Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp and Others v Recoletos Ltd and Others: ComC 12 Jul 2012

The seventh defendant sought to be excused from the case denying the court’s jurisdiction. He had been a director.

Judges:

Teare J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1887 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Brussels Regulation

Citing:

See AlsoAntonio Gramsci Shipping Corporation and Others v Recoletos Ltd and Others ComC 24-May-2010
The claimants sought summary judgment in their claims alleging fraud by the several defendants.
Held: Gross J granted leave to the Corporate Defendants to defend only upon terms of (in effect) a payment into court of $40 million. . .

Cited by:

CitedVTB 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.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462541

Alliance Bank JSC v Aquanta Corporation and Others: ComC 14 Dec 2011

The defendants applied to have set aside the leave to serve proceedings on them out of the jurisdiction.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3281 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedVTB 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 . .
Appeal fromAlliance Bank Jsc v Aquanta Corporation and Others CA 12-Dec-2012
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460446

Scottish and Newcastle International Ltd v Othon Ghalanos Ltd: CA 20 Dec 2006

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1750, [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 341, [2007] 1 All ER (Comm) 10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromScottish and Newcastle International Limited v Othon Ghalanos Ltd HL 20-Feb-2008
The defendant challenged a decision that the English court had jurisdiction to hear a claim in contract saying that the appropriate court was in Cyprus. The cargo was taken by ship from Liverpool to Limassol. An English court would only have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.247489

Regina (Majead) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Secretary of State for the Home Department Interested Party: CA 1 Apr 2003

The applicant had arrived in England to apply for asylum but had then been moved to Scotland. A decision of the adjudication officer in Scotland had been heard by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal sitting in London. The claimant sought a High Court review of that decision in London.
Held: The review could only be conducted by the Court of Session. The considerations were not those of a private action as to forum conveniens, but had constitutional implications. Though some residual jurisdiction lay in London, this was not an exceptional case and was to be heard in Scotland. Parliament had made clear that the courts of Scotland should have ultimate responsibility in relation to appeals to the IAT from adjudicators in Scotland. Without deciding the point Brooke LJ noted that in a ‘real emergency’ the High Court might exercise jurisdiction over IAT decisions relating to appeals from adjudicators in Scotland but that would have to be a ‘very exceptional case’.

Judges:

Brooke, Hale, Wilson LJJ

Citations:

Times 24-Apr-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 615, Gazette 12-Jun-2003

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina (Shah) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Secretary of State for the Home Department, interested party CA 22-Nov-2004
The applicant had fled Pakistan to claim asylum. His application for judicial review of the decision to reject his request for asylum failed. It had been decided in Scotland. He appealed.
Held: It was not open to the Secretary of State to . .
CitedTehrani 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.

Scotland, Jurisdiction, Immigration, Constitutional

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.181842

Tugushev v Orlov and Others: ComC 27 Mar 2019

Held: Challenge to jurisdiction rejected.

Judges:

Carr J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 645 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoTugushev v Orlov and Others ComC 14-Dec-2018
Defendant’s application for security for costs. . .

Cited by:

See AlsoTugushev v Orlov and Others (No 2) ComC 26-Jul-2019
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Torts – Other, Jurisdiction

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.642112

MacSteel Commercial Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Thermasteel V (Canada) Inc: CA 1996

The South African and Canadian parties had contracted subject to the law of England. The Canadian company said that England remained inappropriate as the choice of forum.
Held: Jurisdiction was declined.
The distinction between the choice of English law and a contractual choice of an English forum was a distinction of major importance when choosing a jurisdiction. Millett LJ said that the judge had made a fundamental error in equating choice of law with choice of forum.

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Millett LJ

Citations:

[1996] CLC 1403

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSawyer 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 . .
CitedNovus 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.

Jurisdiction, Contract

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.237269

Milor SRL and Others v British Airways Plc: CA 15 Feb 1996

The Warsaw Convention allows ‘forum shopping’, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies. Article 28(1) specifies the jurisdictions in which claims under the Convention may be brought. If the English Court is one of those jurisdictions, then our procedural rules which permit an action to be stayed in favour of another jurisdiction on grounds of convenience should not be applied in favour of another competent jurisdiction.
Phillips LJ said: ‘by way of example, if the procedural law of the chosen forum imposed a 12 month limitation period, it does not seem to me that this could displace the two year period of limitation laid down by article 29 of the Convention’.

Judges:

Phillips LJ

Citations:

Times 15-Feb-1996, [1996] QB 702

Statutes:

Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGKN Westland Helicopters Ltd and Another v Korean Air Lines Co Ltd; Press Tech Controls Ltd v Same ComC 19-May-2003
The sum accepted as a payment in, in an air carriage case was capable of being the ‘amount of damages’ awarded under the convention. That it exceeded the amount offered in settlement negotiations meant that the rights to costs under article 22.4 . .
CitedLaroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd CA 21-Jan-2009
Hot Air balloon was an aircraft: damages limited
The claimant was injured flying in the defendant’s hot air balloon. The defendant said that the journey was covered by the 1967 Regulations and the damages limited accordingly. The claimant appealed against a decision that the balloon was an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Jurisdiction, Transport

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.83735

Balkanbank v Taher and Others (No 3): CA 1 Dec 1994

The court will allow a counterclaim on an undertaking after the action had ceased in other Jurisdiction, and the court had power to award damages arising from a Mareva injunction obtained in Ireland.

Citations:

Times 01-Dec-1994, Gazette 05-Jan-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoBalkanbank v Taher and Others 19-Feb-1994
Disclosure of legal advice. . .
See AlsoBalkanbank v Taher and Others (No 2) CA 18-Nov-1994
The plaintiffs had sued in Ireland and obtained a Mareva injunction. That injunction was then first extended to a worldwide injunction, before being set aside. The court could itself to enquire as to damages without deciding whether to enforce the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.78115

The Nile Rhapsody: CA 1994

Citations:

[1994] 1LLR 382

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromThe Nile Rhapsody ComC 1992
. .

Cited by:

Appealed toThe Nile Rhapsody ComC 1992
. .
CitedTryg 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.197877

Polly Peck International Plc v Nadir and Others: CA 17 Mar 1993

For a bank to be sued for breach of trust after receipt of funds, it was not necessary to show that the bank knew of the fraud, but rather that it knew the funds were trust funds, and that they were being misapplied. A Mareva injunction should be issued against a bank only after great care. It would affect the operation of the bank. An application should normally be by way of a tracing claim rather than a Mareva injunction.

Citations:

Independent 31-Mar-1993, Unreported, 17 March 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoPolly Peck International Plc v Nadir (No 2) CA 19-Mar-1992
Appeal against the grant of a Mareva injunction.
Lord Donaldson MR said: ‘I therefore turn to the principles underlying the jurisdiction. (1) So far as it lies in their power, the Courts will not permit the course of justice to be frustrated by . .

Cited by:

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

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction, Banking

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.84791

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 when the English court becomes definitively seised of proceedings’. The ECJ in the Zelger case had ’emphasise[d] the importance of certainty in national procedural laws’, and that ‘a ‘date of service’ rule would be readily comprehensible not only in England but also in other Contracting States.’

Judges:

Steyn LJ, Peter Gibson LJ and Sir Tasker Watkins

Citations:

Times 04-Apr-1994, [1994] 3 All ER 180

Statutes:

Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ConsideredDresser 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 . .
CitedSiegfried 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 by:

CitedNussberger 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 . .
CitedCanada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2) HL 12-Oct-2000
The plaintiffs alleged the involvement of the defendant in a conspiracy to defraud. He had been domiciled in England, but had moved to Germany. He denied that the UK court had jurisdiction. The court of appeal said that jurisdiction was determined . .
CitedPhillips 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.

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.84257

H (a Minor) (Foreign Custody Order: Enforcement): CA 19 Nov 1993

After a divorce, the Belgian Court had granted the father a contact order, for him to receive her at home at holidays. The mother moved to England, breaching the order. The father had the order registered here, then sought to enforce it. The court had found the girl to have a genuine fear of the father, but thought that he had no discretion.
Held: The High court did indeed have a discretion. The phrase ‘recognition and enforcement’ were to be read disjunctively, and enforcement would not follow automatically from registration. A foreign court order need not be enforced here if it was clearly no longer in the child’s best interests.

Citations:

Times 19-Nov-1993, Ind Summary 22-Nov-1993, [1994] 2 WLR 269

Statutes:

European Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions etc 10(1), Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 16 S2-A10(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Jurisdiction

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.81917

Continental Bank Na v Aeakos Compania Naviera Sa and Others: CA 26 Nov 1993

The Bank was entitled to an injunction in the UK, by virtue of the jurisdiction given in their agreement, even though it was not the UK court which was first seised of the matter. Steyn LJ said: ‘. . a claim for damages for breach of contract would be a relatively ineffective remedy. An injunction is the only effective remedy for the appellants’ breach of contract. If the injunction is set aside, the appellants will persist in their breach of contract, and the bank’s legal rights as enshrined in the jurisdiction agreements will prove to be valueless. Given the total absence of special countervailing factors, this is the paradigm case for the grant of an injunction . .’

Judges:

Steyn LJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 13-Dec-1993, Times 26-Nov-1993, [1994] 1 WLR 588

Statutes:

Brussels Convention 1968 Art 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNational Westminster Bank v Utrecht-America Finance Company CA 10-May-2001
An agreement between the parties for assignment or novation of a credit agreement, contained a ‘take out’ agreement (‘TOA’). The defendant began proceedings in California to rescind the agreement, and the claimants obtained summary judgement under . .
CitedOT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corporation and others CA 13-Jun-2005
The parties to a contract had agreed that the proper law for the contract was England. One party commenced proceedings in Canada, and the courts of Canada had accepted jurisdiction as the most appropriate and convenient forum to resolve the dispute. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Banking, Jurisdiction

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.79470

British American Tobacco Switzerland Sa and Others v Exel Europe Ltd and Others: ComC 23 Mar 2012

Defendants (companies registered in Holland) denied that the UK court had jurisdiction to try the claim against them.
Held: The consignors could not succeed, and the court set aside the proceedings against the sub-contractors. The ‘defendant’ who is the subject-matter of article 31.1 is any successive carrier who can be sued pursuant to article 36, i.e. first, last or performing carrier. Therefore, it was that defendant’s branch or agency and that defendant’s contract or sub-contract of carriage which were in issue. Where a successive carrier comes into being on what has been called the ‘statutory contract’ made by reason of acceptance of the goods and the consignment note, the judge observed that there can be no branch or agency in question. Therefore, ‘The only contract which can . . be concluded through a branch or agency is the contract between carriers’, i.e. the sub-contract.

Judges:

Cooke J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 694 (Comm), [2012] 2 Lloyds Rep 1, [2013] 1 WLR 397, [2012] WLR(D) 98, [2012] 1 CLC 549

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965, Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 31.1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromBritish American Tobacco Switzerland SA and Others v Exel Europe Ltd CA 30-Oct-2013
Large quantities of tobacco had been stolen from containers whilst in transit across Euurope. The consignors, now the appellants sought recovery from the sub-contractors who had custody of them at the time.
Held: The consignors appeal . .
At first instanceBritish American Tobacco Denmark A/S v Kazemier Bv SC 28-Oct-2015
One container loaded with cigarettes was allegedly hi-jacked in Belgium en route between Switzerland and The Netherlands in September 2011, while another allegedly lost 756 of its original 1386 cartons while parked overnight contrary to express . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Transport

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.452390

Rec Wafer Norway As v Moser Baer Photo Voltaic Ltd: ComC 15 Oct 2010

The claimant sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain the defendant continuing proceedings in India which it said were in breach of a jurisdiction clause in arbitration proceedings.

Judges:

Blair J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2581 (Comm), [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 410

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.425313

Sarrio Sa v Kuwait Investment Authority: HL 17 Nov 1997

The parties were spanish companies. They were involved in proceedings against each other in Spain. The respondent had begun an action here for negligent misrepresentation against the appellant. The appellant argued that given the Spanish proceedings, the English court did not have jurisdiction because of article 22.
Held: If the actions were related then the Spanish courts were first seised and had exclusive jurisdiction. The decision as to whether actions are related to each other, is based upon broad common sense, and not on any distinction between essential and non-essential issues.

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Saville

Citations:

Times 17-Nov-1997, [1997] UKHL 49, [1999] AC 32, [1997] 4 All ER 929, [1997] 3 WLR 1143, [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 129, [1998] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 57, [1997] CLC 1640, [1998] ILPr 319, Independent 19-Nov-1997

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Brussels Convention 1968 Art 22, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act of 1982 22

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromSarrio SA v Kuwait Investment Authority CA 12-Aug-1996
. .
CitedThe 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 . .
At First InstanceSarrio SA v Kuwait Investment Authority ComC 12-Oct-1995
cw Conflict of laws – Brussels Convention – articles 21-22 – right to invoke – independent of domicile – forum conveniens – defendant domiciled in non-Contracting State – exclusion of common law rules – same . .

Cited by:

CitedCasio Computer Co Ltd v Sayo and others CA 11-Apr-2001
The court was asked whether a constructive trust claim based on dishonest assistance is a matter ‘relating to tort, delict or quasi delict’ for the purpose of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention?
Held: A constructive trust claim based upon . .
CitedIn 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Jurisdiction

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.89014

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 in The Tatry was given on 6 December 1994. Shevill was argued before the Grand Chamber on 10 January 1995; and judgment was delivered on 7 March 1995. Of the 11 judges who sat in Shevill, 6 had also sat in The Tatry. Neither Advocate General Leger nor the court referred to The Tatry, which had been decided in the previous month. In Shevill both Advocates-General drew a distinction between ‘conflicting judgments’ on the one hand, and ‘irreconcilable judgments’ on the other. That does not appear to be the case in The Tatry, in which the court referred only to ‘conflicting judgments’. The court in Shevill did not cast doubt on the Advocates General’s distinction; and its answer to question 6 might be thought to recognise implicitly that the existence of another possible jurisdiction did not deprive the claimant of his right to sue. How Shevill and The Tatry are to be reconciled is not, in my judgment, a straightforward question. On one view, Shevill (and after it eDate) give a claimant the substantive right to sue in each member state where the libel has been published, with the consequence that that right is not to be taken away by procedural means. On another view, the mere fact that there is a right to begin proceedings in a particular member state does not entail the consequence that the claimant is entitled to prosecute those proceedings all the way to trial. There is something to be said for each point of view. So I would prefer not to decide between them in a case in which it makes no difference to the outcome of the appeal.’
Bean LJ giving the leading judgment preferred what Lewison LJ had characterised as ‘another view’, albeit holding that it was unnecessary for his decision: ‘I accept the submission of Mr McCormick that the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the ECJ in Shevill is an authority about the right of a claimant to issue claims in each jurisdiction pursuant to RBR Article 7(2) [the equivalent to Article 5(3) of the Lugano Convention], not about whether the ‘related actions’ provisions of Article 30 can then be applied to such claims. The proposition for which Ms Page contends seems rather extreme. Suppose that someone is found stabbed to death and the defendant publishes an article, which is circulated throughout Europe, alleging that the deceased was murdered by the claimant. If Ms Page is right, the claimant, assuming he can afford it, has an absolute right to bring 27 separate libel claims against the defendant and (subject to any local case management decisions) to push each of them along towards a trial and judgment in whichever order he, the claimant, chooses. No stay can be granted, still less jurisdiction declined, under Article 30; and if in the first trial it is found that the claimant did in fact murder the deceased then, no matter: he can try again in another Member State because there is no risk of ‘irreconcilable’ judgments, only of ‘conflicting’ ones. This does not seem to me to accord with common sense. It also enables a claimant with deep pockets to oppress a defendant by suing him in 27 jurisdictions.’

Judges:

Lewison, Bean, Baker LJJ

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 1932, [2019] 4 WLR 156, [2019] WLR(D) 623

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedeDate 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 by:

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

Defamation, Jurisdiction

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.643874

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’) – Whether a person alleged to have committed a harmful act may bring a person who might be adversely affected before the courts with jurisdiction for the place where the act allegedly occurred or may occur, seeking a declaration that there is no liability in tort or delict

Judges:

A. Tizzano, P

Citations:

[2012] WLR (D) 292, C-133/11, [2014] 1 All ER (Comm) 569, [2013] ILPr 1, [2013] CEC 727, [2013] 2 WLR 373, ECLI:EU:C:2012:664, [2013] QB 523

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

OpinionFolien Fischer Ag and Another v Ritrama Spa ECJ 19-Apr-2012
ECJ (Opinion) Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Special grounds of jurisdiction – Matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict – . .

Cited by:

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

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.465404

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 proceedings in Greece making substantially similar allegations and claims, but under the equivalent in Greek law. In response the insurance underwriters issued proceedings here under the Tomlin orders settling the first proceedings requesting a stay of the proceedings in Greece. At first instance the Judge refused a saty under Article 28, and awarded judgment to the insurers. On appeal the CA granted a stay under article 27, not having to decide the A28 claim. The insurers now challenged the stay granted under A27, saying that a stay under article 28 was correctly refused.
Held: The stay under A27 should not have been granted. A stay under A27 depended upon the claims being the same in the two jurisdictions, so that a risk of irreconcilable judgments arose. There was an insufficient identity between the claims settled and the claims now made. The settled claims were in contract, and the current Greek claims were in tort. Also the factual base and objects of the two sets of proceedings differed.
As to A28, a stay was available only to a court other than the court first seized. Such a stay was discretionary and intended again to avoid conflicts between jurisdictions. In this case, the natural place was the UK, and proceedings had already reached an advanced stage. The cross appeal was dismissed and the decision refusing a stay under A28 was correct.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes

Citations:

[2013] UKSC 70, [2013] 2 CLC 713, [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 223, [2014] Lloyd’s Rep IR 327, [2014] 1 All ER 590, [2014] BUS LR 873, [2014] 1 All ER (Comm) 337, UKSC 2013/0023

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 27 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At first instanceStarlight Shipping Company v Allianz Marine and Aviation Versicherungs Ag and Others (Alexandros T) ComC 19-Dec-2011
Starlight had sued its insurers for payment under policies with regard to the Alexandros T. After allegations of serious misconduct were made against some of the insurance underwiters, the matter was settled with full liabiity under the terms of a . .
At CAStarlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine and Aviation Versicherungs Ag and Others CA 20-Dec-2012
The Alexander T, owned by the appellant and insured by the respondents was a total loss. The insurers resisted payment, the appellant came to allege improperly, and the parties had settled the claim on full payment under a Tomlin Order. The owners . .
CitedFolien 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’) . .
CitedThe 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 . .
CitedSarrio SA v Kuwait Investment Authority CA 12-Aug-1996
. .
CitedSarrio Sa v Kuwait Investment Authority HL 17-Nov-1997
The parties were spanish companies. They were involved in proceedings against each other in Spain. The respondent had begun an action here for negligent misrepresentation against the appellant. The appellant argued that given the Spanish . .
CitedUnderwriting Members of Lloyd’s Syndicate 980 and others v Sinco Sa ComC 29-Jul-2008
The claimants, insurers, relied upon an exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in a binder given to a Greek broker. It set England and Wales for any dispute. The insurers had terminated the binder alleging fraudulent conduct by the broker. A . .

Cited by:

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

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.517444

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 2000/31/EC – Publication of information on the internet – Adverse effect on personality rights – Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur – Law applicable to information society services

Judges:

President V Skouris

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ C-161/10, C-509/09, C-161/10, [2011] WLR (D) 330, [2012] ILPr 8, [2012] EMLR 12

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, Directive 2000/31/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See AlsoEdate Advertising v X ECJ 29-Mar-2011
ECJ Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction ‘in tort or quasi-delict’ – Violation of personal rights that may have been committed by the publication of information . .
See AlsoEdate Advertising v X, Martinez v MGN Ltd ECJ 25-Oct-2011
Grand Chamber – Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice) – 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 by:

CitedNT 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 . .
CitedEuroeco 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 . .
CitedWright 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Jurisdiction, Human Rights

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.451140

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.
Held: The application succeeded in part. The proceedings involved the same cause of action.
There was an identity of ’cause of action’ – the term bearing an independent and autonomous meaning in European law divorced from any criteria of national law. In particular:
‘Fundamentally, it is the rights and obligations of the parties in relation to the same facts which, in my judgment, matters here. Each court will be concerned with the respective rights and obligations of the parties, however those are classified and determined by the national courts of each country. . . The way the claim is framed and the arguments in support of it may fall to be taken into account, but ultimately, the question must be seen broadly in terms of the judgment sought and not in terms of the issues raised on the way.’
Cooke J also rejected a proposition that the test in a lis pendens case was ‘to ask whether a decision in one set of proceedings would be a conclusive answer to the questions raised in the other’. The fact that the German court would be addressing questions of public policy which would not arise in this jurisdiction, and would therefore be approaching one aspect of the enforceability of the loan agreement in a different way, was not a relevant factor: it was in the nature of an issue raised on the way. The key point was that the enforceability of the loan agreement, and the reciprocal rights and obligations of the parties under it, was the common theme both in Germany and here. The examination must be of ‘the basic facts (whether in dispute or not) and the basic claimed rights and obligations of the parties to see if there is coincidence between them’.

Judges:

Cooke J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 508 (Comm), [2005] 1 CLC, [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 665

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTelevision Autonomica Valenciana, Sa v Imagina Contenidos Audiovisuales, Sl ChD 8-Feb-2013
The defendant sought a stay of these proceedings pending the outcome of related proceedings in Spain. The claimant sought a declaration that a contract was terminated and damages for such breach. The Spanish proceedings were first in time.
CitedStarlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine and Aviation Versicherungs Ag and Others CA 20-Dec-2012
The Alexander T, owned by the appellant and insured by the respondents was a total loss. The insurers resisted payment, the appellant came to allege improperly, and the parties had settled the claim on full payment under a Tomlin Order. The owners . .
CitedWright 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.279048

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 (claimant in Holland) responded by setting off a counterclaim for breach of the long-term contract.
Held: The causes of actions were not the same. The fact that the defence and counterclaim in Austria relied on the long-term contract sued upon in Holland was irrelevant since that reliance only appeared in Austria as a defence. Where proceedings between the same parties relating to the same cause of action had been begun in separate jurisdictions, the court second to be apprised should stay those proceedings. When looking at whether they were the same cause, only the claimants claims should be inspected, not any issues rasied by the defendants.
ECJ REFERENCE to the Court under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court

Judges:

Wathelet (Rapporteur), P

Citations:

C-111/01, Times 14-May-2003, [2003] EUECJ C-111/01, [2003] ECR 1-4207

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 21

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedKolden Holdings Ltd v Rodette Commerce Ltd and Another CA 21-Jan-2008
Lawrence Collins LJ said: ‘For the purposes of article 27, the question whether the ‘same cause of action’ is raised before the courts of two member states is answered by looking at the claims made, and not at the defences raised at a later stage to . .
CitedStarlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine and Aviation Versicherungs Ag and Others CA 20-Dec-2012
The Alexander T, owned by the appellant and insured by the respondents was a total loss. The insurers resisted payment, the appellant came to allege improperly, and the parties had settled the claim on full payment under a Tomlin Order. The owners . .
CitedWright 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.182128

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 of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic, the victim of a libel by a newspaper article distributed in several Contracting States may bring an action for damages against the publisher either before the courts of the Contracting State of the place where the publisher of the defamatory publication is established, which have jurisdiction to award damages for all the harm caused by the defamation, or before the courts of each Contracting State in which the publication was distributed and where the victim claims to have suffered injury to his reputation, which have jurisdiction to rule solely in respect of the harm caused in the State of the court seised. The criteria for assessing whether the event in question is harmful and the evidence required of the existence and extent of the harm alleged by the plaintiff in an action in tort, delict or quasi-delict are not governed by the Convention but are determined in accordance with the substantive law designated by the national conflict of laws rules of the court seised on the basis of the Convention, provided that the effectiveness of the Convention is not thereby impaired. The fact that under the national law applicable to the main proceedings damage is presumed in libel actions, so that the plaintiff does not have to adduce evidence of the existence and extent of that damage, does not therefore preclude the application of Article 5(3) of the Convention.
The Court considered jurisdiction in relation to an action for defamation under article 5(3), observing: ‘In the area of non-contractual liability, the context in which the questions referred have arisen, the sole object of the Convention is to determine which court or courts have jurisdiction to hear the dispute by reference to the place or places where an event considered harmful occurred.
It does not, however, specify the circumstances in which the event giving rise to the harm may be considered to be harmful to the victim, or the evidence which the plaintiff must adduce before the court seised to enable it to rule on the merits of the case.
Those questions must therefore be settled solely by the national court seised, applying the substantive law determined by its national conflict of laws rules, provided that the effectiveness of the Convention is not thereby impaired.’

Citations:

C-68/93, [1995] ECR I-415, [1995] EUECJ C-68/93, [1995] 2 AC 18

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 5(3)

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See AlsoShevill 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 by:

CitedMazur 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 . .
See AlsoShevill 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 . .
CitedBerezovsky 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 . .
CitedBols 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 . .
CitedWright 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.161090

Mujur Bakat Sdn Bhd and Another v Uni Asia General Insurance Berhad and Others: ComC 18 Mar 2011

Eder J said: ‘in considering whether or not England is the most appropriate forum, it is necessary to have in mind the overall shape of any trial and, in particular what are, or what are at least likely to be, the issues between the parties and which will ultimately be required to be determined at any trial. These were originally set out in two letters’

Judges:

Eder J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 643 (Comm), [2011] Lloyds Rep IR 465

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedVTB 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.

Insurance, Jurisdiction

Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.430671

MRG (Japan) Ltd v Engelhard Metals Japan Ltd: ComC 18 Dec 2003

Application to set aside leave to serve out of jurisdiction.There must a ‘good arguable case’ to justify such service.

Judges:

Toulson J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 3418 (Comm), [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 731

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMetropolitan 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 . .
CitedAhuja v Politika Novine I Magazini Doo and Others QBD 23-Nov-2015
Action for misuse of private information and libel. Application to have set aside leave to serve out of the jurisdiction. The defendant published a newspaper in Serbian, in print in Serbia and online. Though in Serbian, the claimant said that online . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.201726

Aspen Underwriting Ltd and Others v Credit Europe Bank Nv: CA 21 Nov 2018

Judges:

Lord Justice Gross

Lord Justice Moylan
And

Lord Justice Coulson

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 2590, [2019] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 221

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromAspen Underwriting Ltd and Others v Credit Europe Bank Nv ComC 1-Dec-2017
. .

Cited by:

Appeal fromAspen Underwriting Ltd and Others v Credit Europe Bank Nv SC 1-Apr-2020
The insurers had settled a claim after the insured vessel was lost. It then concluded that the ship owners were responsible and sought recovery of the sums paid. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.630700

Regina v Atlan and Atlan: CACD 10 Jun 1996

The court faced the question of whether it had jurisdiction, and if so what jurisdiction, to issue a letter of request, a commission rogatoire, seeking assistance for obtaining, outside the United Kingdom, evidence for use in the pending proceedings in this court and, if there is the power to make that request, whether the application which is made by these applicants should be granted in all the circumstances of the case. Leave to appeal granted.

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Crim 610

Statutes:

European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 1959

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.148274

Easygroup Ltd v Empresa Aerea De Servicios Y Facilitation Logistica Integral Sa (Easyfly Sa) and Another: ChD 14 Jan 2020

Applications together which concern the jurisdiction of the English court to hear claims of trade mark infringement, passing off and conspiracy against a Colombian domestic airline and a French aircraft manufacturer.

Judges:

Mr Justice Nugee

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 40 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Jurisdiction

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.646131

Societe Eram Shipping Co Ltd v Compagnie Internationale De Navigation and others: CA 6 Apr 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 568

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromSociete Eram Shipping Company Ltd v Compagnie Internationale De Navigation and others ComC 23-Jan-2001
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoSociete Eram Shipping Company Ltd v Compagnie International De Navigation and Others CA 7-Aug-2001
Judgment creditors obtained a garnishee order nisi, but the bank objected to the order being made absolute. The account was in Hong Kong, where there was a real danger, that the law would not relieve them of their obligation to the account holders . .
See AlsoSociete Eram Shipping Company Limited and others v Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Compagnie Internationale de Navigation HL 12-Jun-2003
The appeal concerned a final third party debt order (formerly a garnishee order). A judgment in France was registered here for enforcement. That jurisdiction was now challenged.
Held: A third party debt order is a proprietary remedy operating . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.201008

Sherdley and Another v Nordea Life and Pension Sa (Societe Anonyme): CA 16 Feb 2012

The claimants, though of British Nationality invested in the defendant Luxembourg company. They were habitually resident in Spain. The defendant challenged their right to sue for damages in the UK.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Rix, Etherton LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 88

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Judgments Regulation (EC No 44/2001)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.451316

Winnetka Trading Corp v Julius Baer International Ltd and Others: ChD 26 Nov 2008

The parties disputed whether a clause providing the government of their banking arrangements to be decided according to the laws of Guernsey were applicable.

Judges:

Norris J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 3146 (Ch), [2009] Bus LR 1006, [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 735

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoWinnetka Trading Corp v Julius Baer International Ltd and Another ChD 29-Jul-2011
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.331159

Societe Eram Shipping Company Ltd v Compagnie Internationale De Navigation and others: ComC 23 Jan 2001

Judges:

Tomlinson J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC 495 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromSociete Eram Shipping Co Ltd v Compagnie Internationale De Navigation and others CA 6-Apr-2001
. .
See AlsoSociete Eram Shipping Company Limited and others v Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Compagnie Internationale de Navigation HL 12-Jun-2003
The appeal concerned a final third party debt order (formerly a garnishee order). A judgment in France was registered here for enforcement. That jurisdiction was now challenged.
Held: A third party debt order is a proprietary remedy operating . .
See AlsoSociete Eram Shipping Company Ltd v Compagnie International De Navigation and Others CA 7-Aug-2001
Judgment creditors obtained a garnishee order nisi, but the bank objected to the order being made absolute. The account was in Hong Kong, where there was a real danger, that the law would not relieve them of their obligation to the account holders . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.201697

HL Boulton Co v Banque Royale du Canada: 1994

(Superior Court of Quebec) The defendant asked the court to decline jurisdiction under article 3135 of the Civil Code, which provides that even though a Quebec authority has jurisdiction to hear a dispute, it may exceptionally decline jurisdiction if it considers that the authorities of another country are in a better position to decide. It was agreed that the Quebec court was competent to hear the dispute, as the defendant had its head office in Montreal. The question was whether British Columbia was a more appropriate forum.
Held: It was. The only link between the case and Quebec was the registered office of the defendant. The confirmation of the letter of credit was in Vancouver and payment was to take place in Vancouver where the respondent’s place of business was. All the witnesses from both sides were in British Columbia. The court stated that in addition, under private international law, the situs of a LC was where it was payable.

Citations:

[1994] JQ 1448, [1995] RLQ 213

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

AppliedAlessandra Yarns llc v Tongxiang Baoding Textile Co Ltd 6-Feb-2015
(Superior Court of Quebec) The Court was asked whether the fraud exception to a letter of credit had been met such that the court should issue an interlocutory injunction to prevent the beneficiary claiming under the letter of credit. There were . .
CitedTaurus Petroleum Limited v State Oil Marketing Company of The Ministry of Oil, Republic of Iraq SC 25-Oct-2017
The parties disputed their contract arrangements. It was referred to an arbitration in London, but applying Iraqi law. The respondent failed to meet the award made against it, and the claimant sought to enforce the award here by means of third party . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.646118

CA Empson v Smith: CA 1965

Proceedings were begun against Mr Smith, a member of the administrative staff of the Canadian High Commission in London, claiming damages under a private tenancy agreement. As the proceedings were commenced, he enjoyed the same immunity under the Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act 1952 as the diplomatic staff of an ambassador. Under the Act of 1708, that immunity was absolute. By the time of the hearing, however, the Acts of 1708 and 1952 had been replaced by the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964, which conferred immunity on administrative and technical staff only in respect of acts done in the course of their duties.
Held: He was entitled only to the limited immunity under the Act of 1964.
Mr Smith was held to be entitled only to the limited immunity under the Act of 1964. As Diplock LJ point out by way of analogy: ‘if the defendant had ceased to be en poste while the plaint was still outstanding the action could then have proceeded against him.’

Citations:

[1965] 2 All ER 881, [1965] 3 WLR 380, [1966] 1 QB 426

Statutes:

Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedReyes v Al-Malki and Another SC 18-Oct-2017
The claimant alleged that she had been discrimated against in her work for the appellant, a member of the diplomatic staff at the Saudi Embassy in London. She now appealed against a decision that the respondent had diplomatic immunity.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.645786

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.

Judges:

Mackie QC J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1510 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd ComC 17-May-2005
. .
See AlsoMasri 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 AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 28-Jul-2006
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 14-Mar-2007
Judgment on quantum. . .

Cited by:

See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 11-Jul-2007
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 23-May-2008
Application for interpretation of a receivership order. . .
See AlsoMasri 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 . .
See AlsoMasri 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. . .
Appeal fromMasri 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 . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 20-Dec-2007
. .
See AlsoMasri 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 AlsoMasri 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 AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company Sal CA 6-Feb-2009
Appeal from order with regard to management of receivership. . .
See AlsoMasri 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 AlsoMasri 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 AlsoMasri 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 AlsoMasri 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 AlsoConsolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 21-Jan-2011
. .
See AlsoConsolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 3-Feb-2011
. .
See AlsoMasri 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 AlsoMasri 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.254464

Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd: ComC 17 May 2005

Judges:

Cresswell J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 944 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromMasri 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 AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 28-Jul-2006
. .
See AlsoMasri 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. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 11-Jul-2007
. .
See AlsoMasri 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 . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 23-May-2008
Application for interpretation of a receivership order. . .
See AlsoMasri 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 . .
See AlsoMasri 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 AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 14-Mar-2007
Judgment on quantum. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 20-Dec-2007
. .
See AlsoMasri 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 AlsoMasri 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 AlsoMasri 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 AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company Sal CA 6-Feb-2009
Appeal from order with regard to management of receivership. . .
See AlsoMasri 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 AlsoMasri 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 AlsoMasri 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. . .
See AlsoMasri 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 AlsoConsolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 3-Feb-2011
. .
See AlsoConsolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 21-Jan-2011
. .
See AlsoMasri 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Jurisdiction

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.226287

BNP Paribas Sa v Open Joint Stock Company Russian Machines and Another: ComC 24 Nov 2011

Blair J said: ‘These proceedings in the English Court comprise a claim for anti-suit relief in connection with an arbitration agreement between the claimant and the first defendant.’

Judges:

Blair J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 308 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration, Jurisdiction

Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.449004

Zambia, Attorney General of Zambia for and on Behalf of v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others: ChD 7 Oct 2005

Reasons for dismissal of stay for certain defendants.

Judges:

Peter Smith J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2102 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromZambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others CA 7-Mar-2006
The appellant sought a stay of the action brought against them. The cliamants sought the return of goernment funds said to have been misappropriated. . .
See AlsoZambia, Attorney General v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others ChD 22-May-2006
. .
See AlsoZambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others ChD 4-May-2007
. .
See AlsoZambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others ChD 4-May-2007
. .
See AlsoZambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others (No. 2) ChD 29-Jun-2007
. .
See AlsoZambia v Meer Care and others (1415) CA 17-Dec-2007
. .
See AlsoZambia v Meer Care and others (1414) CA 17-Dec-2007
Two applications for permission to appeal . .
See AlsoZambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others CA 9-Jul-2008
The claimant sought to allege fraud by its former president, and began proceedings to recover payments it said were fraudulent, including against a defendant Taylor in Switzerland, who now said that no letter before action or other explanation . .
See AlsoAttorney General of Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others CA 31-Jul-2008
The defendants appealed against two orders made in proceedings by the new government of Zambia alleging various tortious conspiracies by defendants with members of the former government.
Held: Appeals by the remaining two partners in the firm . .
CitedIndependent Trustee Service Ltd v GP Noble Trustees Ltd and Others ChD 1-Jul-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Torts – Other

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.230951

Nabb Brothers Ltd v Lloyds Bank International (Guernsey) Ltd: ChD 18 Mar 2005

It is not necessary that all the acts giving rise to liability occurred within the jurisdiction.

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 405 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.223695

Cairns v Modi: QBD 10 Nov 2010

Tugendhat J said: ‘A claimant’s primary concern in a libel action is vindication, not damages for what has been suffered in the past. So the damage that has occurred before the action is brought may not give an indication of the importance of the claim. Vindication includes a retraction, or a verdict for the claimant, or a judgment to the effect that the allegation complained of is false . .’

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2859 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCammish v Hughes QBD 20-Apr-2012
The defendant disputed whether the words complained of were defamatory, and whether the action was an abuse as being ‘not worth the candle’. The parties were in opposition over a proposed development of a biomass plant.
Held: The court found . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Jurisdiction

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.425973

Taurus Petroleum Ltd v State Oilmarketing Company: ComC 18 Nov 2013

The parties referred their contract disputes to an arbitration in London which was to apply Iraqi law. As to enforcement of the award, the defendant denied that they were situated in London.
Held: The debts were situated in London rather than New York and that SOMO was a separate entity from the state of Iraq and did not contract as its agent. As a result, if the debts under the letters of credit had been owed to SOMO alone, they would not have been immune from execution. However, each letter of credit contained a single joint promise in favour of SOMO and CBI and thus a joint debt in respect of which the court could not make a third party debt order.
The debts, being the property of CBI as the Central Bank, were in any event immune from execution under sections 13(2) and 14(4) of the State Immunity Act 1978. He therefore set aside the interim third party debt orders and the receivership orders. He also granted permission to appeal and ordered a stay of execution.

Judges:

Field J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 4495 (Comm), [2014] 1 Lloyds Rep 432, [2014] 1 All ER (Comm) 942

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

State Immunity Act 1978

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoTaurus Petroleum Led v State Oil Marketing Company of The Ministry of Oil, Republic of Iraq ComC 18-Nov-2013
. .
Appeal fromTaurus Petroleum Ltd v State Oil Company of The Ministry of Oil, Republic of Iraq CA 28-Jul-2015
The parties had contractual disputes as to letters of credit governed by Iraqi law. The arbitration was in London applying Iraqi law. They now disputed whether the Enforcement of arbitration award was as an award made in London. Each appealed . .
At ComC (1)Taurus Petroleum Limited v State Oil Marketing Company of The Ministry of Oil, Republic of Iraq SC 25-Oct-2017
The parties disputed their contract arrangements. It was referred to an arbitration in London, but applying Iraqi law. The respondent failed to meet the award made against it, and the claimant sought to enforce the award here by means of third party . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, International

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.575329

Reyes v Al-Malki and Another: SC 18 Oct 2017

The claimant alleged that she had been discrimated against in her work for the appellant, a member of the diplomatic staff at the Saudi Embassy in London. She now appealed against a decision that the respondent had diplomatic immunity.
Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘the question whether the exception in article 31(1)(c) would have applied to Mr Al-Malki had he still been in post does not strictly speaking arise. If he had still been in post, I would have held that he was immune, because the employment and treatment of Ms Reyes did not amount to carrying on or participating in carrying on a professional or commercial activity. Her employment, although it continued for about two months, was plainly not an alternative occupation of Mr Al-Malki’s. Nothing that was done by him or his wife was done by way of business. A person who supplies goods or services by way of business might be said to exercise a commercial activity. But Mr and Mrs Al-Malki are not said to have done that. They are merely said to have used Ms Reyes’ services in a harsh and in some respects unlawful way. There is no sense which can reasonably be given to article 31(1)(c) which would make the consumption of goods and services the exercise a commercial activity.’
Lord Sumption (with Neuberger L) said: ‘ the employment of a domestic servant to provide purely personal services is not a ‘professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent’. It is therefore not within the only relevant exception to the immunities. The fact that the employment of Ms Reyes may have come about as a result of human trafficking makes no difference to this. But the appeal should be allowed on a different and narrower ground. On 29 August 2014, Mr Al-Malki’s posting in London came to an end and he left the United Kingdom. Article 31 confers immunity only while he is in post. A diplomatic agent who is no longer in post and who has left the country is entitled to immunity only on the narrower basis authorised by article 39(2). That immunity applies only so far as the relevant acts were performed while he was in post in the exercise of his diplomatic functions. The employment and maltreatment of Ms Reyes were not acts performed by Mr Al-Malki in the exercise of his diplomatic functions.’

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption

Citations:

[2018] 1 All ER 629, [2017] UKSC 61, [2017] ICR 1417, [2018] IRLR 267, [2017] 3 WLR 923, [2017] WLR(D) 692, [2019] AC 735, UKSC 2016/0023

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC Video 20170515 am, SC Video 20170515 pm, SC Video 20170516 am, SC Video 20170516 pm, SC Video 20170517 am, SC Video 20170517 pm

Statutes:

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At EATAl-Malki and Another v Reyes and Another (Jurisdictional Points) EAT 4-Oct-2013
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Two domestic workers, employed one after the other by the First Respondent, a diplomat, and Second Respondent, his wife, (the appellants in this appeal) asserted they had been . .
At CAReyes and Another v Al-Malki and Another CA 5-Feb-2015
The claimants wished to make employment law claims alleging, inter alia, that they had suffered racial discrimination and harassment, and had been paid less than the national minimum wage aganst the respondents. They had been assessed as having been . .
CitedDemocratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium – Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 ICJ 14-Feb-2002
(French Text) Diplomatic immunity is not an immunity from liability. It is a procedural immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of the receiving state. The receiving state cannot at one and the same time receive a diplomatic agent of a foreign . .
CitedZoernsch v Waldock CA 1964
A claim was lodged against a former president as well as the current secretary of the European Commission of Human Rights. The former president, Sir Humphrey Waldock, was under the 1960 Order entitled to ‘the like immunity from legal process as is . .
CitedFothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd HL 10-Jul-1980
The plaintiff, on arriving at the airport found that his luggage had been lost. The defendant denied liability saying he had not notified his claim within the requisite period.
Held: Elementary justice requires that the rules by which the . .
CitedJones v Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimants said that they had been tortured by Saudi police when arrested on false charges. They sought damages, and appealed against an order denying jurisdiction over the defendants. They said that the allegation of torture allowed an exception . .
CitedWokuri v Kassam ChD 30-Jan-2012
. .
CitedAbusabib and Another v Taddese EAT 20-Dec-2012
EAT Jurisdictional Points : State Immunity – Diplomatic Immunity
The First Respondent, who had been found liable together with the Second Respondent for acts of discrimination against the Claimant in a . .
CitedRegina v Central Criminal Court Ex Parte Propend Finance Pty Ltd and Others QBD 17-Mar-1994
A Home Secretary requesting warrants must be specific on the type he required. It was his duty, and not that of the police to state the method of seizure of documents for use in a foreign jurisdiction. A judge making an order should give reasons for . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Adan, Same, ex parte Aitsegeur HL 20-Dec-2000
The Convention gave protection to an asylum seeker fearing persecution by non-state agents in his country of origin where that government was unable or unwilling to provide protection. France and Germany did not recognise this right, and therefore . .
CitedBaccus SRL v Servicio Nacional Del Trigo CA 1956
The defendant organisation carried on business from Spain and was sued in England for damages for breach of a commercial contract. An appearance was entered by their solicitors in London and a consent order made for security for the organisation’s . .
CitedTabion v Mufti 1996
(4th Circuit – United States) The appellant worked for two years as a domestic servant in the home of the respondent diplomats. The appellant brought proceedings claiming damages for breach of the terms of her contract of employment. In response to . .
CitedCA Empson v Smith CA 1965
Proceedings were begun against Mr Smith, a member of the administrative staff of the Canadian High Commission in London, claiming damages under a private tenancy agreement. As the proceedings were commenced, he enjoyed the same immunity under the . .
CitedConsequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South-West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) ICJ 21-Jun-1971
The International Court of Justice referred to the maintenance of an apartheid regime as being a flagrant violation of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter,
Article 22(1) of the Covenant of the League of Nations provided for the grant . .
CitedShaw v Shaw 1979
The wife filed a petition for a dissolution of her marriage to a diplomat attached to the United States embassy. At the time, he was immune, but the petition was allowed to proceed once the husband’s posting came to an end and he left the United . .
CitedIslamic Republic of Iran v United States of America – Oil Platforms – Judgment of 6 November 2003 ICJ 6-Nov-2003
. .
CitedDownes Manor Properties Ltd v Bank of Namibia and An CA 18-Mar-1999
The choice of a lawyer outside the UK to provide services as part of litigation did not excuse the failure to comply with an unless order made by the court. Such orders are intended to be punitive. The use of lawyers outside the UK was not . .
CitedPlaya 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Jurisdiction

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.597260

The King v The Bailies of Haddington: SCS 5 Dec 1500

Ony persoun beand accusit criminallie befoir the judge criminal, the saidis Lordis (of Session) are judgeis competent to cognosce and tak inquisitioun, quhidder the samin judge hes procedit ordourlie or not, in sic thingis as concernis thair office in leiding and deducing of the proces: And gif he be fund culpabill, or convict to have unordourlie or unjustly procedit, thay may de decern him to be punist thairfoir, and als reduce the proces led, done, and pronuncit be him. And gif the Judge, in ony actioun of blude, as is persewit of foirthocht felone committit, takis inquisition, or makis accusatioun, of troublance, and makis the persounis committaris of the said blude quyte of the troublance, intending thairby, in defraud of justice, to mak thame quyte of the blude, and foirthocht felonie, in sa far as he may, the saidis Lordis may likewayis cognosce thairupon.

Citations:

[1500] Mor 7318

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Jurisdiction

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.554536

Abusabib and Another v Taddese: EAT 20 Dec 2012

EAT Jurisdictional Points : State Immunity – Diplomatic Immunity
The First Respondent, who had been found liable together with the Second Respondent for acts of discrimination against the Claimant in a hearing of which he said he had not been aware, asserted on appeal that he was entitled to diplomatic inviolability. Since he had ceased to occupy a diplomatic post in the UK, this depended on whether the employment by him of the claimant as a domestic at his home out of which the claims arose could be regarded as an exercise by him of his functions as a diplomat, and whether the alleged acts of discrimination likewise attracted immunity as having been such an exercise of his functions. It was held that employment of a domestic servant at the diplomat’s residence would not normally be within those functions, and this case on its facts was not, nor were the acts complained of, done in the exercise of those functions.

Judges:

Langstaff P J

Citations:

[2012] UKEAT 0424 – 11 – 2012), [2013] ICR 603

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoAbusabib and Another v Taddese EAT 2-Aug-2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
Relief from sanctions was given under PD16 and CPR3.9 when evidence in support of a response, but not a draft ET3 response form, was . .

Cited by:

CitedReyes v Al-Malki and Another SC 18-Oct-2017
The claimant alleged that she had been discrimated against in her work for the appellant, a member of the diplomatic staff at the Saudi Embassy in London. She now appealed against a decision that the respondent had diplomatic immunity.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Jurisdiction

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.468962

Wokuri v Kassam: ChD 30 Jan 2012

Judges:

Newey J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 105 (Ch), [2012] ICR 1283, [2012] 2 All ER 1195, [2012] 3 WLR 427, [2012] WLR(D) 13, [2013] Ch 80

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedReyes v Al-Malki and Another SC 18-Oct-2017
The claimant alleged that she had been discrimated against in her work for the appellant, a member of the diplomatic staff at the Saudi Embassy in London. She now appealed against a decision that the respondent had diplomatic immunity.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Jurisdiction

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.450562

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.

Judges:

Langley J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1042 (Comm), [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 372

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited889457 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.

Jurisdiction, European

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.252328

Bouzari v Islamic Republic of Iran: 2004

(Court of Appeal of Ontario) The court had to consider ‘between the condemnation of torture as an international crime against humanity and the principle that states must treat each other as equals not to be subjected to each other’s jurisdiction.’

Citations:

(2004) 71 OR (3d) 675

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

CitedJones v Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimants said that they had been tortured by Saudi police when arrested on false charges. They sought damages, and appealed against an order denying jurisdiction over the defendants. They said that the allegation of torture allowed an exception . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.242886

Ahuja v Politika Novine I Magazini Doo and Others: QBD 23 Nov 2015

Action for misuse of private information and libel. Application to have set aside leave to serve out of the jurisdiction. The defendant published a newspaper in Serbian, in print in Serbia and online. Though in Serbian, the claimant said that online translations to English could be created automatically. The parties disputed the number of hits from within the UK.
Held: The order giving permission to the Claimant to serve these proceedings on the Defendants out of the jurisdiction was be set aside.

Judges:

Sir Michael Tugendhat

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 3380 (QB), [2016] 1 WLR 1414, [2015] WLR(D) 494, [2016] EMLR 8

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Defamation Act 2013 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedAK 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 . .
CitedSpiliada 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 . .
CitedBerezovsky 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 . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedMRG (Japan) Ltd v Engelhard Metals Japan Ltd ComC 18-Dec-2003
Application to set aside leave to serve out of jurisdiction.There must a ‘good arguable case’ to justify such service. . .
CitedCongentra Ag v Sixteen Thirteen Marine Sa (‘the Nicholas M’) ComC 15-Jul-2008
Applications for dismissal of interim freezing order and for continuance. Order not set aside. The claim was for a freezing order to support a claim for recovery of damage to goods being transported. The court now considered an allegation that the . .
CitedAdelson and Another v Anderson and Another QBD 7-Oct-2011
The defendants sought a strike out of this libel action, begun in response to an words published in September 2004, saying that they were an abuse, and that the claimant’s delay demonstrated that his real and only interest was not in vindication. . .
CitedShaw and Another v Logue Admn 13-Jan-2014
Appeals against orders striking the two appellant solicitors from the roll.
Held: Jay J said: ‘the duty requires a party to ‘. . disclose all facts which reasonably could or would be taken into account by the Judge in deciding whether to grant . .
CitedKennedy 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 . .
CitedAmes and Another v The Spamhaus Project Ltd and Another QBD 27-Jan-2015
Warby J said: ‘ . . but as practitioners in this field are well aware, it is generally impractical for a claimant to seek out witnesses to say that they read the words complained of and thought the worse of the claimant’ . .
CitedLachaux v Independent Print Ltd QBD 30-Jul-2015
The claimant brought defamation claims as to articles making allegations said to imply that the claimant had mistreated his wife. The defendant contended that, while inferences might sometimes suffice, s.1 (1) nevertheless required a claimant to . .
CitedSloutsker v Romanova QBD 5-Mar-2015
The claimant sued for libel in respect of the publication in this jurisdiction of allegations of fabricating evidence, conspiracy to murder, and the bribery and corruption of the prosecutor and judges in criminal proceedings. The defendant now . .
CitedEl Diwany v Hansen and Another QBD 29-Jul-2011
Defendant’s application to set aside judgment in default – lack of service. . .
CitedModi and Another v Clarke CA 29-Jul-2011
The claimants, organisers of the Indian Premier cricket League, met with organisations in England seeking to establish a similar league in the Northern Hemisphere. A copy of a note came to the defendant, chairman of the England and Wales Cricket . .
CitedJeynes v News Magazines Ltd and Another CA 31-Jan-2008
Whether Statement defamatory at common law
The claimant appealed against a striking out of her claim for defamation on finding that the words did not have the defamatory meaning complained of, namely that she was transgendered or transsexual.
Held: The appeal failed.
Sir Anthony . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Defamation, Information

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.555022

Brown and Others v InnovatorOne Plc and Others: ComC 28 Jul 2010

The claimants alleged breach of trust by the defendants in their promotion of an investment scheme which went on to fail. One defendant, a Swiss bank now sought a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction over it.
Held: The defendant’s application succeeded: ‘t has not been established that the claims sought to be made against MFC are so closely connected with the claims made against the other defendants in these proceedings that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. Accordingly, the requirements of Article 6(1) have not been shown to be satisfied and jurisdiction must be declined. ‘

Judges:

Hamblen J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2281 (Comm), [2011] ILPr 9

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoBrown and Others v InnovatorOne Plc and Others ComC 19-Jun-2009
The claimants served proceedings by fax. The defendants denied that it was effective saying that they had not confirmed that they were instructed to accept service or that as required by the rules they had confirmed that they would accept service by . .

Cited by:

See AlsoBrown and Others v InnovatorOne Plc and Others ComC 18-May-2012
The claimants had been advised to invest in a scheme promoted by the defendants with the assistance of their solicitors. On the failure of the scheme they now sought relief alleging inter alia, breach of trust.
Held: The claims failed. In . .
See AlsoBrown and Others v Innovatorone Plc and Others CA 4-Dec-2012
The claimants appealed against rejection of their claims of breach of trust against the respndents and their solicitors in the promotion of investment semes which went on to fail. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440447

Stribog Ltd v FKI Engineering Ltd: CA 25 May 2011

The defendants sought a stay of the proceedings on the ground that there were related actions already in existence in Germany.
Held: Rix LJ said:
As to article 27, Rix LJ said: ‘where the ‘same cause of action’ or the ‘same parties’ are introduced only by way of service, or amendment, the relevant proceedings are only ‘brought’ at the time of such service or amendment, not at the time of institution of the original, unamended, proceedings . . It is possible that the introduction of entirely new causes of action or parties is to be recognised as the bringing of entirely new proceedings, so that the timing of seisin . . has to be looked at from that point of view, as occurs for the purposes of Article 27.’
. . And ‘Even so, it is not clear to me that in this connection article 27 and article 28 work in the same way: for article 27 is worded in terms of the bringing of actions with the same parties and the same cause of action . . whereas Article 28 is worded in terms of the pendency of related actions . . That emphasises that the article 28 question is asked with relation to pending actions, and not, as the article 27 question is asked, with relation to the bringing of actions. In any event, the judge is . . mistaken to think that any amendment is analogous to the bringing of new causes of action or the addition or substitution of new parties.’

Judges:

Mummery, Rix, Wilson LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 622, [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 387

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromFKI Engineering Ltd and Another v Stribog Ltd ComC 21-May-2010
The defendant sought a stay under the Regulation, saying that the matter was already being litigated in Germany. . .
CitedBlue Nile Shipping Co Ltd; Khalil v Iguana Shipping and Finance Inc Owners of the Ship Happy Fellow CA 25-Jul-1997
A French collision action preceded English proceedings by one of the owners to limit his liability. The parties disputed whether the fact that that owner subsequently admitted liability in France so that the only remaining issue was that of . .

Cited by:

CitedStarlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine and Aviation Versicherungs Ag and Others CA 20-Dec-2012
The Alexander T, owned by the appellant and insured by the respondents was a total loss. The insurers resisted payment, the appellant came to allege improperly, and the parties had settled the claim on full payment under a Tomlin Order. The owners . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440186

Distillers Co Ltd v Thompson: HL 1971

When asking where a tort occurred so as to give jurisdiction the court should ask: ‘where in substance did the cause of action arise, or . . what were the elements which constituted the gist of the relevant tort which it was alleged had been committed?’:

Citations:

[1971] AC 458

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMorin v Bonhams and Brooks Limited Bonhams and Brooks S A M CA 18-Dec-2003
The claimant had bought a vintage Ferrari motor car through the defendant auctioneers in Monaco but sought rescission after it appeared that the odometer had been altered. The auction conditions purported to exclude any description of the car. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.276480

Sunderland Marine Mutual Insurance Company Ltd v Wiseman and others: ComC 22 Jun 2007

The parties disputed as to whether the claim should be tried in England or Scotland.

Judges:

Langley J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1460 (Comm), [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 308

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTrident Turboprop (Dublin) Ltd v First Flight Couriers Ltd CA 2-Apr-2009
The appellant entered into two aircraft leasing agreements but were unable to maintain payments. They appealed against rejection of their argument that the agreements were not exempt from the controls under the 1977 Act by being international supply . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.254465

Livingston Properties Equities Inc and Others v JSC MCC Eurochem and Another: PC 30 Nov 2020

(From the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (British Virgin Islands)) Appeal concerns service of the proceedings arising out of alleged frauds

Judges:

Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lady Black, Lady Arden
Lord Kitchin

Citations:

[2020] UKPC 31

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Torts – Other

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.659461

JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov: SC 21 Mar 2018

A had been chairman of the claimant bank. After removal, A fled to the UK, obtaining asylum. The bank then claimed embezzlement, and was sentenced for contempt after failing to disclose assets when ordered, but fled the UK. The Appellant, K, was A’s son-in-law living in Switzerland. It was claimed that he had assisted A in the disposal of assets and was guilty of conspiracy in the UK to cause financial loss to the bank by unlawful means, namely serial breaches of the freezing and receivership orders in contempt of court. He now appealed against a decision that the court had jurisdiction over him.
Held: The appeal failed.
The bank’s claims would, if established, amount to an unlawful means conspiracy. Conspiracies, broadly, have two forms, ‘lawful means’ and ‘unlawful means’ conspiracy. A person may pursue his interests by lawful means, even if it can be foreseen that others’ interests will suffer. If he chooses unlawful means, then he has no such right. That is true also where the means chosen are lawful but the overriding intention of the defendant is to injure the claimant. Either undermines any cause or excuse for the ‘combination’ with others.
Conspiracy is a tort of primary liability, and not just a kind of joint liability. Therefore the test of unlawful means is not derivable from whether they would give allow to a different action independent of the conspiracy. The test is of the existence of a just cause for the defendants combining with each other to use unlawful means. That depends on (i) the nature of the unlawfulness; and (ii) its relationship with the resultant damage to the claimant.
Article 5 provided an exception to the domicile requirement for jurisdiction that the a claim could be pursued in the jurisdiction where the events (in this case the agreement) alleged happened. That had been correctly established as being within the UK, and jurisdiction was established.

Judges:

Lord Mance DPSC, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs JJSC

Citations:

[2018] 3 All ER 293, [2018] UKSC 19, [2018] 2 All ER (Comm) 479, [2018] WLR(D) 184, [2018] ILPr 26, UKSC 2017/0043, [2020] AC 727, [2018] 2 WLR 1125

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Vid 24/01/2018 am, SC Vid 24/01/2018 pm, SC Vid 25/01/2018 am

Statutes:

Lugano Convention 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromKhrapunov v JSC BTA Bank CA 2-Feb-2017
. .
CitedQuinn v Leathem HL 5-Aug-1901
Unlawful Means Conspiracy has two forms
Quinn was treasurer of a Belfast butchers’ association. Leathem, who traded as a butcher, employed some non-union men, although when the union made difficulties he asked for them to be admitted to the union, and offered to pay their dues. The union . .
CitedCrofter 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 . .
CitedLonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No 2) HL 1-Apr-1981
No General Liability in Tort for Wrongful Acts
The plaintiff had previously constructed an oil supply pipeline from Beira to Mozambique. After Rhodesia declared unilateral independence, it became a criminal offence to supply to Rhodesia without a licence. The plaintiff ceased supply as required, . .
CitedLonrho plc v Fayed HL 2-Jan-1991
In a conspiracy, the intent to injure need not be the primary intent, but there must be some intent which involves the conspiring parties directing their minds towards the victim or a category of persons which would include the victim as a target to . .
CitedTotal 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 . .
CitedDouglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar HL 2-May-2007
In Douglas, the claimants said that the defendants had interfered with their contract to provide exclusive photographs of their wedding to a competing magazine, by arranging for a third party to infiltrate and take and sell unauthorised photographs. . .
CitedMogul Steamship Company Limited v McGregor Gow and Co CA 2-Jul-1889
Ship-owners formed an association which in this action others claimed to be a tortious conspiracy.
Held: There is a cause of action against the conspirators where there is an agreement which constitutes an indictable conspiracy and that . .
CitedCouling v Coxe 7-Dec-1848
A plaintiff in a civil action who has issued a witness summons or subpoena to a witness to attend may have an action against a witness who fails to attend, but the damages recoverable were limited to the costs of an abortive hearing when the . .
CitedFairclough and Sons v The Manchester Ship Canal Co CA 1897
The court considered the remedies for a contempt of court.
Held: Lord Russell CJ said: ‘We desire to make it clear that in such cases no casual or accidental and unintentional disobedience of an Order would justify either a commitment or . .
CitedSorrell v Smith HL 1925
Torts of Conspiracy by Unlawful Means
The plaintiff had struck the first blow in a commercial battle between the parties, and the defendant then defended himself, whereupon the plaintiff sued him.
Lord Cave quoted the French saying: ‘cet animal est tres mechant; quand on . .
CitedChapman v Honig CA 1963
A landlord’s notice to quit was held valid notwithstanding that the landlord seeking to uphold its validity had himself given it in contempt of court.
A contractual right may be exercised for any reason good, bad or indifferent and the motive . .
CitedMileage Conference Group of the Tyre Manufacturers’ Conference Ltd’s Agreement 1966
A substantial fine was imposed for contempt by breach of an undertaking which was not merely non-contumacious, but was committed reasonably on legal advice.
Megaw J suggested, obiter, that a penal order against a contemnor might include a . .
CitedHM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc HL 21-Jun-2006
The claimant had served an asset freezing order on the bank in respect of one of its customers. The bank paid out on a cheque inadvertently as to the order. The Commissioners claimed against the bank in negligence. The bank denied any duty of care. . .
CitedN v Agrawal CA 9-Jun-1999
A doctor examining a victim of a rape, but who failed to give evidence at court was not liable to the victim for further psychiatric damages caused by the resultant collapse of the prosecution. There was no doctor/patient relationship to give rise . .
CitedRe Hudson, Hudson v Hudson ChD 1966
The plaintiff’s marriage had been dissolved and her former husband was ordered to pay her maintenance at a specified rate. The husband subsequently filed evidence that he was unable to comply with that order but offered to undertake to pay one-third . .
CitedCement LaFarge v BC Lightweight Aggregate 26-Apr-1983
(Supreme Court of Canada) Respondent, a supplier of lightweight aggregate, ceased business and was awarded damages for the tort of conspiracy to injure after its client, a manufacturer, began using another aggregate to produce its light-weight . .
CitedMarrinan v Vibart CA 1962
The court considered an action in the form an attempt to circumvent the immunity of a witness at civil law by alleging a conspiracy.
Held: The claim was rejected. The court considered the basis of the immunity from action given to witnesses. . .
CitedHandelskwekerij GJ Bier Bv v Mines De Potasse D’Alsace Sa ECJ 30-Nov-1976
Europa Where the place of the happening of the event which may give rise to liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict and the place where that event results in damage are not identical, the expression ‘place . .
CitedRegina v Barnet London Borough Council, Ex parte Shah HL 16-Dec-1982
The five applicants had lived in the UK for at least three years while attending school or college. All five were subject to immigration control, four had entered as students with limited leave to remain for the duration of their studies, and the . .
CitedMidland Marts v Hobday ChD 1989
The court considered a claim for costs on an application for committal of the defendant for infringement.
Held: Vinelott J said: ‘I can see no reason in principle why the Court, if satisfied that the facts proved at the hearing of a motion to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Torts – Other

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.608731

Noble Denton Middle East and Another v Noble Denton International Ltd: ComC 7 May 2010

Application to set aside order for the service of an arbitration claim form on the applicant/Defendant’s solicitors, rather than making an order for service out of the jurisdiction.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2574 (Comm), [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 387

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.427217

Adams v National Bank of Greece: HL 1961

Questions of interpretation and enforcement of contracts are resolved by reference to the proper law. Although debt under a contract whose proper law is the law of another jurisdiction may, for the purposes of Scots law, be discharged by insolvency proceedings in that other jurisdiction, such proceedings will not, for the purposes of Scots law, discharge a debt where the proper law of the contract is not the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings are taking place.

Judges:

Lord Reid, Lord Denning

Citations:

[1961] AC 255

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedAntony Gibbs and Sons v La Societe Industrielle et Commerciale des Metaux CA 1-Jul-1890
The defendant had agreed to buy copper to be delivered in England by the plaintiff. The defendant refused to accept the copper and so was liable in damages to the plaintiff. The defendant, a French company, was placed in judicial liquidation in . .

Cited by:

CitedOT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corporation and others CA 13-Jun-2005
The parties to a contract had agreed that the proper law for the contract was England. One party commenced proceedings in Canada, and the courts of Canada had accepted jurisdiction as the most appropriate and convenient forum to resolve the dispute. . .
CitedThe Winding Up Board of Landsbanki Islands Hf v Mills and Others OHCS 20-Jul-2010
The claimants had made claims in the insolvency of Landsbanki in Iceland. There had been a ruling by Landsbanki’s winding-up board in those Icelandic winding-up proceedings that to the extent that it was final and binding in Iceland, it must also be . .
CitedHeritable Bank Plc (Administrators of) v The Winding Up Board of Landsbanki Islands Hf SCS 28-Sep-2011
The appellant (H) had claimed in the responder’s (L) insolvency proceedings in Iceland. Their claim had been rejected by L’s winding-up board, and then withdrawn. L then claimed in H’s own insolvency in Scotland, saying that within the EEA, and . .
CitedHeritable Bank Plc, Administrators of v The Winding-Up Board of Landsbanki Islands Hf SC 27-Feb-2013
A claim by Heritable (H) in Landsbanki’s (L) insolvency had been rejected and then withdrawn before the Icelandic court, and L now appealed against rejection of its own assertion that that Icelandic decision was binding also within its own claim . .
CitedGlobal Distressed Alpha Fund 1 Ltd Partnership v Pt Bakrie Investindo ComC 17-Feb-2011
Action on an instrument of guarantee.
Held: judgment for the Claimant in respect of the principal sum of US$2m. and such interest payments as were due. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Contract, Scotland

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.228195

Heath Lambert Limited v Sociedad De Corretaje De Seguros, Banesco Seguros Ca: CA 25 Jun 2004

Out of various claims under insurances, one claim, for the payment of a premium on a policy of reinsurance remained. It provided that it was payable 90 days after the contract and in cash.
Held: The words indicated that the obligation to pay began not with the contract but after the expiry of the 90 day period. Accordingly, the limitation period ran from that time, and the claim remained live.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Wall Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 792, Times 02-Jul-2004, [2005] 1 All ER 225, [2004] 1 WLR 2820

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Marine Insurance Act 1906 53(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromHeath Lambert Ltd v Sociedad De Corretaje De Seguros and Another ComC 14-Oct-2003
. .

Cited by:

Appealed toHeath Lambert Ltd v Sociedad De Corretaje De Seguros and Another ComC 14-Oct-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Limitation, Insurance

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.198413

Wight, Pilling, Mackey v Eckhardt Marine GmbH: PC 14 May 2003

(Cayman Islands) An international bank went into liquidation in the Cayman Islands, with liabilities in Bangladesh. A new bank was created in Bangladesh, and the applicants sought to make the new bank liable, and through them the liquidators.
Held: The insolvency discharged the debts and the claimants had no case. The intention had been to isolate and preserve the Bangladeshi debts against the liquidation. The winding up order had had no effect on the respondent’s debt, its situs or its proper law. It had been provable even though the lex situs and proper law were both in Bangladesh.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘The winding up leaves the debts of the creditors untouched. It only effects the way in which they can be enforced. When the order is made, ordinary proceedings against the company are stayed . . The creditors are confined to a collective enforcement procedure that results in pari passu distribution of the company’s assets. The winding up does not either create new substantive rights in the creditors or destroy the old ones. Their debts, if they are owing, remain debts throughout. They are discharged by the winding up only to the extent that they are paid out of dividends. But when the process of distribution is complete, there are no further assets against which they can be enforced. There is no equivalent of the discharge of a personal bankrupt which extinguishes his debt.’

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Nolan, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Scott of Foscote Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe

Citations:

[2003] UKPC 37, Times 06-Jun-2003, [2004] 1 AC 147

Links:

PC, Bailii, PC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBuhr v Barclays Bank plc CA 26-Jan-2001
The bank took a second charge over property, but failed to get it registered. The chargors fell into debt and bankruptcy, and the property was sold. The proceeds were used to discharge the first charge, and then repay unsecured creditors. The bank . .
CitedIn re Banque des Marchands de Moscou (Koupetschesky) (No 2) CA 1954
A Russian bank operated in Russia. It had no branch in England, but did have an account, in credit, with a bank in London. On December 15, 1917 the bank was nationalized by a decree of the soviet government. On December 16th 1917, two documents were . .
CitedRe Banque des Marchands de Moscou (Koupetschesky) 1952
. .
CitedIn re Russian Bank for Foreign Trade 1933
Soviet legislation involved an extinguishment of the rights and obligations of the commercial banks and the creation of equivalent obligations on the part of a new State Bank. . .
CitedIn 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 . .
CitedF and K Jabbour v Custodian of Israeli Absentee Property 1953
The court was asked as to the effect of foreign regulations on the ownership of a right of action under an insurance policy, and for that purpose examined whether the plaintiff’s claim against the insurance company was a ‘mere right to claim . .
CitedIn re Humber Ironworks and Shipbuilding Co 1869
The assets of a company held on the statutory trusts should be distributed as if they had all been collected and distributed on the date of the winding up order: ‘I think the tree must lie as it falls; that it must be ascertained what are the debts . .

Cited by:

CitedIn re Telewest Communications Plc ChD 26-Apr-2004
A scheme of arrangement had been proposed. The creditor complained that in providing for payment in a currency other than that agreed, it had been prejudiced.
Held: The provision in the scheme did purport to alter the claimant’s rights. . .
CitedLaw Society of England and Wales and others v Shah and others ChD 30-Nov-2007
Solicitor firms had been made bankrupt leaving a shortfall after thefts from client accounts of over 12 million pounds. The thief had diappeared, and the other partners were now discharged form bankruptcy. The Law Society accepted that it could not . .
CitedCambridge Gas Transport Corp v Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (of Navigator Holdings Plc and Others) PC 16-May-2006
(Isle of Man) A scheme of arrangement was proposed for a company with involvement in several jurisdictions. An order in New York sought assistance in the vesting of shares and assets in the Isle of Man in the creditors committee. Cambridge was a . .
CitedLB Holdings Intermediate 2 Ltd, The Joint Administrators of v Lehman Brothers International (Europe), The Joint Administrators of and Others SC 17-May-2017
In the course of the insolvent administration of the bank, substantial additional sums were received. Parties appealed against some orders made on the application to court for directions as to what was to be done with the surplus.
Held: The . .
CitedGlobal Distressed Alpha Fund 1 Ltd Partnership v Pt Bakrie Investindo ComC 17-Feb-2011
Action on an instrument of guarantee.
Held: judgment for the Claimant in respect of the principal sum of US$2m. and such interest payments as were due. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Banking, Jurisdiction

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.183086

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 staying her petition, saying that the Court had no jurisdiction to make the order.
Held: W’s appeal was dismissed. It was not appropriate to extend the reasoning in Owusu v Jackson to the very different circumstances of the case, which concerned a stay in favour of prior competing proceedings in a non Member State (lis alibi pendens).

Judges:

Rimer, Jackson, Lewison LJJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 1255, [2013] WLR(D) 391, [2014] FAM 102, [2014] 2 WLR 1033, [2014] 1 FLR 1514, [2014] 2 FCR 208, [2014] Fam Law 286, [2014] 1 Fam 102

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, Senior Courts Act 1981 49, Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromAB v CB FD 10-Oct-2012
Whether English divorce proceedings instituted here by the wife AB should be stayed to enable Indian proceedings for divorce instituted there earlier by CB.
Held: Bodey J stayed the wife’s English petition on the ground that India was the more . .
DistinguishedOwusu 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 . .
CitedIn 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. . .
CitedA 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 . .
CitedJKN v JCN (Divorce: Forum) FD 19-Apr-2010
Ms Theis QC decided that proceedings were only ‘governed’ by BIIR if they fell within article 19 of BIIR . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Family, European

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.516556

JKN v JCN (Divorce: Forum): FD 19 Apr 2010

Ms Theis QC decided that proceedings were only ‘governed’ by BIIR if they fell within article 19 of BIIR

Judges:

Ms Lucy Theis QC I

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 843 (Fam), [2011] 1 FLR 826, [2010] Fam Law 796, [2011] 2 FCR 33

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedA 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 . .
CitedMittal 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.

Family, Jurisdiction, European

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.415945

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 jurisdiction is now governed by the 1982 Act. It would not be realistic to describe the defendant as residing here in the sense of having a settled or usual place of abode.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 3276 (QB), [2007] EMLR 449

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 41

Citing:

CitedInland Revenue v Cadwalader 1904
An American citizen, with his ordinary residence and indeed practising the law in New York, took a three-year lease of a furnished shooting lodge in Scotland. He resided at the shooting lodge for a period of two months in each year during the . .
CitedFoote Cone and Belding Reklim Hizmetleri v Theron 2006
The Defendant was the sole owner of a property in Kingston, but denied that he was domiciled in the UK.
Held: Residence was established. The house was one of his real residences at the relevant time. He apparently came to England regularly, . .
CitedInland Revenue Commissioners v Lysaght HL 1928
The taxpayer, who was living in Ireland would come regularly to England for a total of less than three months a year, and would spend a week or so in a hotel for the purpose of board meetings. The House considered the meaning of the requirement of . .
CitedDubai Bank Ltd v Abbas and Another CA 17-Jul-1996
The defendant sought to set aside service of a claim outside the jurisdiction, saying that no good and arguable case had been made out that he was domiciled in the UK. The bank said that he owned a house in London.
Held: Although domicile is . .
CitedCanada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2) HL 12-Oct-2000
The plaintiffs alleged the involvement of the defendant in a conspiracy to defraud. He had been domiciled in England, but had moved to Germany. He denied that the UK court had jurisdiction. The court of appeal said that jurisdiction was determined . .
CitedOwusu 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.279538

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 hide their assets. They had failed to respond as required to orders to disclose their assest, and failed to attend for cross examination. Anti-suit orders had been made in Turkey. The question now arose as to whether they should be heard on appeal if they remained in contempt.
Held: The court will hear a person in contempt when his application challenges the basis of the order of which he is in contempt. The original orders here bordered on the creative, and the challenge should be allowed. As to the validity of the orders, there was no fraud of the severity of Duvalier, and no question of comity arose. The judge’s exercise of his discretion was to be revisited. Appeals allowed in part.

Judges:

Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Potter And Lord Justice Tuckey

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 752, Times 19-Jun-2003, Gazette 28-Aug-2003, [2004] 1 WLR 113

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 25, Supreme Court Act 1981 37(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRepublic of Haiti v Duvalier CA 1989
The defendant had fled from Haiti with a large part of that country’s assets while in power. Proceedings were pending in France which gave no jurisdiction to grant a worldwide freezing or disclosure order. He had used a firm of English solicitors as . .
CitedHadkinson 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 . .
CitedX Ltd v Morgan-Grampian (Publishers) Ltd HL 1990
In a case where a contemnor not only fails wilfully and contumaciously to comply with an order of the court but makes it clear that he will continue to defy the court’s authority if the order should be affirmed on appeal, the court must have a . .
CitedArab Monetary Fund v Hashim and Others CA 21-Mar-1994
It is wrong to take as a starting point the proposition that the court will not hear a party in contempt but then to ask if the instant case falls within an exception to that general rule. It is preferable to ask whether, in the circumstances of an . .
CitedThe ‘Messiniaki Tolmi’ CA 2-Jan-1981
While the general rule is that a Court will not hear an application for his own benefit by a person in contempt unless and until he has first purged his contempt, there is an established exception to that general rule where the purpose of the . .
CitedPoitrimol v France ECHR 23-Nov-1993
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs . .
CitedAtlantic Capital Corporation v Burney; Atlantic Capital Corporation and Others v Johnson CA 15-Sep-1994
The person in contempt had failed to comply with a series of asset-tracing orders which ‘depended critically’ upon the rightfulness of a default judgment earlier obtained against him. The court did not prevent him challenging the basis of those . .
CitedIn Re Swaptronics Ltd ChD 24-Jul-1998
A party who was in contempt of court should not be debarred from continuing to take a proper part in a court action unless that contempt was serious enough seriously to interfere with the fair conduct of the trial. ‘The courts need powers of . .
CitedStott (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 . .
CitedCredit Suisse Fides Trust SA v Cuoghi; Credit Suisse Fides Trust SA and Amhurst Brown Colombotti (a Firm) CA 11-Jun-1997
The claimant brought proceedings in Switzerland (a party to the Lugano Convention) against the defendant who was domiciled in England, alleging that he had conspired with one of the claimant’s employees to misappropriate some US$ 21 million. It was . .
CitedDenilauler v SNC Couchet Freres (Judgment) ECJ 21-May-1980
The courts of the place or, in any event, of the Contracting State, where the assets subject to the measures sought are located, are those best able to assess the circumstances which may lead to the grant or refusal of the measures sought or to the . .
CitedRosseel N V v Oriental Commercial Shipping Company (UK) Ltd 1990
The court discouraged the grant of ancillary relief where such grant would obstruct or hamper the management of the case by the primary court in another jurisdiction or give rise to a risk of conflicting, inconsistent or overlapping orders in other . .
CitedREFCO Capital Markets Ltd and Another v Eastern Trading Co, Credit Suisse (First Boston) Ltd and Another CA 17-Jun-1998
An application for Mareva relief was granted under s.25 where proceedings were pending in the US against Lebanese defendants arising out of futures transactions with respect of assets in England. On the application to discharge the order, the lower . .
CitedJohnson 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 . .
CitedHouse 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 . .
CitedOwens Bank v Etoile Commerciale 1995
The principles of abuse of process may apply even though the relevant earlier proceedings have taken place before a foreign court. . .
CitedHenderson v Henderson 20-Jul-1843
Abuse of Process and Re-litigation
The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings.
Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying this question I believe I state the rule . .
CitedLocabail International Finance Ltd v Agroexport CA 1986
There is a general principle of the law as to injunctions that the court should not put itself in the position of making orders which it cannot enforce against the person or assets of a defendant. . .
CitedDerby and Co Ltd v Weldon (Nos 3 and 4) CA 1990
The plaintiff had obtained an asset freezing order against a defendant Panamanian Company, which now appealed saying that it was inappropriate to make such an order where the company had no assets in the jurisdiction.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
CitedVan Uden Maritime v Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line and others (Judgment) ECJ 17-Nov-1998
Applications under the Brussels Convention for Interim Measures were capable of being heard by courts notwithstanding a clause referring disputes under the contract in issue exclusively to arbitration. Even in the case of Article 24 of the Brussels . .
CitedAdams 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 . .
CitedWardle Fabrics Ltd v G Myristis Ltd 1984
A person against whom an order is made must obey it until it is discharged. . .
CitedMcC v Mullan; In re McC (A Minor) HL 1984
A statutory condition precluded magistrates from making the order they did unless a juvenile offender who was not legally represented had been refused legal aid, or had been informed of his right to apply for it but had refused or neglected to do . .
CitedBenham v United Kingdom ECHR 8-Feb-1995
Legal Aid was wrongfully refused where a tax or fine defaulter was liable to imprisonment, and the lack of a proper means enquiry, made imprisonment of poll tax defaulter unlawful. A poll tax defaulter had been wrongly committed to prison by . .
CitedArab Monetary Fund v Hashim and Others CA 21-Mar-1997
When a person in contempt of court asks to be heard by the court before his contempt is purged, the preferable approach is to ask: ‘whether, in the circumstances of an individual case, the interests of justice are best served by hearing a party in . .
See AlsoMotorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and Others CA 26-Jun-2002
A world wide asset freezing order had been made. The defendants sought that it be set aside. Pending the hearing of their application, they sought also delay of their obligation to co-operate in providing full details of their finances.
Held: . .

Cited by:

CitedPolanski 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 . .
CitedETI Euro Telecom International Nv v Republic of Bolivia and Another CA 28-Jul-2008
The parties were involved in an international investment dispute arbitration. An injunction had been sought to prevent repatriation of assets to Bolivia.
Held: The international system of arbitration was not subject to any national law and did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Contempt of Court

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.183396

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 various ways. The defendants argued that the proper forum was Jamaica.
Held: The decision as to forum conveniens was well within the judge’s discretion. As to the issues of European Law, these were to be referred to the European Court. Here, the two competing jurisdictions were not separate European ones, but one European and one Jamaican. The issue had not been previously dealt with by the European Court.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 877, [2003] PIQR 186

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 6.20(3), Brussels Convention Art 2, EC Treaty 220

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMassey v Haynes 1881
Where one party to a case resides out of the jurisdiction, then Order 11 r1(1) applies and he may be joined if there are several defendants and the result would depend upon one investigation involving all of them. The words ‘proper party’ includes . .
CitedGroup Josi Reinsurance Company Sa v Universal General Insurance Company ECJ 9-Aug-2000
The Brussels Convention rules allowing jurisdiction apply whenever the proposed defendant is domiciled in a convention country. The plaintiff need not be. The special rules on jurisdiction which apply to insurance cases do not apply to reinsurance . .

Cited by:

Reference fromOwusu 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 . .
CitedA 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.174009