seechurn CA 6-Feb-2002
The claimant sought payment under an insurance policy for his permanent disability. The judge had found that the defendant insurers had indicated a readiness to continue negotiations beyond the limitation period, and that they would apply for a stay . .
Cited – Smithkline Beecham Plc and others v Apotex Europe Ltd and others PatC 26-Jul-2005
Application was made to join in further parties to support a cross undertaking on being made subject to interim injunctions.
Held: On orders other than asset freezing orders it was not open to the court to impose cross-undertakings against . .
Cited – Smithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2) CA 23-May-2006
The parties to the action had given cross undertakings to support the grant of an interim injunction. A third party subsequently applied to be joined, and now sought to take advantage of the cross undertakings to claim the losses incurred through . .
Cited – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Ltd CA 5-Jul-2007
The parties each had a charge over a property, and now disputed which had priority. The brewery appealed an order for rectification of the registers to reverse priority on the basis of an estoppel. The charge in their favour had been registered . .
Cited – Jones and Another v Lydon and Others ChD 23-Aug-2021
No Estoppels Established to Override Majority
The parties were former members of a band, the Sex Pistols. They disputed the continued duty to accept the decision of the majority of its members as set out in a Band Membership Agreement. Mr Lydon asserted that over the years the obligation had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.88739

Middle Eastern Oil Llc v National Bank of Abu Dhabi: ComC 27 Nov 2008

Teare J
[2008] EWHC 2895 (Comm), [2008] 2 CLC 1026, [2009] 1 Lloyds Rep 251
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.278856

Leathertex Divisions Sintetici Spa v Bodetex Bvba: ECJ 5 Oct 1999

Where a court is seised of one case arising from a breach of contract arising within its own jurisdiction, it does not have power also to deal with a claim arising under the same contract but arising from a different breach occurring in a different jurisdiction. A plaintiff could bring all matters together by pursuing the defendant in that defendant’s own jurisdiction of domicile.
Times 26-Oct-1999, C-420/97, [1999] EUECJ C-420/97
Bailii
Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 Art 5(1)
European

Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.162285

Emery v Hill: 14 Feb 1826

The Court was asked to make an order with respect to a bequest to the treasurer of a society established in Scotland for the propagation of Christian knowledge.
Held: The English court had no jurisdiction over a Scottish charity.
(1826) 1 Russ 112, [1826] EngR 807, (1826) 38 ER 44
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gaudiya Mission and others v Brahmachary CA 30-Jul-1997
The High Court had found the plaintiff to be a charity, and ordered the Attorney-General to be joined in. The A-G appealed that order saying that the plaintiff was not a charity within the 1993 Act. The charity sought to spread the Vaishnava . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.200669

Attorney-General v Lepine: 1818

The testator left part of his residuary estate for the benefit of a school for the poor in the parish of Dollar in Scotland.
Held: The English court declined jurisdiction. ‘I have always understood that, where a charity is to be administered in Scotland, this Court should not take into its own hands the administration.’ He directed that the money should be paid to trustees and administered under the supervision of the Scottish courts.
Lord Eldon LC
(1818) 2 Swanst 181, (1818) 1 Wils Ch 465, (1818) 36 ER 584 LC
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – The Attorney-General v Lepine 22-Feb-1815
. .
See Also – The Attorney-General v Lepine 1789
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Gaudiya Mission and others v Brahmachary CA 30-Jul-1997
The High Court had found the plaintiff to be a charity, and ordered the Attorney-General to be joined in. The A-G appealed that order saying that the plaintiff was not a charity within the 1993 Act. The charity sought to spread the Vaishnava . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.200668

Mayor of Lyons v East India Co: PC 12 Dec 1836

Lord Brougham said: ‘The objection, in the ordinary case, to administering a foreign charity under the superintendence of the Court, is this: those who are engaged in the actual execution of it, are beyond the Court’s control, and those who are within the jurisdiction are answerable to the Court for the acts of persons as to whom they can derive no aid from the Court. Such an office will not easily be undertaken by any one; and its duties cannot be satisfactorily performed; at least the party must rely more on the local, that is, the foreign, authorities for help, than on the Court to which he is accountable.’
Lord Brougham
(1836) 1 Moore’s PC 175, [1836] UKPC 23
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gaudiya Mission and others v Brahmachary CA 30-Jul-1997
The High Court had found the plaintiff to be a charity, and ordered the Attorney-General to be joined in. The A-G appealed that order saying that the plaintiff was not a charity within the 1993 Act. The charity sought to spread the Vaishnava . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.200665

Provost of Edinburgh v Aubery: 1754

The English court declined the jurisdiction for the distribution of a fund of 3,500 pounds bequeathed by the testator to the Provost of Edinburgh to be applied for the maintenance of poor labourers residing in Edinburgh and towns adjacent. He said that that belonged ‘to another jurisdiction, that is, to some of the courts in Scotland’. He ordered the fund to be transferred to such person as the Provost of Edinburgh should appoint.
Lord Hardwicke
(1754) Amb 236, [1737] EngR 53, (1737-1784) Amb 236, (1737) 27 ER 157 (A)
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gaudiya Mission and others v Brahmachary CA 30-Jul-1997
The High Court had found the plaintiff to be a charity, and ordered the Attorney-General to be joined in. The A-G appealed that order saying that the plaintiff was not a charity within the 1993 Act. The charity sought to spread the Vaishnava . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.200667

Jetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others: CA 31 Jul 2013

Defendants appealed against refusal of their request for a summary striking out for lack of jurisdiction, of the claims against them arising from their management of the insolvency of the first defendant.
Lord Dyson MR, Rimer, Patten LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 968, [2013] WLR(D) 333, [2014] 1 All ER (Comm) 176, [2013] 3 WLR 1167, [2014] 1 All ER 168, [2014] Ch 52, [2013] STI 2677, [2013] BCC 655, [2014] 1 BCLC 302, [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 113, [2013] Lloyd’s Rep FC 620, [2013] STC 2298
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
At first instance (1) – Bilta (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Nazir and Others ChD 17-May-2010
The sixth defendant resisted a claim against it saying that matters between them were governed by a framework agreement which provided for matters to be resolved by arbitration. The claimant resisted, denying the arbitration agreement and saying . .
At first instance (2) – Bilta (Uk) Ltd v Nazir and Others ChD 24-Nov-2010
The company had been wound up by the Revenue on the basis that it had been used for a substantial VAT fraud. The liquidators now sued those said to have participated. A defendant denied the jurisdiction because of a disputed arbitration agreement. . .
Cited – Moore Stephens (A Firm) v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liquidation) HL 30-Jul-2009
The appellants had audited the books of the respondent company, but had failed to identify substantial frauds by an employee of the respondent. The auditors appealed a finding of professional negligence, relying on the maxim ex turpi causa non . .
Cited – HMRC v Greener Solutions UTTC 18-Jan-2012
UTCC INPUT TAX – MTIC fraud – whether agent’s knowledge attributed to company – yes-appeal allowed
Greener Solutions sought repayment of the input tax incurred in respect of mobile telephones it had bought . .
Appeal from – Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others v Nazir and Others ChD 30-Jul-2012
The company was said to have engaged in a fraud based on false European Trading Scheme Allowances, and had been wound up by the Revenue. The liquidators, in the company name, now sought recovery from former directors and associates.
Held: The . .
Cited – Holman v Johnson 5-Jul-1775
ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Mansfield LCJ set out the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio: ‘The objection, that a contract is immoral or illegal as between plaintiff and defendant, sounds at all times very ill in the mouth of the defendant. It is not for his sake, . .
Cited – Salomon v A Salomon and Company Ltd HL 16-Nov-1896
A Company and its Directors are not same paersons
Mr Salomon had incorporated his long standing personal business of shoe manufacture into a limited company. He held nearly all the shares, and had received debentures on the transfer into the company of his former business. The business failed, and . .
Cited – Tinsley v Milligan CA 1992
The court considered the defence of illegal user to a claim to have established an easement by prescription: ‘These authorities seem to me to establish that when applying the ‘ex turpi causa’ maxim in a case in which a defence of illegality has been . .
Cited – Abrath v North Eastern Railway Co HL 15-Mar-1886
The plaintiff had brought an action against the company of malicious prosecution. It was rejected by the jury and again on appeal.
Held: The appeal failed. In an action for damages for the tort of malicious prosecution one of the elements of . .
Cited – The Citizens Life Assurance Company Limited v Brown PC 6-May-1904
(New South Wales) A malicious libel was alleged. The life assurance company was vicariously liable in respect of a libel contained in a circular sent out by a person who was employed by the company under a written agreement as its ‘superintendent of . .
Cited – West Mercia Safetywear Ltd v Dodds CA 1988
If a company continues to trade whilst insolvent but in the expectation that it would return to profitability, it should be regarded as trading not for the benefit of the shareholders, but for the creditors also. If there is a possibility of . .
Cited – Tinsley v Milligan CA 1992
The court considered the defence of illegal user to a claim to have established an easement by prescription: ‘These authorities seem to me to establish that when applying the ‘ex turpi causa’ maxim in a case in which a defence of illegality has been . .
Cited – Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013
In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Jetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others SC 22-Apr-2015
The liquidators of Bilta had brought proceedings against former directors and the appellant alleging that they were party to an unlawful means conspiracy which had damaged the company by engaging in a carousel fraud with carbon credits. On the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 August 2021; Ref: scu.514238

Harding v Wealands: HL 5 Jul 2006

Claim in UK for Accident in Australia

The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
Held: The claimant’s appeal was allowed. The Australian laws limiting the sums recoverable were procedural in nature and not substantive, and therefore the claimant was able to sue here. In a parliamentary debate on the Act, reassurance was given: ‘that the provision would prevent damages being awarded by reference to the law and standards of other countries. The particular problem raised by Lord Howie related to the high level of damages in the United States which he was anxious should not be replicated here. But it would be equally unacceptable if, say, United Kingdom courts had to award damages according to a statutory scale which, while adequate in another country because of the relatively low cost of services etc there, would be wholly inadequate in this country, having regard to the cost of the corresponding items here. As Parliament was assured by the Lord Chancellor, section 14(3)(b) guards against such eventualities. The interpretation advocated by the defendant would undermine the basis on which Parliament legislated. ‘
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: ‘Parliament did not enact a comprehensive scheme and a number of exceptions. It simply provided that the law chosen in accordance with sections 11 and 12 is to be used to determine certain issues, while the law of the forum is to continue to be used to determine others. The matters where the United Kingdom courts are to continue to use the law of the forum are spelled out in section 14(3). In particular, Parliament has decided not to authorise an English court to use anything other than English law to determine ‘questions of procedure’. This policy may be criticised as being liable to encourage forum shopping or on some other ground, but it is the policy of the legislature and, as such, it is entitled to exactly the same weight and respect as the policy in section 9(4) that certain other issues are to be determined by the law chosen in accordance with sections 11 and 12.’
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Woolf, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell
Times 06-Jul-2006, [2006] UKHL 32, [2006] 3 WLR 83, [2006] 2 CLC 193, [2006] RTR 35, [2006] 4 All ER 1
Bailii
Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, Damages (Personal Injury) Order 2001 (SI 2001/No 2001)
England and Wales
Citing:
At First Instance – Harding v Wealands QBD 27-May-2004
The claimant had been injured in a traffic accident in Australia. The parties lived together in England, but the driver was insured by an Australian company. He sought to sue here to avoid a limitation on damages imposed by Australian law. The issue . .
Appeal from – Harding v Wealands CA 17-Dec-2004
The claimant sought damages here for a road traffic accident which had occurred in Australia. The defendant was working in England. The defendant argued that the law of New South Wales applied.
Held: The general rule in section 11 was not to . .
Cited – Huber v Steiner 1835
An action was brought in 1835 on a French promissory note made in 1813 and payable in 1817. The defendant pleaded that by French law an action upon the note was prescribed.
Held: On its true construction, French law did not extinguish the debt . .
Cited – Phillips v Eyre CEC 1870
The court considered the rule of double actionability. The court laid down the test for whether a tort committed abroad was actionable in this jurisdiction: ‘As a general rule, in order to found a suit in England for a wrong alleged to have been . .
Cited – Red Sea Insurance Co Ltd v Bouygues SA and Others PC 21-Jul-1994
Lex loci delicti (the law of the jurisdiction in which the act complained of took place) can exceptionally be used when the lex fori (the jurisdiction formally assigned) gives no remedy. In the case of a claim under a foreign tort, the double . .
Cited – Robinson v Bland 1760
The plaintiff brought an action on a bill of exchange given in Paris in payment of gaming debts. By English law the debt was unenforceable but the plaintiff alleged that in France the debt could be enforced in a Court of Honour.
Held: Wilmot . .
Cited – Don v Lippmann HL 1837
An action was brought in Scotland in 1829 on two French bills of exchange accepted in 1810.
Held: The defendant was able to rely on the Scottish 6 year period of prescription because: ‘Whatever relates to the remedy to be enforced, must be . .
Cited – De la Vega v Vianna 1830
The plaintiff, a Spaniard, had the Portuguese defendant, arrested in England for non-payment of a debt contracted in Portugal. The defendant claimed to be released on the ground that in Portugal imprisonment for debt had been abolished in 1774.
Applied – Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
Cited – Cope v Doherty 1858
Owners of an American ship which had collided with and sunk another American ship applied to limit their liability pursuant to section 504 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854.
Held: The section did not apply to collisions between foreigners. . .
Cited – Cope v Doherty CA 2-Jan-1858
Turner LJ: ‘An attempt was made on the part of the appellants to bring this case within Don v Lippman and cases of that class, but I think those cases have no bearing upon the point. This is a question of liability, and not of procedure.’ . .
Cited – Allan J Panozza and Co Pty Ltd v Allied Interstate (Qld) Pty Ltd 1976
(New South Wales) A statutory limitation on damages deemed to be incorporated into a contract of carriage is ‘an express limitation upon the substantive liabilities.’ . .
Cited – Seismic Shipping Inc and Another v Total E and P UK Plc ‘The Western Regent’ CA 29-Jul-2005
. .
Cited – Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd HL 14-Feb-1980
Interpretation of Exclusion Clauses
The plaintiffs had contracted with the defendants for the provision of a night patrol service for their factory. The perils the parties had in mind were fire and theft. A patrol man deliberately lit a fire which burned down the factory. It was an . .
Cited – Adams v Cape Industries plc CA 2-Jan-1990
Proper Use of Corporate Entity to Protect Owner
The defendant was an English company and head of a group engaged in mining asbestos in South Africa. A wholly owned English subsidiary was the worldwide marketing body, which protested the jurisdiction of the United States Federal District Court in . .
Cited – Caltex Singapore Pte Ltd v BP Shipping Ltd 1996
A provision of Singapore law giving a ship-owner the right to limit his liability for damage resulting from a collision in Singapore was procedural, or at least not substantive. The limitation in question did not qualify the right of the claimants . .
Cited – Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof Aschaffenburg AG HL 5-Mar-1975
Statute’s Mischief May be Inspected
The House considered limitations upon them in reading statements made in the Houses of Parliament when construing a statute.
Held: It is rare that a statute can be properly interpreted without knowing the legislative object. The courts may . .
Cited – Roerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd CA 28-Jan-2002
The claimant who was Dutch, was a widow of a fisherman who had died at sea. The question on appeal was ‘in assessing damages for loss of dependency should benefits resulting from the loss be deducted from the damages?’ The claimant’s position under . .
Cited – Lowsley and Another v Forbes (Trading As I E Design Services) HL 29-Jul-1998
The plaintiffs, with the leave of the court, had obtained garnishee and charging orders nisi against the debtor 11 and a half years after they had obtained a consent judgment.
Held: An application by the judgment debtor to set aside the orders . .
Cited – Machado v Fontes CA 1897
The court held that the double actionability test could be relaxed to the extent that it was sufficient if the act was wrongful in the country where it was committed, even though any damage would not have been actionable in civil proceedings there. . .
Cited – Mitchell v McCulloch 1976
. .
Cited – Jackson and others v Attorney General HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant sought to challenge the 2004 Hunting Act, saying that it had been passed under the provisions of the 1949 Parliament Act which was itself an unlawful extension of the powers given by the 1911 Parliament Act to allow the House of . .
Cited – Tolofson v Jensen 1994
Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Conflict of laws – Torts – Traffic accident – Injured parties not resident in province where accident occurred – Actions instituted in home provinces of injured parties – Whether . .
Cited – Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v Department of Health and Social Security HL 2-Jan-1981
The court was asked whether nurses could properly involve themselves in a pregnancy termination procedure not known when the Act was passed, and in particular, whether a pregnancy was ‘terminated by a medical practitioner’, when it was carried out . .
Cited – Stevens v Head 18-Mar-1993
(High Court of Australia) The court considered a claim for damages arising out of a motor accident in New South Wales, where the claim had been brought in the courts of Queensland. The questions arose as to whether or not a provision in the Motor . .

Cited by:
Cited – Cooley v Ramsey QBD 1-Feb-2008
The claimant sought damages after being severely injured in a road traffic accident in Australia caused by the defendant. The defendant denied that the court had jurisdiction to permit service out of the jurisdiction. The claimant said that the . .
Cited – Knight v Axa Assurances QBD 24-Jul-2009
knight_axaQBD2009
The claimant was injured in a car accident in France. The defendant insurer said that the quantification of damages was to be according to French law and the calculation of interest also. The claimant said that English law applied.
Held: The . .
Cited – Cox v Ergo Versicherung Ag CA 25-Jun-2012
The deceased member of the armed forces had died in a road traffic accident in Germany. The parties didputed whether the principles governing the calculation of damages were those in the 1976 Act and UK law, or under German law.
Held: ‘There . .
Cited – Cox v Ergo Versicherung Ag SC 2-Apr-2014
The deceased army officer serving in Germany died while cycling when hit by a driver insured under German law. His widow, the claimant, being domiciled in England brought her action here, claiming for bereavement and loss of dependency. The Court . .
Cited – Cox v Ergo Versicherung Ag and Another QBD 28-Oct-2011
The deceased died in a road traffic accident whilst serving in the Armed forces in Germany. The driver was insured under German law. The widow now claimed damages in England. She had entered a new relationship.
Held: The object of section 844 . .
Cited – Moreno v The Motor Insurers’ Bureau SC 3-Aug-2016
The claimant had been severely injured when hit by a car in Greece. The car’s driver was uninsured. The Court was now asked whether the scope of her claim to damages was to be determined in accordance with English or Greek law. The implementation of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.242979

Oceano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores (Judgment): ECJ 27 Jun 2000

Europa Where a jurisdiction clause is included, without being individually negotiated, in a contract between a consumer and a seller or supplier and where it confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business, it must be regarded as unfair within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts in so far as it causes, contrary to the requirement of good faith, a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
The protection provided for consumers by Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts entails the national court being able to determine of its own motion whether a term of a contract before it is unfair when making its preliminary assessment as to whether a claim should be allowed to proceed before the national courts. The national court is obliged, when it applies national law provisions predating or postdating the said Directive, to interpret those provisions, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the Directive. The requirement for an interpretation in conformity with the Directive requires the national court, in particular, to favour the interpretation that would allow it to decline of its own motion the jurisdiction conferred on it by virtue of an unfair term.
Europa Approximation of laws – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13 – Power of the national court to determine of its own motion whether a term of a contract is unfair when making its assessment of the contract – Obligation to ensure the effectiveness of the directive when national law is applied. Where a jurisdiction clause is included, without being individually negotiated, in a contract between a consumer and a seller or supplier and where it confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business, it must be regarded as unfair within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts in so far as it causes, contrary to the requirement of good faith, a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
The protection provided for consumers by Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts entails the national court being able to determine of its own motion whether a term of a contract before it is unfair when making its preliminary assessment as to whether a claim should be allowed to proceed before the national courts. The national court is obliged, when it applies national law provisions predating or postdating the said Directive, to interpret those provisions, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the Directive. The requirement for an interpretation in conformity with the Directive requires the national court, in particular, to favour the interpretation that would allow it to decline of its own motion the jurisdiction conferred on it by virtue of an unfair term.
C-240/98, [2000] EUECJ C-240/98
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Cited – Khatun, Zeb, Iqbal v London Borough of Newham Admn 10-Oct-2003
Each applicant had been accepted as homeless by the respondent, but was then offered alternative accomodation under terms which they found unacceptable. They argued that the Regulations applied. The council had disapplied one statutory guidance in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.162435

Brac Rent-A-Car International Inc: ChD 7 Feb 2003

The company was incorporated in Delaware. Its main centre of business was within the UK. The company resisted an attempt to wind the company up here.
Held: The English courts had jurisdiction. The company’s contracts were subject to English law, their employees were here, and their contracts also were under UK law. Whilst article 3 did not expressly extend its ambit to companies incorporated outside the EU, it should be read to do so, because its scope was defined primarily by reference to the area of operations of the company, and such an application was not excluded.
The Hon Mr Justice Lloyd
Times 24-Feb-2003, [2003] EWHC 114 (Ch), Gazette 01-Apr-2003, [2003] 2 All ER 201
Bailii
Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 3, Insolvency Act 1986 8(7)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – In re The Salvage Association ChD 9-May-2003
The company wished to enter into a voluntary arrangement to protect itself from insolvency, but was an association incorporated by Royal Charter.
Held: For the purposes of the Act, the association was to be treated as having a legal persona . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.179589

Perform Content Services Ltd v Ness Global Services Ltd: CA 1 Jul 2021

Application of Article 33 of the Brussels Recast Regulation (which applies to the proceedings, as they were commenced before 1 January 2021) in circumstances where the defendant is domiciled in England and the parties agreed to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of England and Wales. The defendant, as it was entitled to do without breaching that agreement, commenced proceedings on the same cause of action before the Superior Court of New Jersey in the United States, which was the court first seised.
The claimant then commenced proceedings in the London Circuit Commercial Court. The defendant issued an application under CPR Part 11 to stay those proceedings or for the English Court to decline jurisdiction pending the final determination of the New Jersey proceedings. That application was heard by Stephen Houseman QC sitting as a Deputy High Court judge and, by his Order dated 21 December 2020, he dismissed the application. That is the Order under appeal.
Sir Julian Flaux C
[2021] EWCA Civ 981
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales

Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.663570

ING Bank NV and Another v Banco Santander SA: ComC 21 Dec 2020

Mrs Justice Cockerill DBE
[2020] EWHC 3561 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 August 2021; Ref: scu.657606

Weston v Bates and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2012

The claimant was asked to decide whether the claim papers had been properly served on the frst defendant who was resident in Monaco.
Tugendhat H
[2012] EWHC 590 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 August 2021; Ref: scu.452164

Commission v Cyprus (Jurisdiction And The Enforcement Of Judgments In Civil And Commercial Matters): ECJ 15 Mar 2012

ECJ Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Public notification of legal documents – Lack of known domicile or place of abode of the defendant in the territory of a Member State – Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ – Infringement of the right to protection of personality liable to have been committed by the publication of photographs on the internet – Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur
C-292/10, [2012] EUECJ C-292/10
Bailii
European

Updated: 12 August 2021; Ref: scu.452238

Girgis, Regina (on The Application of) v Joint Committee On Intercollegiate Examinations: Admn 6 Aug 2021

The following applications required determination following the oral hearing:
The Claimant’s applications for amendment of section 8 of the claim form to include an application for an extension of time of one day, relief from sanctions and the extension of time for filing as sought;
The Defendant’s application for an extension of time for filing its Acknowledgment of Service (‘AoS’) and relief from sanctions;
Subject to being satisfied that a legitimate challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction was engaged:
The Defendant’s application for a stay and a declaration that the court lacks jurisdiction to try the claim by virtue of the application of the Civil Jurisdiction and Justice Act 1982 (the CJJA) and/or the Union with Scotland Act 1706; or
In the alternative, that the court should exercise its discretion to stay this claim based upon the principles of forum non conveniens.
Conclusions
For the reasons that follow, my conclusions on the above applications are:
To grant the Claimant permission to amend, an extension of time to file the claim form;
To grant the Defendant an extension of time for filing the AoS and relief from sanctions;
To accept that there is an extant challenge to the jurisdiction of this Court, but to refuse the Defendant’s application for a declaration and/or stay of proceedings and to permit the Claim to proceed to the permission stage.
His Honour Judge Simon
[2021] EWHC 2256 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.666522

Adams v Cape Industries plc: ChD 1990

The piercing of the veil argument was used to attempt to bring an English public company, which was the parent company of a group which included subsidiaries in the United States, within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. Where a foreign judgment is impeachable on the ground of denial of procedural fairness, its enforcement would be contrary to public policy.
Scott J cautioned against ignoring the principle in Salomon merely because justice may be seen to require it, but at the same time recognised that the question is in each case the fact of presence and not some law of individual personality.
An agreement to accept jurisdiction must be express and cannot be implied.
Scott J
[1990] 1 Ch 433, [1990] BCLC 479; [1990] 2 WLR 657, [1991] 1 All ER 929, [1990] BCC 786
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sirdar Gurdyal Singh v The Rajah of Faridkote PC 28-Jul-1894
(Punjab) THe Rajah of Faridkote had obtained in the Civil Court of Faridkote (a native state) ex parte judgments against Singh (his former treasurer), which he sought to enforce in Lahore, in British India. Singh was not then resident in Faridkote . .
Wrongly decided – Blohn v Desser 1962
The plaintiff had obtained a default judgment in Austria against an Austrian partnership, and sought to enforce it in England against an English resident who was a sleeping partner in the firm. Her name was registered as a partner in the commercial . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Adams v Cape Industries plc CA 2-Jan-1990
Proper Use of Corporate Entity to Protect Owner
The defendant was an English company and head of a group engaged in mining asbestos in South Africa. A wholly owned English subsidiary was the worldwide marketing body, which protested the jurisdiction of the United States Federal District Court in . .
Cited – Vizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and Another PC 3-Feb-2016
No Contractual Obligation to Try Case in New York
(Gibraltar) The appellant had invested in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff. They were repaid sums before the fund collapsed, and the trustees now sought repayment by way of enforcement of an order obtained in New York.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.519365

Med Marine v Castillo Schiffahrts-Gmbh and Co Kg Ms and Another: ComC 28 Mar 2014

Defendants’ application pursuant to CPR Part 11 for orders that (1) the defendants’ application contesting the jurisdiction of this court is granted; (2) the service of the claim form on the defendant is set aside, and (3) the claimant’s claim is dismissed.
Hofmeyr QC
[2014] EWHC 1064 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.523665

BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt: 1976

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 [1955] 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.’
Kerr J
[1976] 3 All ER 879, [1976] 1 WLR 788
RSC Order 11 rule 1(d)(iii)
England and Wales
Citing:
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 by:
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

Sirdar Gurdyal Singh v The Rajah of Faridkote: PC 28 Jul 1894

(Punjab) THe Rajah of Faridkote had obtained in the Civil Court of Faridkote (a native state) ex parte judgments against Singh (his former treasurer), which he sought to enforce in Lahore, in British India. Singh was not then resident in Faridkote and did not appear in the actions or otherwise submit to the jurisdiction. It was argued, for the Rajah, that the Faridkote court had jurisdiction over Singh because, ‘[b]y becoming state treasurer, [he] submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Faridkote Court, for where a man takes office in a state he must be deemed to have agreed to be bound by the jurisdiction of that state as accounting for money due from him to that state in respect of that office. In any case, where an office is accepted in that way, and the whole cause of action arises in that state, there is jurisdiction which is obligatory on the acceptor’Held: The Board rejected the argument.
Lord Selborne LC, speaking for the Privy Council, said of an agreement or consent to the jurisdiction of a foreign court being implied or inferred, that ‘such obligation, unless expressed, could not be implied’
Lord Selborne LC
[1894] UKPC 44, [1894] AC 670
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Schibsby v Westenholz CA 1980
The parties were both Danish, the plaintiffs resident in France and the defendants in London. The plaintiffs now sought to enforce a judgment obtained against the defendangt in France in default of their appearance. The defendants had no property in . .

Cited by:
Cited – Vizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and Another PC 3-Feb-2016
No Contractual Obligation to Try Case in New York
(Gibraltar) The appellant had invested in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff. They were repaid sums before the fund collapsed, and the trustees now sought repayment by way of enforcement of an order obtained in New York.
Held: The . .
Cited – Emanuel v Symon CA 1908
Kennedy LJ confirmedtaht the Faridkote case had decided of a suggested obligation to submit to a foreign jurisdiction that it: ‘was not to be implied from the mere fact of entering into a contract in a foreign country’. . .
Cited – Mattar and Saba v Public Trustee 1952
Alberta Appellate Division – The court denied enforcement of a Quebec judgment on promissory notes, and held that an agreement to submit to the jurisdiction of a foreign court is not to be implied from the fact that the defendant has entered into a . .
Cited – Adams v Cape Industries plc ChD 1990
The piercing of the veil argument was used to attempt to bring an English public company, which was the parent company of a group which included subsidiaries in the United States, within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. Where a . .
Cited – Vizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and Another PC 3-Feb-2016
No Contractual Obligation to Try Case in New York
(Gibraltar) The appellant had invested in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff. They were repaid sums before the fund collapsed, and the trustees now sought repayment by way of enforcement of an order obtained in New York.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.417560

Regina v Keyn: 13 Nov 1876

The court considered the significance of the existence of an academic consensus as to the meaning of an international convention. Cockburn CJ said: ‘even if entire unanimity had existed in respect of the important particulars to which I have referred, in place of so much discrepancy of opinion, the question would still remain, how far the law as stated by the publicists had received the assent of the civilized nations of the world. For writers on international law, however valuable their labours may be in elucidating and ascertaining the principles and rules of law, cannot make the law. To be binding, the law must have received the assent of the nations who are to be bound by it. This assent may be express, as by treaty or the acknowledged concurrence of governments, or may be implied from established usage . . ‘ and
‘Nor, in my opinion, would the clearest proof of unanimous assent on the part of other nations be sufficient to authorize the tribunals of this country to apply, without an Act of Parliament, what would practically amount to a new law. In so doing we should be unjustifiably usurping the province of the legislature. The assent of nations is doubtless sufficient to give the power of parliamentary legislation in a matter otherwise within the sphere of international law; but it would be powerless to confer without such legislation a jurisdiction beyond and unknown to the law, such as that now insisted on, a jurisdiction over foreigners in foreign ships on a portion of the high seas.’
The prisoner was indicted at the Central Criminal Court for manslaughter. He was a foreigner and in command of a foreign ship, passing within three miles of the shore of England on a voyage to a foreign port; and whilst within that distance his ship ran into a British ship and sank her, whereby a passenger on board the latter ship was drowned. The facts of the case were such as to amount to manslaughter by English law.
Held: By the majority of the Court (Cockburn, C.J., Kelly, C.B., Bramwell, J.A., Lush and Field, JJ., Sir R. Phiilimore, and Pollock, B.; Lord Coleridge, CJ, Brett and Amphlett, JJ.A., Grove, Denman, and Lindley, JJ., dissenting), that the Central Criminal Court had no jurisdiction to try the prisoner for the offence charged.
By the whole of the majority of the Court, on the ground that, prior to 28 Hen. 8, c. 15, the admiral had no jurisdiction to try offences by foreigners on board foreign ships, whether within or without the limit of three miles from the shore of England; that that and the subsequent statutes only transferred to the Common Law Courts and the Central Criminal Court the jurisdiction formerly possessed by the admiral; and that, therefore, in the absence of statutory enactment, the Central Criminal Court had no power to try such an offence.
By Kelly, C.B., and Sir R. Phiilimore, also, on the ground that, by the principles of international law, the power of a nation over the sea within three miles of its coasts is only for certain limited purposes; and that Parliament could not, consistently with those principles, apply English criminal law within those limits.
Held, contra, by Lord Coleridge, C.J., Brett and Amphlett, JJ.A., Grove, Denman, and Lindley, JJ., on the ground that the sea within three miles of the coast of England is part of the territory of England; that the English criminal law extends over those limits; and the admiral formerly had, and the Central Criminal Court now has, jurisdiction to try offences there committed although on board foreign ships.
By Lord Coleridge, C.J., and Denman, J., on the ground that the prisoner’s ship having run into a British ship and sank it, and so caused the death of a passenger on board the latter ship, the offence was committed on board a British ship, and, therefore, the Central Criminal Court had jurisdiction.
Cockburn CJ
(1876) 2 Ex D 63, (1876-1877) 2 ExD 63, [1876] UKLawRpExch 73, [1876] UKLawRpExch 73, (1876-1877) 2 ExD 63
Cmmonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others HL 9-Dec-2004
Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders
The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than . .
Cited – Regina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence
Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.220674

In re Grosvenor Hotel, London (No 2): CA 1964

Lord Denning MR said that the Rules Committee ‘can make rules for regulating and prescribing the procedure and practice of the Court, but cannot alter the rules of evidence.’ Public policy protects against disclosure any documents which relate to the framing of government policy at a high level.
The Rules of the Supreme Court cannot change the substantive law unless expressly permitted so to do by statute.
Lord Denning MR, Salmon LJ
[1965] Ch 1210, [1964] 3 All ER 354
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Kelly, Regina (on the Application of) v Warley Magistrates Court and The Law Society Admn 31-Jul-2007
. .
Cited – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside . .
Cited – Dunhill v Burgin SC 12-Mar-2014
Lack of Capacity – Effect on Proceedings
The Court was asked ‘First, what is the test for deciding whether a person lacks the mental capacity to conduct legal proceedings on her own behalf (in which case the Civil Procedure Rules require that she has a litigation friend to conduct the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2021; Ref: scu.372591

Stonebridge Underwriting Ltd v Ontario Municipal Insurance Exchange: ComC 10 Sep 2010

The defendant sought to set aside leave to serve proceedings on it, saying that the proper forum was not England.
Christopher Clarke J
[2010] EWHC 2279 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 01 August 2021; Ref: scu.424855