Category: Jurisdiction

Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999

appeal from refusal to set aside service out of jurisdiction

Judges:

Mance LJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1524, [1999] Lloyd’s Rep IR 472, [1999] CLC 1270, [1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 54

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Gan Insurance Company Ltd v The Tai Ping Insurance Company Ltd (No 3) CA 1-Mar-2002
Tai Ping had placed facultative insurance with Gan. The substantial risks were re-insured through various agencies. When a claim arose it was repudiated alleging misrepresentation. Gan asserted that Tai Ping had failed to co-operate in the . .
See Also – Gan Insurance Co Ltd v Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd CA 3-Jul-2001
A reinsurance contract which contained a clause which provided that no settlement or compromise of a claim could be made or liability admitted by the insured without the prior approval of the reinsurers. The court considered how the discretion to . .

Cited by:

See Also – Gan Insurance Co Ltd v Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd CA 3-Jul-2001
A reinsurance contract which contained a clause which provided that no settlement or compromise of a claim could be made or liability admitted by the insured without the prior approval of the reinsurers. The court considered how the discretion to . .
See Also – Gan Insurance Company Ltd v The Tai Ping Insurance Company Ltd (No 3) CA 1-Mar-2002
Tai Ping had placed facultative insurance with Gan. The substantial risks were re-insured through various agencies. When a claim arose it was repudiated alleging misrepresentation. Gan asserted that Tai Ping had failed to co-operate in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Jurisdiction

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.146439

Grupo Torras Sa and Another v Sheikh Fahad Mohammed Al Sabah and Others: CA 26 May 1995

A UK court may continue to hear a Spanish company’s claim against it’s own directors if a court was first seized of the matter here. Where a case concerned matters as to the constitution of a company, the courts of the company in which the company was incorporated had exclusive jurisdiction.
Stuart-Smith LJ: ‘The test laid down in Zelger is a chronological test. It requires a moment in time to be identified. When were the requirements first fulfilled? A doctrine of relation back cannot alter the answer to be given to this question. Under Spanish law, the requirement for pendency was not fulfilled until the proceedings were served on Grupo Torras in October, 1993. Again, the argument of the defendants confuses the fulfilment of the requirement with the consequences of that fulfilment in the domestic procedural law.’

Judges:

Stuart-Smith LJ

Citations:

Independent 05-Jul-1995, [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 7, [1995] EWHC 1 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments 16-2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Grupo Torras SA and Torras Hostench London Limited v Sheikh Fahad Mohammed Al Sabah and others (2) CA 21-Mar-1997
The Court of Appeal should interfere with Judge’s case management decisions only with great reluctance. . .
See Also – Grupo Torras SA and Torras Hostench London Limited v Sheikh Fahad Mohammed Al-Sabah Et Al CA 2-Oct-1997
A party choosing to provide discovery of substantial documents on a Compact Disk must ask the court first before charging extra for the service. . .
See Also – Grupo Torras SA and Another v Al-Sabah and others Lst CA 6-Feb-1998
. .
See Also – Barbara Alison Al-Sabah and Another v Grupo Torras S A and Others PC 10-Oct-2000
PC (Jersey) The board refused special leave to appeal: ‘Normally all such questions of case management are matters for the courts concerned and are not suitable for any further review before their Lordships’ . .
See Also – Khaled Naser Hamoud Al-Sabah and Juan Jose Folchi Bonafonte v Grupo Torras SA CA 2-Nov-2000
The court discussed the approach to be taken when asked to act upon evidence which it found to be unreliable, though the witness’s credibility had not been destroyed. In a claim for dishonest assistance it is not necessary to show a precise causal . .
See Also – Grupo Torras Sa and Another v Al-Sabah and others CA 30-Jul-2001
The hearing followed others concluding that the claimant had been defrauded of substantial sums by the defendants. The parties sought clarifications. . .
See Also – Al Sabah and Al Sabah v Grupo Torras SA Culmer as trustee of the property of Sheikh Fahad Mohammed Al Sabah, bankrupt PC 11-Jan-2005
PC (Cayman Islands) The claimant complained of an order of the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands, requiring him to comply with a letter of request from the Grand Court of the Bahamas.
Held: In earlier . .
Cited – Siegfried Zelger v Sebastiano Salinitri ECJ 7-Jun-1984
Article 21 of the Convention of 28 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that the court ‘first seised’ is the one before which the requirements for proceedings to become definitively pending are first fulfilled, such requirements to be . .

Cited by:

Cited – Speed Investments Ltd and Another v Formula One Holdings Limited and Others (No 2) ChD 20-Jul-2004
The defendants sought a stay of the action, arguing that proceedings had begun first in Switzerland.
Held: An English court became seised of an action for the purposes of the Convention at the time when the proceedings were served. Under the . .
See Also – Grupo Torras SA and Torras Hostench London Limited v Sheikh Fahad Mohammed Al Sabah and others (2) CA 21-Mar-1997
The Court of Appeal should interfere with Judge’s case management decisions only with great reluctance. . .
See Also – Grupo Torras SA and Torras Hostench London Limited v Sheikh Fahad Mohammed Al-Sabah Et Al CA 2-Oct-1997
A party choosing to provide discovery of substantial documents on a Compact Disk must ask the court first before charging extra for the service. . .
See Also – Grupo Torras SA and Another v Al-Sabah and others Lst CA 6-Feb-1998
. .
See Also – Barbara Alison Al-Sabah and Another v Grupo Torras S A and Others PC 10-Oct-2000
PC (Jersey) The board refused special leave to appeal: ‘Normally all such questions of case management are matters for the courts concerned and are not suitable for any further review before their Lordships’ . .
See Also – Khaled Naser Hamoud Al-Sabah and Juan Jose Folchi Bonafonte v Grupo Torras SA CA 2-Nov-2000
The court discussed the approach to be taken when asked to act upon evidence which it found to be unreliable, though the witness’s credibility had not been destroyed. In a claim for dishonest assistance it is not necessary to show a precise causal . .
See Also – Grupo Torras Sa and Another v Al-Sabah and others CA 30-Jul-2001
The hearing followed others concluding that the claimant had been defrauded of substantial sums by the defendants. The parties sought clarifications. . .
See Also – Al Sabah and Al Sabah v Grupo Torras SA Culmer as trustee of the property of Sheikh Fahad Mohammed Al Sabah, bankrupt PC 11-Jan-2005
PC (Cayman Islands) The claimant complained of an order of the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands, requiring him to comply with a letter of request from the Grand Court of the Bahamas.
Held: In earlier . .
Cited – Nussberger and Another v Phillips and Another (No 4) CA 19-May-2006
A claim was issued in London in December 2004, and then served in part in Switzerland in January 2005. One copy was removed from the bundle by a Swiss official, seeing that it had been marked ‘Nor for service out of the jurisdiction.’ That marking . .
Cited – Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2) HL 12-Oct-2000
The plaintiffs alleged the involvement of the defendant in a conspiracy to defraud. He had been domiciled in England, but had moved to Germany. He denied that the UK court had jurisdiction. The court of appeal said that jurisdiction was determined . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.81072

Trust Risk Group Spa v AmTrust Europe Ltd: CA 30 Apr 2015

The appeal was as to a jurisdiction dispute arising from the breakdown of a business relationship about the placement of medical malpractice insurance in the Italian market. The underlying question was whether the contractual arrangements between TRG and ATEL consist of a single composite and overarching agreement, a ‘Framework Agreement’ to which an earlier agreement, a Terms of Business Agreement appended to it as a Schedule, is subordinate, or whether the Framework Agreement and the ToBA are two freestanding contracts.

Judges:

Elias, Beatson, Christopher Clarke LJJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 437, [2016] 1 All ER (Comm) 325, [2017] 1 CLC 456, [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 154

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Amtrust Europe Ltd v Trust Risk Group Spa ComC 10-Dec-2014
The parties disputed sums said to be due under arrangements selling medical malpractice insurance in Italy.
Held: ATEL had a ‘good arguable case’ that the ToBA continued as an agreement and was not superseded by the ‘Framework Agreement’, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Jurisdiction, Contract

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.546214

Connelly v RTZ Corporation Plc: CA 29 Sep 1995

Availability of legal aid to a party is not a relevant consideration to rules of forum non conveniens.

Citations:

Independent 29-Sep-1995, Times 20-Oct-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Connelly v RTZ Corporation Plc and others HL 24-Jul-1997
The availability of legal aid to a party is not part of criteria for choosing jurisdiction save in exceptional circumstances.
Lord Goff discussed the Spiliada case: ‘the burden of proof rests on the defendant to persuade the court to exercise . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction, Legal Aid

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.79443

Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA – The Angelic Grace: CA 1995

On the charterers’ orders the Angelic Grace was required to tie up alongside another vessel which they owned. Whilst unloading the weather turned and the vessels collided. Each blamed the other and the owners claimed a salvage. The court considered the clause ‘all disputes from time to time arising out of this contract shall . . be referred to the arbitrament of two arbitrators carrying on business in London.’
Held: The judgment of Rix J was approved. The parties had most probably wished to have one stop adjudication, so that if a part of the claim or cross claim arose out of the contract it was inherently likely that the parties intended that they should all be heard in one forum if the facts were closely knitted together.
The court rejected the idea that the grant of an injunction to restrain foreign proceedings which were in clear breach of contract would offend against comity. It did so on the basis that it is vexatious and oppressive for a party to maintain proceedings in breach of its agreement not to do so. Millett LJ: ‘In my judgment, the time has come to lay aside the ritual incantation that this is a jurisdiction which should only be exercised sparingly and with great caution. There have been many statements of great authority warning of the danger of giving an appearance of undue interference with the proceedings of a foreign Court. Such sensitivity to the feelings of a foreign Court has much to commend it where the injunction is sought on the ground of forum non conveniens or on the general ground that the foreign proceedings are vexatious or oppressive but where no breach of contract is involved. In the former case, great care may be needed to avoid casting doubt on the fairness or adequacy of the procedures of the foreign Court. In the later case, the question whether proceedings are vexatious or oppressive is primarily a matter for the Court before which they are pending. But in my judgment there is no good reason for diffidence in granting an injunction to restrain foreign proceedings on the clear and simple ground that the defendant has promised not to being them.
I cannot accept the proposition that any Court would be offended by the grant of an injunction to restrain a party from invoking a jurisdiction which he had promised not to invoke and which it was its own duty to decline.
In my judgment, where an injunction is sought to restrain a party from proceeding in a foreign Court in breach of an arbitration agreement governed by English law, the English Court need feel no diffidence in granting the injunction, provided that it is sought promptly and before the foreign proceedings are too far advanced. I see no difference in principle between an injunction to restrain proceedings in breach of an arbitration clause and one to restrain proceedings in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause as in Continental Bank NA v Aeakos Compania Naviera SA, [1994] 1WLR 588. The justification for the grant of the injunction in either case is that without it the plaintiff will be deprived of its contractual rights in a situation in which damages are manifestly an inadequate remedy. The jurisdiction is, of course, discretionary and is not exercised as a matter of course, but good reason needs to be shown why it should not be exercised in any given case.’
Leggatt LJ said: ‘The question in a nutshell is whether the relevant claims and cross-claims arise out of the contract. It is common ground that the question must be answered in the light of The Playa Larga [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Law Reports 171, in which the Court upheld the dictum of Mr Justice Mustill that a tortious claim does arise out of a contract containing an arbitration clause if there is a sufficiently close connection between the tortious claim and a claim under the contract. In order that there should be a sufficiently close connection, as the Judge said, the claimant must show either that the resolution of the contractual issue is necessary for a decision on the tortious claim, or, that the contractual and tortious disputes are so closely knitted together on the facts that an agreement to arbitrate on one can properly be construed as covering the other.’

Judges:

Leggatt LJ, Millett LJ, Neill LJ

Citations:

[1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 87

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA The Angelic Grace QBD 1994
The court considered whether a claim for a collision between two ships was governed by an arbitration clause which read ‘all disputes from time to time arising out of this contract shall . . be referred to the arbitrament of two arbitrators carrying . .

Cited by:

Cited – National 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 . .
Cited – OT 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. . .
Cited – Fiona Trust and Holding Corp and others v Privalov and others ComC 20-Oct-2006
The parties disputed whether their claim should be arbitrated.
Held: A claim as to whether the contract itself had been made was not one which could be arbitrated by provisions in that contract. It does not arise ‘under’ the contract. The . .
Cited – Sheffield United Football Club Ltd v West Ham United Football Club Plc ComC 26-Nov-2008
The claimant sought an order to prevent the defendant company from pursuing further an appeal against a decision made by an independent arbitator in their favour as regards the conduct of the defendant in the Premier League in 2006/2007.
Held: . .
Cited – S Ltd v C Ltd ComC 27-Feb-2009
Defamation allegation not subject to arbitration
The parties had an agreement referring disputes between them to arbitration. One party raised an allegation of defamation, but the arbitrator refused jurisdiction. The parties had chosen the London Metal Exchange for its expertise in metals trading, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Contract

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.185976

Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd: 21 Aug 1905

VLR (Supreme Court – Victoria) International law – Conflict of laws – Tort committed abroad – Jurisdiction – Patent in New South Wales – Infringement by Victorian company in New South Wales of New South Wales patent – Action not justiciable in Victoria – ‘Local action’ – ‘Transitory action’ – Practice – Demurrer – Right of reply.
Patents could be granted by the several States in Australia. Potter obtained a patent in Victoria for the separation of metals from sulphide ores and a patent for the same process in New South Wales. He claimed that (as well as a threatened infringement of the Victorian patent in Victoria) the defendant had infringed the New South Wales patent at its mine in New South Wales. Broken Hill denied novelty and utility, but also said that an action for the infringement in New South Wales of a New South Wales patent was not justiciable in the Victorian courts.
Held: The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria, decided by a majority that the claim was not justiciable.

Judges:

Hodges, Hood JJ

Citations:

[1905] VLR 612, [1905] VicLawRp 93, [1905] 11 ALR 357, [1905] 27 Alt 74

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Appeal from – Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd 20-Mar-1906
(High Court of Australia) (affirmed) . .
Cited – Lucasfilm Ltd and Others v Ainsworth and Another SC 27-Jul-2011
The claimant had produced the Star War films which made use of props, in particular a ‘Stormtrooper’ helmet designed by the defendant. The defendant had then himself distributed models of the designs he had created. The appellant obtained judgment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.442606

British Wagon Co Ltd v Gray: 1896

Citations:

[1896] 1 QB 35

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Reversed – Duff Development Co v Kelantan Government HL 1924
Lord Sumner suggested that in the absence of a clear statement of the position from the Government, the court might be entitled to decide whether a defendat had the benefit of state immunity for itself on the basis of the evidence before it.
A . .
Mentioned – NML Capital Ltd v Argentina SC 6-Jul-2011
The respondent had issued bonds but in 2001 had declared a moratorium on paying them. The appellant hedge fund later bought the bonds, heavily discounted. Judgment was obtained in New York, which the appellants now sought to enforce against assets . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.441571

OJSC Oil Company Yugraneft v Abramovich and others: ComC 29 Oct 2008

The claimants sought damages alleging a massive fraud by the defendants. The court considered whether the parties could receive a fair trial of the action in Russia.
Held: They could. Christopher Clarke J said: ‘Firstly, this case is in no way comparable to Cherney v Deripaska, [2008] EWHC 1530 (Comm), in which the claimant, a Russian exile and persona non grata in Russia, was given permission to serve out in circumstances where the agreement sued on, as a result of which he claimed a 20% interest in the largest aluminium company in the world, was made in England. The evidence gave grounds for believing that if the proceedings took place in Russia (a) he faced a greater risk of assassination (there having been a previous Russian originated attempt on his life); (b) there was a real risk that he might be arrested on trumped up charges; (c) and, because of the very close links between Mr Deripaska and the Russian state, he might very well not receive a fair trial. ‘
Here Yugraneft a Russian company, one of whose shareholders is the City of Moscow, is a seasoned litigator in Russia. It has not been without success. In the bankruptcy proceedings it has enjoyed complete success, as appears from the course of proceedings summarised in Appendix 5. It is open to it to appeal the investigator’s refusal but it has decided not to do so. Mr Kotov says that he did not initiate an appeal because he considered it likely that it would be dismissed for reasons unconnected with the merits of the complaint. This view appears to be based on a conversation reported to him by an officer at the Ministry of Internal affairs involved in pre-investigative research into the complaint which that officer had had with Mr Davidovich in which the latter had said that the investigation ‘has no prospects’, ‘does not mean anything’ and ‘will be closed anyway so there is no point in you talking to me’.
Professor Eksarkhopulo’s evidence indicates that there can be real problems in securing the prosecution of important people for economic crimes, and that a thriving practice has grown up known as ‘raiding’ whereby property is unlawfully seized in the belief that no criminal case will come of it as a result of the investigators’ incompetence or corruption. Yugraneft claims that there are well recognised problems of corruption in the Russian Courts. Presidents Putin and Medvedev have acknowledged as much, as has Valery Zorkin, the President of the Constitutional Court. In October 2004 he told Izvestiya that
‘the courts are very vulnerable to attack from business in the form of corruption. Bribe-taking in the courts has become one of the strongest corruption markets in Russia. Judicial corruption is built into various corruption networks operating at different levels of power: for example, networks for causing criminal cases to collapse and for taking over businesses’.
In May 2008 President Medvedev expressed the ‘particular concern of the state’ in relation to the ‘corruption in the law enforcement bodies and the judiciary’.
Reliance is placed on the evidence of Mr Vladimir Soloviev, a Russian broadcaster with a colourful background, who claims to be, inter alia, an investigative journalist. He refers to a failure by the Chairwoman of the Federal Arbitazh Court of Moscow Circuit to procure a prosecution against him for pointing out that she had obtained in dubious circumstances four apartments in Moscow, one of them at an undervalue from a party in a case before her at a cost of 50 times her judicial salary. He also refers to a defamation action brought by Mr V. Boyev, an adviser in the Presidential Department for personnel issues and State awards, who took exception to reports he made about the latter’s exercise of improper influence over judges. The action was withdrawn when he obtained the evidence of a judge that Mr Boyev had requested that she change her ruling and told her that if she did not her reappointment as Deputy Chairwoman was in jeopardy.
I have no doubt that Russia has had, and has, corruption problems with some of its judges; and that there is a widespread public perception of judicial corruption and political interference in the judicial process: see ‘Striving for Judicial Independence’, IBA Human Rights Institute Report, June 2005. Professor Eskarkhopulo gives evidence of specific examples of judicial corruption in his second report. I am equally clear that there are many judges who are not corrupt. The evidence is insufficient to persuade me that, if there was an appeal from the investigator’s refusal to initiate a prosecution, it would be likely to be determined contrary to its merits because Yugraneft was the complainant or because Mr Davidovich, Mr Matevosov or Mr Abramovich were the respondents. The litigation in which Yugraneft has so far engaged does not bear tell tale indicia of impropriety such as repeated determinations of different cases by the same judge without good reason, departure from normal curial practice, irrational conclusions or the like. Since Yugraneft has not attempted to appeal the Investigator’s refusals it is not possible to know what a Russian judge would make of the submissions cogently advanced before me in reliance on Professor Eskarkhopulo’s material, or to say that, in the event of a favourable judicial ruling, a subsequent prosecution would, for improper reasons, be doomed never to take place.
Lastly, if and insofar as reliance is placed upon the unsatisfactory nature of a system in which claims based on commercial fraud must await the outcome of a criminal prosecution which may never be brought, that is a characteristic of Russian law under which Sibir and Yugraneft, (behind which there lies, amongst others, the City of Moscow) and Mr Abramovich have chosen to do business. It was at one time part of English law so far as felonies were concerned.’

Judges:

Christopher Clarke J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2613 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2201)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Pacific International Sports Clubs Ltd v Soccer Marketing International Ltd and Others ChD 24-Jul-2009
The parties disputed ownership of shares in the football club Dynamo Kiev. Claims were to be made under Ukrainian company law and in equity. The claimant (a company registered in Mauritius) sought to proceed here. The defendants (largely companies . .
Cited – Varsani v Relfo Ltd CA 27-May-2010
The defendant appealed against refusal of a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. He said that he lived in Kenya, and the claimant had failed first to apply for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction. The claimant had . .
Cited – Calzaghe v Warren QBD 20-Jan-2010
The claimant boxer had secured judgement for fight fees from a company operated by the respondent manager and promoter. After the judgment the defendant had put the company into administration. The claimant now sought payment from the defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.277338

Mahme Trust v Lloyds TSB Bank plc: ChD 29 Jul 2004

The claimant began an action in England. The defendant sought a stay, saying the appropriate forum was Switzerland.
Held: The defendant was a truly multi-national orgaisation and had branches in many countries. The choice of forum belongs to the claimant not the court, and it was not for the court to fetter that choice. The convention made specific provision for certain types of contracts. No special provision was made for banks, and therefore they had no such special position.

Judges:

Sir Andrew Morritt VC

Citations:

Times 25-Aug-2004

Statutes:

Lugano Convention

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Grossman CA 1981
An application was made against Barclays Bank in London to obtain inspection of an account held at a branch of the bank in the Isle of Man.
Held: The Civil Division of the Court of Appeal which determined the application was later held to have . .
Cited – MacKinnon v Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette Securities Corporation ChD 1986
A plaintiff in an English action had obtained an order against an American bank, served on its London office, requiring production of books and papers at its New York head office.
Held: The court pointed out the distinction between ‘personal . .

Cited by:

See Also – Mahme Trust Reg and others v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc ChD 5-Jul-2006
. .
See Also – Mahme Trust Reg and others v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc ChD 14-Jul-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.200644

Speed Investments Ltd and Another v Formula One Holdings Limited and Others (No 2): ChD 20 Jul 2004

The defendants sought a stay of the action, arguing that proceedings had begun first in Switzerland.
Held: An English court became seised of an action for the purposes of the Convention at the time when the proceedings were served. Under the Lugano Convention the court vested with jurisdiction where that jurisdiction arose under art 16, that could make its own decision as to jurisdiction.

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

Times 13-Aug-2004

Statutes:

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1991, Lugano Convention

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Dresser UK v Falcongate Freight Management Ltd; The Duke of Yare CA 1992
In England the court was first seised of a matter at the point when the proceedings were served, not when they were issued. Article 21 was metaphorically described as a ‘tie-break rule’ which operates on the basis of strict chronological . .
Cited – Erich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl ECJ 9-Dec-2003
The claimant Austrian company had for many years sold goods to the defendant an Italian company. Eventually it presented a claim before the court in Italy. Having obtained judgement, it later sought to enforce the order through the Austrian court . .
Cited – Grupo Torras Sa and Another v Sheikh Fahad Mohammed Al Sabah and Others CA 26-May-1995
A UK court may continue to hear a Spanish company’s claim against it’s own directors if a court was first seized of the matter here. Where a case concerned matters as to the constitution of a company, the courts of the company in which the company . .
See Also – Speed Investments Ltd and Another v Formula One Holdings Limited and Others ChD 19-Jul-2004
An application for summary judgment should not be heard at the same time as a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court. That was the price that a plaintiff paid in asking a court to bring a foreign defendant before a court in England – that . .

Cited by:

See Also – Speed Investments Ltd and Another v Formula One Holdings Limited and Others ChD 19-Jul-2004
An application for summary judgment should not be heard at the same time as a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court. That was the price that a plaintiff paid in asking a court to bring a foreign defendant before a court in England – that . .
Appeal from – Speed Investments Limited, Slec Holdings LImited v Formula One Holdings Limited, Bambino Holdings Limited, Luc Argand, Emmanuele Argand-Rey CA 12-Nov-2004
The applicants, shareholders in the company, sought to stay an action in England, saying the action had first been commenced in Switzerland.
Held: The issue was one of the internal management of the company. Though it did not relate to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.200217

Dynasty Company for Oil and Gas v Trading Ltd v The Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq and Another: ComC 4 Mar 2020

Application made by the second defendant for an order that, in effect, bifurcates the determination of issues concerning the jurisdiction of the court to entertain a claim brought by the claimant against the second defendant. The order sought is for an order that a hearing be limited to the determination to (i) whether the second defendant is immune from the jurisdiction of the court by reason of the State Immunity Act 1978; and (ii) whether service of the claim form on the second defendant has been effected in accordance with section 12 of the State Immunity Act 1978.

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 890 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

State Immunity Act 1978 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.651145

Phillps and Others v Francis and Another: QBD 24 Mar 2010

‘dispute between the freehold owners and estate managers of a site at Point Curlew, St Merryn, Padstow, Cornwall, the defendants, and a number of the owners of holiday chalets at that site. The dispute relates to the service charges which the defendants seek to claim under the terms of the various 999 year leases which the claimants have. I am invited to determine, as a preliminary issue, whether the matter is properly before me sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court of Justice or whether the matter is governed by the provisions of sections 18 to 30 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as amended by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, in which event, as a result of amendments made by the Housing Act 1996, disputes over service charges should be addressed to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal from whose decisions an appeal lies to the Lands Tribunal.’

Judges:

Griggs J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC B28 (QB), [2010] 2 EGLR 31, [2010] 24 EG 118, [2010] L and TR 28

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.427036

Diamond v Sutton: 1866

A plaintiff who seeks leave to serve out of the jurisdiction in respect of publication within the jurisdiction is guilty of an abuse if he seeks to include in the same action matters occurring elsewhere.

Citations:

[1866] LR 1 Ex 130

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Berezovsky v Forbes Inc and Michaels; Glouchkov v Same HL 16-May-2000
Plaintiffs who lived in Russia sought damages for defamation against an American magazine with a small distribution in England. Both plaintiffs had real connections with and reputations in England. A judgment in Russia would do nothing to repair the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.268055

Jefferies International Ltd and Another v Cantor Fitzgerald and Co and Others: QBD 2 Jun 2020

Applications made by the First to Third Defendants and the Fourth to Sixth Defendants issued on 19 and 21 February 2019 respectively to challenge the jurisdiction of the court to hear this action, alternatively to stay the action on case management grounds.

Judges:

Cook M

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1381 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.651240

Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd: 20 Mar 1906

(High Court of Australia) (affirmed)

Judges:

Griffith C.J., Barton and O’Connor JJ

Citations:

(1906) 3 CLR 479, [1906] HCA 88

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Citing:

Appeal from – Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd 21-Aug-1905
VLR (Supreme Court – Victoria) International law – Conflict of laws – Tort committed abroad – Jurisdiction – Patent in New South Wales – Infringement by Victorian company in New South Wales of New South Wales . .

Cited by:

Mentioned – Lucasfilm Ltd and Others v Ainsworth and Another SC 27-Jul-2011
The claimant had produced the Star War films which made use of props, in particular a ‘Stormtrooper’ helmet designed by the defendant. The defendant had then himself distributed models of the designs he had created. The appellant obtained judgment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Intellectual Property

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.442607

HM Revenue and Customs v Begum and Others: ChD 15 Jul 2010

The Commissioners claim was founded in an alleged conspiracy from a ‘missing trader intra-community fraud’ amounting to andpound;96 million.
Held: Section 423 had extra territorial effect.

Judges:

David Richards J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1799 (Ch), [2011] BPIR 59

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 423

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regalway Care Ltd v Shillingford and others ChD 25-Feb-2005
Applications to vary freezing order. Blackburne J set out a description of the workings of missing trader intra-community VAT carousel frauds. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others v Nazir and Others ChD 30-Jul-2012
The company was said to have engaged in a fraud based on false European Trading Scheme Allowances, and had been wound up by the Revenue. The liquidators, in the company name, now sought recovery from former directors and associates.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, VAT, Insolvency, Jurisdiction

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.420810

Kolden Holdings Ltd v Rodette Commerce Ltd and Another: ComC 4 Jul 2007

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1597 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Kolden 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.254584

Owens 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.

Citations:

[1995] 1 WLR 44

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others (No 2) CA 12-Jun-2003
World-wide freezing orders had been made under the 1982 Act. The defendants were members of a Turkish family with substantial business interests in the telecommunications industry. In breach of orders made in the US some defendants had sought to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.183511

Bourns Inc v Raychem Corporation; Latham and Watkins (a Firm): CA 30 Mar 1999

Documents disclosed in support an application in a costs taxation, remained subject to implied duties of confidence, and they could not be used for any other purpose, including to support litigation abroad. Where questions of US law arose, a US court was the best place to decide those questions. Legal privilege is not lost under English law because it cannot be claimed in another country: ‘To suggest otherwise would mean that a court, when deciding whether to uphold a claim for privilege, would need to be informed as to whether privilege could be claimed in all the countries of the world. . . The fact that under a foreign law the document is not privileged or that the privilege that existed is deemed to have been waived is irrelevant. The crucial consideration is whether the document and its information remain confidential in the sense that it is not properly available for use. If it is, then privilege in this country can be claimed and that claim, if properly made, will be enforced.’

Judges:

Aldous LJ

Citations:

Times 12-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1128, [1999] 3 All ER 154

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Bourns Inc v Raychem Corporation CA 17-Dec-1998
. .

Cited by:

Cited – B and Others Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet and Co v Auckland District Law Society, Gary J Judd PC 19-May-2003
(New Zealand) Solicitors resisted requests to disclose papers in breach of legal professional privilege from their professional body investigating allegations of professional misconduct against them.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The . .
See also – Bourns Inc v Raychem Corporation CA 17-Dec-1998
. .
Cited – British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd v United States of America CA 30-Jul-2004
The claimant appealed an order for its London solicitor to be examined in connection with proceedings in the US.
Held: A court should not make an order which was superfluous. The witness had now given his evidence. However, the foreign . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.146043

Viskase Limited and Viskase (UK) Limited v Paul Kiefal Gmbh: CA 19 Mar 1999

Appeal from refusal of requests to stay the action on two grounds. First, that under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgment Acts 1952 which gives effect to the Brussels Convention the English court has no jurisdiction to hear it. Secondly, because each of the contracts under which the plaintiffs sue contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of a court in Germany.

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1045, [1999] 1 WLR 1305, [2000] ILPr 29, [1999] CLC 957

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Intellectual Property

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145960

Surzur Overseas Ltd v Koros and others: CA 25 Feb 1999

A defendant to a worldwide Mareva injunction had failed to give full disclosure of all his assets in an affidavit filed with the court. False evidence as to sale of the assets in question was later manufactured and placed before the court. The plaintiffs claimed damages against the defendants and others. The claim was characterised as a conspiracy to injure the plaintiffs by a number of unlawful means, those unlawful means including the giving of false evidence before the court.
Held: The strike out request was refused. The conspiracy had a broader objective and was not brought simply in respect of evidence given. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
Waller LJ referred to Lord Morris in Roy v Prior as to its conclusion in relation to witness immunity,and added: ‘It also seems to me that what the above demonstrates is that it is not permissible to divide allegations up as Mr Schaff sought to do into those that involve giving evidence and those which do not.’ and: ‘In my view the statement of Lord Morris is capable of two interpretations, on either of which the plaintiffs, on the pleaded facts, will not be defeated by the witness immunity rule. On the first interpretation his statement should not be read simply as saying that malicious arrest or malicious prosecution alone are exceptions to the witness immunity rule. His statement, in my view, supports a broader proposition that if the action is not brought simply in respect of evidence given or supplied but is brought in relation to some broader objective during the currency of which it may well be that evidence was given witness immunity should not apply.’

Judges:

Waller LJ, Hirst and Aldous LJJ

Citations:

[1999] 2 LLR 616, [1999] EWCA Civ 863, [1999] CLC 801, [1999] 2 Lloyds Rep 611

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Roy v Prior HL 1970
The court considered an alleged tort of maliciously procuring an arrest. The plaintiff had been arrested under a bench warrant issued as a result of evidence given by the defendant. He sued the defendant for damages for malicious arrest.
Held: . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mahonia Limited v JP Morgan Chase Bankwest Lb Ag QBD 3-Aug-2004
The Claimant claimed on a letter of credit issued by the Defendant on behalf of Enron Ltd, who asserted it was not liable to pay there having been unlawful behaviour by Enron Ltd. Swap agreements had been entered into, and the defendant said the . .
Cited – Walsh v Staines and others ChD 26-Jul-2007
The defendants applied to strike out a claim based on an allegation of a fraudulent deceit and conspiracy in earlier proceedings between the parties. It was said that the defendant solicitors had represented that their client had funds to support an . .
Cited – Total Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .
Cited – Singh v Moorlands Primary School and Another CA 25-Jul-2013
The claimant was a non-white head teacher, alleging that her school governors and local authority had undermined and had ‘deliberately endorsed a targeted campaign of discrimination, bullying, harassment and victimisation’ against her as an Asian . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Jurisdiction

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145778

Smyth v Behbehani, Behbehani and Philip Ross and Company (a Firm): CA 11 Mar 1999

The defendant appealed against a refusal of an order declining jurisdiction for forum non conveniens.
Held: Though a court should be very careful to make any order in a matter which was being litigated in a foreign jurisdiction for fear of being party to procedural manipulation, it could do so where the making of the order would assist both parties.

Citations:

Times 09-Apr-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.89354

Welex A G v Rosa Maritime Limited: CA 3 Jul 2003

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice May Lord Justice Tuckey

Citations:

A3/02/2230, A3/02/2231, [2003] EWCA Civ 938, [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 509, [2003] 2 CLC 207

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Welex Ag v Rosa Maritime Ltd ComC 2002
The court granted the respondent an anti-suit injunction to restrain them issuing proceedings in Poland on closely related issues. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.184227

Burrows v Jemino: 1726

A debt or liability arising in any country may be discharged by the laws of that country, and that such a discharge, if it extinguishes the debt or liability, and does not merely interfere with the remedies or course of procedure to enforce it, will be an effectual answer to the claim, not only in the courts of that country, but in every other country.

Judges:

Lord King

Citations:

(1726) 2 Stra 733

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ellis v M’Henry CCP 1871
A debt or liability arising in any country may be discharged by the laws of that country, and such a discharge, if it extinguishes the debt or liability, and does not merely interfere with the remedies or course of procedure to enforce it, will be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.183529

Rosseel 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 courts.

Citations:

[1990] 1 WLR 1387

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others (No 2) CA 12-Jun-2003
World-wide freezing orders had been made under the 1982 Act. The defendants were members of a Turkish family with substantial business interests in the telecommunications industry. In breach of orders made in the US some defendants had sought to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.183510

Ballantine v Golding: 1784

Judges:

Lord Mansfield

Citations:

(1784) Cooke’s Bankrupt Laws 419

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ellis v M’Henry CCP 1871
A debt or liability arising in any country may be discharged by the laws of that country, and such a discharge, if it extinguishes the debt or liability, and does not merely interfere with the remedies or course of procedure to enforce it, will be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.183530

Dornoch Ltd and others v Mauritius Union Assurance Company Ltd and Another: CA 10 Apr 2006

reinsurance jurisdiction dispute.

Judges:

Lord Justice May Lord Justice Tuckey Lord Justice Potter

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 389, [2006] 1 CLC 714, [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 475, [2006] 2 All ER (Comm) 385, [2006] Lloyd’s Rep IR 786

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Dornoch Ltd and others v The Mauritius Union Assurance Company Ltd and Another ComC 19-Aug-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Jurisdiction

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.240171

Malik v Narodni Banka Ceskoslovenska: 1946

(Orse Malik v National Bank of Czechoslovakia) The evidential standard for establishing that one of the jurisdictional gateways applied was the civil burden of proof.

Judges:

Lord Goddard CJ

Citations:

[1946] 2 All ER 663, (1946) 176 LT 136

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

View rejected – Vitkovice Horni a Hutni Tezirstvo v Korner HL 1951
The ordinary principles of international comity were invaded when courts permitted service out of jurisdiction and that the courts should therefore approach with circumspection any application for leave to serve a foreigner out of the jurisdiction. . .
Mentioned – Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie SC 19-Dec-2017
The claimant and her family were in a car crash while on holiday in Egypt. The claimant’s husband and his daughter died. The holiday had been booked in England and the car excursion booked in advance from England. The hotel operator was incorporated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.651077

Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated: QBD 19 Feb 2014

The claimant and her husband had been in a car crash while on holiday in Egypt. The tour was booked in London. The defendant denied jurisdiction.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 273 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At first Instance – Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie SC 19-Dec-2017
The claimant and her family were in a car crash while on holiday in Egypt. The claimant’s husband and his daughter died. The holiday had been booked in England and the car excursion booked in advance from England. The hotel operator was incorporated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Jurisdiction

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.521513

VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others: CA 20 Jun 2012

The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for resolution of VTB’s tort claims, and nor that there was a proper basis for piercing the corporate veil. The parties were all based abroad, and only the initiation of the alleged fraud had occurred here.
Held: The appeal failed. The burden was on the claimant to persuade the court that England is clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum. The claimant would not be given leave to serve the documents outside the jurisdiction, and nor had it been shown to warranted to pierce the corporate veil.

Judges:

Lloyd, Rimer, Aikens LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 808, [2012] WLR(D) 181, [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 313, [2012] 2 CLC 431, [2012] 2 BCLC 437

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Private International Law Act (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 11(2)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others ChD 29-Nov-2011
The appellant bank had granted very substantial lending facilities to the defendant companies, and now alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. The defendants now sought to have the service set aside. The claimants also sought permission to amend the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others SC 6-Feb-2013
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . .
Cited – Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013
In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The . .
Cited – Abela and Others v Baadarani SC 26-Jun-2013
The claimants sought damages alleging fraud in a company share purchase. They said that their lawyer had secretly been working for the sellers. The claim form had been issued, but the claimant had delayed in requesting permission for its service . .
Cited – Google Inc v Vidal-Hall and Others CA 27-Mar-2015
Damages for breach of Data Protection
The claimants sought damages alleging that Google had, without their consent, collected personal data about them, which was resold to advertisers. They used the Safari Internet browser on Apple products. The tracking and collation of the claimants’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Jurisdiction, Company

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.460544

VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others: ChD 29 Nov 2011

The appellant bank had granted very substantial lending facilities to the defendant companies, and now alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. The defendants now sought to have the service set aside. The claimants also sought permission to amend the pleadings to set aside the veil of incorporation to add three further defendants.
Held: Leave was set aside. The application to amend was refused. The evidence did not establish a real risk of dissipation of assets by the fourth defendant and the original order was tainted by material non-disclosure by the claimant to the court.

Judges:

Arnold J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3107 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At First Instance – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others SC 6-Feb-2013
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . .
Appeal from – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others CA 20-Jun-2012
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . .
Cited – Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013
In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Company, Jurisdiction

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.449025

British Arab Commercial Bank Plc v Bank of Communications and Another: ComC 17 Feb 2011

Blair J said: ‘It is not in dispute that, . . it must be a ‘real choice’ which the parties had a clear intention to make. A tacit choice must only be found where it is reasonably clear that it is a genuine choice by the parties (See Clarke J’s review of academic authority in [Oldendorff] . . ) It follows that both parties must be shown with reasonable certainty to have had a common intention, although I consider it is unnecessary to distinguish between subjective or objective intention in this regard. The fundamental question is whether in the absence of an express choice there was nevertheless a real choice. As the Giuliano-Lagarde put it: ‘this article does not permit the court to infer the choice of law that the parties might have made where they had no clear intention of making a choice. Such a situation is governed by Article 4’.

Judges:

Blair J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 281 (Comm), [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 664

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Egon Oldendorff v Libera Corporation 1996
Conflict of laws – ‘It is sufficient to say that the party relying upon art. 3 must demonstrate with reasonable certainty that the parties have chosen a particular law as the governing or applicable law. ‘ . .

Cited by:

Cited – Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie SC 19-Dec-2017
The claimant and her family were in a car crash while on holiday in Egypt. The claimant’s husband and his daughter died. The holiday had been booked in England and the car excursion booked in advance from England. The hotel operator was incorporated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Jurisdiction

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.429633

Vitkovice Horni a Hutni Tezirstvo v Korner: HL 1951

The ordinary principles of international comity were invaded when courts permitted service out of jurisdiction and that the courts should therefore approach with circumspection any application for leave to serve a foreigner out of the jurisdiction. It is an ‘exhorbitant jurisdiction’, and should be ‘exercised with caution and with a bias against invading the sovereignty of a foreign State’ (Lord Simonds). A master or judge may on some occasions be obliged to assess the relative strength of the parties’ cases. In doing so, he does not try the case on the affidavits, because he reaches only a provisional conclusion: the stage for trial and for final decision has not been reached. But he must have regard to all the admissible material before him not just the plaintiff’s case. He must conclude that there is a good arguable case (Lord Simonds), not just a case that can be argued, or a strong argument (Lord Radcliffe).
Lord Radcliffe said: ‘It seems to me that the solution of disputes about the relative merits of trial in England and trial abroad is pre-eminently a matter for the trial judge. Commercial court judges are very experienced in these matters. In nearly every case evidence is on affidavit by witnesses of acknowledged probity. I hope that in future the judge will be allowed to study the evidence and refresh his memory of the speech of Lord Goff in this case in the quiet of his room without expense to the parties; that he will not be referred to other decisions on other facts; and that submissions will be measured in hours and not days. An appeal should be rare and the appellate court should be slow to interfere.’

Judges:

Lord Radcliffe, Lord Simonds

Citations:

[1951] AC 869, [1951] 2 All ER 334

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

View rejected – Malik v Narodni Banka Ceskoslovenska 1946
(Orse Malik v National Bank of Czechoslovakia) The evidential standard for establishing that one of the jurisdictional gateways applied was the civil burden of proof. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bols Distilleries VB (T/A As Bols Royal Distilleries) and Another v Superior Yacht Services Ltd PC 11-Oct-2006
(Gilbraltar) The parties disputed the management contract for a racing yacht, and also the juridiction of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar to hear the case. Bols said that under regulation 2(1) Gibraltar had no jurisdiction.
Held: The English . .
Cited – Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie SC 19-Dec-2017
The claimant and her family were in a car crash while on holiday in Egypt. The claimant’s husband and his daughter died. The holiday had been booked in England and the car excursion booked in advance from England. The hotel operator was incorporated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.416455

Parker v Tui UK Ltd: CA 27 Nov 2009

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1261

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie SC 19-Dec-2017
The claimant and her family were in a car crash while on holiday in Egypt. The claimant’s husband and his daughter died. The holiday had been booked in England and the car excursion booked in advance from England. The hotel operator was incorporated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Jurisdiction

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.381581

Bols Distilleries VB (T/A As Bols Royal Distilleries) and Another v Superior Yacht Services Ltd: PC 11 Oct 2006

(Gilbraltar) The parties disputed the management contract for a racing yacht, and also the juridiction of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar to hear the case. Bols said that under regulation 2(1) Gibraltar had no jurisdiction.
Held: The English court had jurisdiction by virtue of the clear agreement of the parties. That parts of the agreement had been in place before the written contract was executed did not override what was an enforceable choice of jurisdiction.

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe

Citations:

[2005] UKPC 45, [2007] 1 WLR 12, [2007] 1 All ER (Comm) 461, [2007] 1 LLR 683, [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 683

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 2(1) 23(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Estasis Salotti Di Colzani Aimo Et Gianmario Colzani v Ruewa Polstereimaschinen Gmbh ECJ 14-Dec-1976
ECJ The way in which article 17 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 is to be applied must be interpreted in the light of the effect of the conferment of jurisdiction by consent, which is to exclude both the . .
Cited – Partenreederei Ms Tilly Russ and Ernest Russ v NV Haven- and Vervoerbedrijf Nova and NV Goeminne Hout ECJ 19-Jun-1984
Europa Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments – jurisdiction agreement – jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading – validity – conditions (convention of 27 September 1968, art. 17)
a . .
Cited – Vitkovice Horni a Hutni Tezirstvo v Korner HL 1951
The ordinary principles of international comity were invaded when courts permitted service out of jurisdiction and that the courts should therefore approach with circumspection any application for leave to serve a foreigner out of the jurisdiction. . .
Cited – Attock Cement Co v Romanian Bank for Foreign Trade CA 1989
Where the parties to a contract have agreed to an English forum it would require strong grounds for one of the parties to resist the exercise of jurisdiction by the English court: ‘We should also look with favour on a choice of our own jurisdiction, . .
Cited – Seaconsar Far East Ltd v Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran HL 15-Oct-1993
A plaintiff must show that there is a ‘serious issue for trial’ to support and justify an application for overseas service. The standard of proof in respect of the cause of action relied on is whether, on the evidence, there was a serious question . .
Cited – Shevill, Ixora Trading Inc., Chequepoint SARL and Chequepoint International Ltd v Presse Alliance SA ECJ 7-Mar-1995
On a proper construction of the expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters as amended by the Convention . .
Cited – Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2) HL 12-Oct-2000
The plaintiffs alleged the involvement of the defendant in a conspiracy to defraud. He had been domiciled in England, but had moved to Germany. He denied that the UK court had jurisdiction. The court of appeal said that jurisdiction was determined . .
Cited – Handelsveem Bv and Others v Coreck Maritime GmbH ECJ 1-Dec-2000
When a court looked at a choice of the jurisdiction clause, it was not necessary that the clause should withoutmore establish the jurisdiction. A clause could be effective where the forum will be ascertainable at the time by reference to a the . .
Approved – Canada Trust Company and others v Stolzenberg and others (2) CA 29-Oct-1997
The court looked at questions relating to domicile and jurisdiction; standard of proof, date to be determined and duties before service.
Held: The court is endeavouring to find an imprecise concept which reflects that the plaintiff must . .
Cited – F Berghoefer GmbH and Co KG v ASA SA ECJ 11-Jul-1985
Brussels Convention – Interpretation of Article 17 – Validity of an oral jurisdiction agreement confirmed in writing by one party only.
‘It must be pointed out that . . article 17 of the Convention does not expressly require that the written . .

Cited by:

Cited – Varsani v Relfo Ltd CA 27-May-2010
The defendant appealed against refusal of a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. He said that he lived in Kenya, and the claimant had failed first to apply for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction. The claimant had . .
Cited – Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie SC 19-Dec-2017
The claimant and her family were in a car crash while on holiday in Egypt. The claimant’s husband and his daughter died. The holiday had been booked in England and the car excursion booked in advance from England. The hotel operator was incorporated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Jurisdiction, European

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.245388

Egon Oldendorff v Libera Corporation: 1996

Conflict of laws – ‘It is sufficient to say that the party relying upon art. 3 must demonstrate with reasonable certainty that the parties have chosen a particular law as the governing or applicable law. ‘

Judges:

Clarke J

Citations:

[1996] I Lloyd’s Law Rep 380

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Land Rover Exports Limited v Samcrete Egypt Engineers and Contractors S A E CA 21-Dec-2001
The defendant appealed an order refusing a stay of the proceedings on the grounds of forum non conveniens. The contract of guarantee contained no choice of law clause, but the contract under which it was made set English law as the jurisdiction. The . .
Cited – Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie SC 19-Dec-2017
The claimant and her family were in a car crash while on holiday in Egypt. The claimant’s husband and his daughter died. The holiday had been booked in England and the car excursion booked in advance from England. The hotel operator was incorporated . .
Cited – British Arab Commercial Bank Plc v Bank of Communications and Another ComC 17-Feb-2011
Blair J said: ‘It is not in dispute that, . . it must be a ‘real choice’ which the parties had a clear intention to make. A tacit choice must only be found where it is reasonably clear that it is a genuine choice by the parties (See Clarke J’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.182314

Berezovsky and Another v Forbes Inc and Another: CA 27 Nov 1998

Where a defamatory article was published in many jurisdictions, there is no rule preventing a plaintiff recovering in those jurisdictions where a remedy is given. Not confined by restriction to most appropriate jurisdiction.

Citations:

Times 27-Nov-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1791

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Bath and North East Somerset District Council v Warman Admn 19-Nov-1998
A fifteen year old girl absented herself from school when she went to live with a boyfriend at an address which was not known to her mother. The justices acquitted the mother for failing to secure her attendance at school on the basis of ‘any . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Berezovsky v Forbes Inc and Michaels; Glouchkov v Same HL 16-May-2000
Plaintiffs who lived in Russia sought damages for defamation against an American magazine with a small distribution in England. Both plaintiffs had real connections with and reputations in England. A judgment in Russia would do nothing to repair the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Jurisdiction

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.78348

VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others: SC 6 Feb 2013

The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for resolution of VTB’s tort claims, and nor that there was a proper basis for piercing the corporate veil.
Held: The appeal as to jurisdiction was dismissed (Clarke, Reed LL dissenting). The appeal as to piercing the corporate veil was dismissed unanimously. The limited burden on a defendant challenging jurisdiction is to identify the issues and how they might arise. It was wrong to approach such a decision as the equivalent to a trial. Permission to serve on a foreign resident should be refused unless the court felt it clear that England is the appropriate forum, but an appellate court should intervene only in the case of error.
The conclusion below that Russian law governed the case had been incorrect but had not affected the result. The choice of law was separate from and did not determine the choice of forum.
There was insufficient cause shown to pierce the corporate veil, and permission to amend to allow this argument should not be granted.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed

Citations:

UKSC 2012/0167, [2013] UKSC 5, [2013] WLR(D) 41, [2013] 1 All ER 1296, [2013] BCC 514, [2013] 1 CLC 153, [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 466, [2013] 2 AC 337, [2013] 1 BCLC 179, [2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 1009, [2013] 2 WLR 398

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Balii Summary, SC, SC Summ

Statutes:

Private International Law Act (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At First Instance – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others ChD 29-Nov-2011
The appellant bank had granted very substantial lending facilities to the defendant companies, and now alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. The defendants now sought to have the service set aside. The claimants also sought permission to amend the . .
Appeal from – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others CA 20-Jun-2012
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . .
Cited – Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne CA 1933
The defendant was the plaintiff’s former managing director. He was bound by a restrictive covenant after he left them. To avoid the covenant, he formed a company and sought to transact his business through it. At first instance, Farwell J had found . .
Cited – Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .
Cited – Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp and Others v Stepanovs ComC 25-Feb-2011
The claimant companies alleged that the defendants had used the claimant’s parent’s companies wrongfully to syphon off money from the claimants by interposing contract between the lcimants and their proper customers. In this action the claimant . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Smith v Hughes QBD 6-Jun-1871
Blackburn J said: ‘I apprehend that if one of the parties intends to make a contract on one set of terms, and the other intends to make a contract on another set of terms, or, as it is sometimes expressed, if the parties are not ad idem, there is no . .
Cited – Sim v Robinow 1892
The task of the court in deciding jurisdiction is to identify the forum in which the case can be suitably tried for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice. . .
Cited – Cordoba Shipping Co Ltd v National State Bank, Elizabeth, New Jersey (The Albaforth) CA 1984
A negligent misrepresentation was made in a telex sent from the United States but received and acted upon in England. The judge had set aside leave to serve the document out of the jurisdiction.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The transmission was . .
Cited – Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .
Cited – Welsh Development Agency v Export Finance Co Ltd CA 1992
The court was asked whether a transaction relating to goods between an exporter and the defendant, as a financier, associated with sales by the exporter to third-party purchasers, amounted to a true sale by the exporter to the defendant or was . .
Cited – Morin 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 . .
Cited – Limit (No 3) Ltd and others v PDV Insurance Company CA 11-Apr-2005
There had been substantial oil leaks in Venezuela, which had been insured and then re-insured in London. Permission had been given to serve the defendant out of the jurisdiction, but that permission had been set aside. The claimant now appealed.
Cited – Sawyer v Atari Interactive Inc ChD 1-Nov-2005
The claimant owned the copyright in several successful computer games. He had granted licenses for the use of the software, which licences were assigned to the defendants. Disputes arose as to the calculation of royalty payments, and the claimant . .
Cited – Trafigura Beheer Bv v Kookmin Bank Co ComC 16-Jun-2006
The defendant bank had given the claimant a letter of credit, but when the goods under transport were discharged without the bills of lading,and the buyers became insolvent, the bank refused to pay. There had been proceedings in Korea, but the . .
Cited – Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd CA 17-Apr-2008
The claimant had argued that she had been unfairly dismissed since her dismissal was founded in her making a protected disclosure. The ET had not accepted either her explanation or that of the employer.
Held: The employee’s appeal failed, and . .
Cited – Douglas 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. . .
Cited – Islamic Republic of Pakistan v Zardari and others ComC 6-Oct-2006
The claimant alleged that the defendants had funded the purchase of various properties by secret and unlawful commissions taken by them whilst in power in Pakistan. They sought to recover the proceeds. They now sought permission to serve proceedings . .
Cited – Sawyer v Atari Interactive Inc CA 2-Mar-2007
The claimant designed games software and complained of infringements by the defendant of licensing agreements by failing to allow audits as required.
Held: The defendant should be allowed to be heard on the standard practices for management of . .
Cited – Limit (No 3) Ltd and others v PDV Insurance Company CA 11-Apr-2005
There had been substantial oil leaks in Venezuela, which had been insured and then re-insured in London. Permission had been given to serve the defendant out of the jurisdiction, but that permission had been set aside. The claimant now appealed.
Cited – Novus Aviation Ltd v Onur Air Tasimacilik As CA 27-Feb-2009
The defendant appealed against a refusal to set aside the grant of leave to serve outside the jurisdiction granted to the claimant. Neither party conducted and business in England, and the contract was made in Switzerland, but was expressed to be . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Sim v Robinow 1892
The task of the court in deciding jurisdiction is to identify the forum in which the case can be suitably tried for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice. . .
Cited – Distiller’s Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v Thompson PC 19-Jan-1971
(Australia) There had been a negligent failure in New South Wales to warn a pregnant woman of the dangers of taking the drug thalidimide.
Held: When looking at jurisdiction to hear a complaint of a tort, the court should look to where in . .
Cited – Diamond v Bank of London and Montreal Ltd CA 1979
Fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations were made by telephone and telex in Nassau to Mr Diamond in London. Donaldson J had held that the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation was committed in Nassau when the telexes were sent and from where the . .
Cited – Cordoba Shipping Co Ltd v National State Bank, Elizabeth, New Jersey (The Albaforth) CA 1984
A negligent misrepresentation was made in a telex sent from the United States but received and acted upon in England. The judge had set aside leave to serve the document out of the jurisdiction.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The transmission was . .
Cited – Roerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd CA 28-Jan-2002
The claimant who was Dutch, was a widow of a fisherman who had died at sea. The question on appeal was ‘in assessing damages for loss of dependency should benefits resulting from the loss be deducted from the damages?’ The claimant’s position under . .
Cited – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 29-Mar-2006
The applicant had dual Iraqi and British nationality. He was detained by British Forces in Iraq under suspicion of terrorism, and interned.
Held: His appeal failed. The UN resolution took priority over the European Convention on Human Rights . .
Cited – AK Investment CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd and Others PC 10-Mar-2011
Developing Law – Summary Procedures Very Limited
(Isle of Man) (‘Altimo’) The parties were all based in Kyrgyzstan, but the claimant sought a remedy in the Isle of Man which would be unavailable in Kyrgyzstan.
Held: Lord Collins said: ‘The general rule is that it is not normally appropriate . .
Cited – Berezovsky v Forbes Inc and Michaels; Glouchkov v Same HL 16-May-2000
Plaintiffs who lived in Russia sought damages for defamation against an American magazine with a small distribution in England. Both plaintiffs had real connections with and reputations in England. A judgment in Russia would do nothing to repair the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013
In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The . .
Cited – OPO v MLA and Another CA 9-Oct-2014
The claimant child sought to prevent publication by his father of an autobiography which, he said, would be likely to cause him psychological harm. The father was well known classical musician who said that he had himself suffered sexual abuse as a . .
Cited – Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie SC 19-Dec-2017
The claimant and her family were in a car crash while on holiday in Egypt. The claimant’s husband and his daughter died. The holiday had been booked in England and the car excursion booked in advance from England. The hotel operator was incorporated . .
Cited – Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v Lungowe and Others SC 10-Apr-2019
The claimants alleged negligence causing them personal injury and other losses arising from pollution from mining operations of the defendants in Zambia. The company denied jurisdiction. In the Court of Appeal the defendants’ appeals were dismissed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Company, Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.470799

Macmillan, Inc (Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of Delaware, Usa) MCC Proceeds Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc (No 4): CA 4 Nov 1998

When a court came to be obliged to decide issues of foreign law which were in substance issues of fact, and experts disagreed, it had to do so, and the Court of Appeal had to come to its own conclusions respecting the circumstances in first instance court

Citations:

Times 07-Dec-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1680, [1999] CLC 417

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd v Sace – Istituto Per i Servizi Assicurativi Del Commercio CA 19-Dec-2001
The claimants sought to recover under guarantees, issued by the respondent banks, underwriting export credit guarantees. Though described as guarantees, the agreements were in law and substance, contracts of insurance governed by Italian law. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Commercial, Intellectual Property

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.145158

Murthy and Another v Sivasjothi and Others: CA 30 Oct 1998

Where a foreign defendant had accepted jurisdiction of a competent foreign court, that submission operated similarly in respect of a claim by a co-defendant in that case against the party in a related matter and the judgment was enforceable here.

Citations:

Times 11-Nov-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1646, [1999] 1 WLR 467

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – Whyte v Whyte CA 21-Jul-2005
A decree of divorce had been made in Texas, and after the wife had breached a court order by fleeing to Russia with a child of the family, a freezing order was made against the wife in respect of property in London. The husband now appealed an order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.84143

Sim v Robinow: 1892

The task of the court in deciding jurisdiction is to identify the forum in which the case can be suitably tried for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice.

Judges:

Lord Kinnear

Citations:

(1892) 19 R 665

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Lubbe (Suing As Administrator Of The Estate Of Rachel Jacoba Lubbe) and 4 Others v Cape plc and Related Appeals HL 22-Jun-2000
South African asbestosis victims suing in England submitted that to stay their proceedings in favour of the South African forum would violate their article 6 rights. A stay was refused on the non-Convention ground that, because of the lack of . .
Cited – Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .
Cited – 889457 Alberta Inc v Katanga Mining Ltd and others ComC 5-Nov-2008
The parties had set out on a joint venture with deeds providing for control of the shareholdings in each other. The claimant asserted a breach of the deed and sought a remedy. The first defendant company, incorporated in Bermuda argued that the . .
Cited – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others SC 6-Feb-2013
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . .
Cited – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others SC 6-Feb-2013
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.194831

Cope v Doherty: 1858

Owners of an American ship which had collided with and sunk another American ship applied to limit their liability pursuant to section 504 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854.
Held: The section did not apply to collisions between foreigners. When the owners argued that the limitation rule was procedural and should therefore be applied as part of the lex fori. I should have thought that the short answer was that whether the rule was substantive or procedural, Parliament had said that it should not apply to foreigners and that was the end of the matter: ‘Clearly an Act, which limits the damage to which the ship owner is to be liable under circumstances like the present, deals with the substance and not the form of the procedure. It in effect forms a contract that, whereas by the natural law the owner of the ship or property that has been injured would be entitled to damages to the full extent of the loss he has sustained, all those persons upon whom the Legislature can impose such a contract, that is to say, all its own subjects, shall forego that which the natural law – the common law, as we should call it in England – would give them, and shall be entitled only to the amount of the value of the ship by which the injury has been inflicted, and of the freight due or to grow due in respect of such ship during the voyage.’

Judges:

Wood VC

Citations:

(1858) 4 K and J 369

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1854 504

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Cope v Doherty CA 2-Jan-1858
Turner LJ: ‘An attempt was made on the part of the appellants to bring this case within Don v Lippman and cases of that class, but I think those cases have no bearing upon the point. This is a question of liability, and not of procedure.’ . .
Cited – Harding v Wealands CA 17-Dec-2004
The claimant sought damages here for a road traffic accident which had occurred in Australia. The defendant was working in England. The defendant argued that the law of New South Wales applied.
Held: The general rule in section 11 was not to . .
Cited – Harding v Wealands HL 5-Jul-2006
Claim in UK for Accident in Australia
The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.222525

Rex v Cowle: 1759

The case establishes the English High Court’s jurisdiction to grant prerogative writs against the Crown’s servants whether in Great Britain or overseas provided the subject matter of the application arises in relation to the territory of the Crown.

Citations:

(1759) 2 Burr 835

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Another, ex parte Bancoult Admn 3-Nov-2000
The applicant sought judicial review of an ordinance made by the commissioner for the British Indian Ocean Territory. An issue was raised whether the High Court in London had jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings and grant relief.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.197762

Babanaft International Co SA v Bassatne: CA 30 Jun 1988

The court considered whether the state in which enforcement of a judgment will take place should be the place where the debt is situated upon which it is sought to execute.
Held: There was nothing to preclude English courts from granting Mareva type injunctions against defendants extending to assets outside the jurisdiction, but the court insisted that there can be no question of such orders operating directly upon the foreign assets by way of attachment, or upon third parties, such as banks, holding the assets. The effectiveness of such orders for these purposes can only derive from their recognition and enforcement by the local courts, as should be made clear in the terms of the orders to avoid any misunderstanding suggesting an unwarranted assumption of extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Nicholls LJ was concerned at the ‘extraterritorial vice’ of unqualified orders. He pointed out ‘The enforcement of the judgment in other countries, by attachment or like process, in respect of assets which are situated there is not affected by the order. The order does not attach those assets. It does not create, or purport to create, a charge on those assets, nor does it give the plaintiff any proprietary interest in then. The English court is not attempting in any way to interfere with or control the enforcement process in respect of those assets.’
Kerr LJ said: ‘In my view, the key to the proper exercise of any extra-territorial jurisdiction must lie in the question whether there is international reciprocity for the recognition and enforcement of the type of order which is under consideration, in this case a Mareva injunction or a variant of it purporting to operate on the defendants’ assets abroad.’ and
‘Apart from any EEC or EFTA connection, there is in any event no jurisdictional (as opposed to discretionary) ground which would preclude an English court from granting a pre-judgment Mareva injunction over assets situated anywhere outside the jurisdiction, which are owned or controlled by a defendant who is subject to the jurisdiction of our courts, provided that the order makes it clear that it is not to have any direct effect on the assets or on any third parties outside the jurisdiction save to the extent that the order may be enforced by the local courts. Whether an order which is qualified in this way would be enforced by the courts of states where the defendant’s assets are situated would of course depend on the local law . .’
Kerr LJ considered the standard proviso in such an order protecting the interests of third parties: ‘We understand that this is nowadays a standard type of proviso to Mareva injunctions, and it is of course inserted for the benefit of third parties who may be affected by the freezing order. My reason for quoting it is that it illustrates that, although Mareva injunctions are orders made in personam against defendants, they also have an in rem effect on third parties. It shows that, save to the extent of the proviso, the order is binding on third parties who have notice of the injunction. Although the passage in the judgment of Lord Denning MR in Z Ltd v. A [1982] 1 All ER 556 at 562, [1982] QB 558 at 573 headed ‘Operation in rem’ may well go too far in a number of respects, there cannot be any doubt that Mareva injunctions have a direct effect on third parties who are notified of them and who hold assets comprised in the order.’
Neill LJ said: ‘I am satisfied, however, that the Court has jurisdiction to grant a mareva injunction over foreign assets, and that in this developing branch of the law the decision in Ashtiani v. Kashi may require further consideration in a future case.’

Judges:

Kerr, Neill and Nicholls LJJ

Citations:

[1990] Ch 13, Independent 30-Jun-1988, [1989] 1 All ER 433

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Limited – Z Ltd v A-Z and AA-LL CA 1982
The plaintiffs, an overseas company with an office in London had been defrauded here. They sought and obtained Mareva injunctions against defendants and against six clearing banks. The banks sought clarification of their duties.
Held: The . .
Cited – Ashtiani v Kashi CA 1986
On the grant of a Mareva injunction, the defendant had disclosed assets outside the jurisdiction in bank accounts in Europe. The plaintiff then obtained injunctions relating to those assets. The defendant obtained the discharge of those orders on . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK and others v UBS AG, Qabazard HL 12-Jun-2003
Mr Qabazard conspired with others to defraud the Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK and Sitka Shipping Inc of large sums of money. On 16 November 1998 Moore-Bick J gave judgment against him for over US$130m. Historically sums had been placed with the . .
Cited – Societe 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 . .
Cited – BAS Capital Funding Corporation, Deutsche Bank Ag London, Paine Webber Capital Inc, PW Exe Lp, Pw Partners 1999 Lp v Medfinco Limited, Abacus Holdings Limited, Andreas W Gerdes, HTC Inc, etc ChD 25-Jul-2003
The claimants wanted to bring actions in respect of various matters under shareholders agreements in complex international joint ventures. Leave was given to serve English proceedings in Malta, and the claim form and particulars of claim were faxed . .
Cited – Bank of China v NBM LLC and others CA 18-Dec-2001
A world wide asset freezing order, should as regards property in other jurisdictions allow that those having control of such assets must be free to deal with them as required by local law and other legal obligations. An order had included a ‘Baltic . .
Endorsed – Derby 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. . .
Applied – Republic 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Banking, Litigation Practice

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.183518

Credit Suisse First Boston (Europe) Ltd v Seagate Trading Co Ltd: 1999

An oral contract for the sale of Russian Notes was followed by a Trade confirmation with an English jurisdiction clause. It was said that this document was fraudulently presented by Credit Suisse as a mere perfunctory confirmation (which it was not) and that the oral contract was not with Credit Suisse Europe but with Credit Suisse US and that there was a specific agreement that the deal was to be centred in New York where Credit Suisse US had its centre of business.
Held: The English jurisdiction clause could not be relied on, whether or not the allegations of fraud were, in the event, made out.

Judges:

Rix J

Citations:

[1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 784

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation and others v Privalov and others CA 24-Jan-2007
The court was asked whether when contracts have been induced by bribery and have been rescinded on discovery of the bribery, that constitutes a dispute which can be determined by arbitration in the context of a common form of arbitration clause.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Jurisdiction

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.248227

Casio 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 dishonest assistance is within the scope of Article 5(3). The loss took place where the money was lost to the claimant in the banking system. The appeal failed. The judge’s conclusion that Article 6(1) gives this Court jurisdiction over the claim against Kaiser in these proceedings was right.

Judges:

Pill LJ, Tuckey LJ, Arden LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 661, [2001] IL Pr 43

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Convention on Jurisdiction and The Enforcement Of Judgments 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schroder, Munchmeyer, Hengst and Co and others ECJ 27-Sep-1988
ECJ For Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters to apply, a connection must exist between the various actions brought . .
See Also – Casio Computer Co Ltd v Sayo and Others CA 8-Feb-2001
In a case alleging knowing assistance in the fraudulent transfer of funds through the banking system, acts forming part of the events had occurred within the jurisdiction. It was proper to join a defendant to the action here, even though he was . .
Cited – Handelswerkerij GJ Bier BV v Mines de Potasse d’Alsace SA ECJ 1976
The Dutch plaintiff claimed that the water supply to its nursery had been polluted by the French defendant’s discharge of waste into the Rhine in France.
Held: The meaning of the expression: ‘Place where the harmful event occurred’ must be . .
Cited – Kleinwort Benson Limited v City of Glasgow District Council HL 19-Jun-1997
Restitution when Contract Void ab initio
A claim for restitution of money paid under a contract which was void ab initio is not a claim in contract, nor tort, nor delict, it was justiciable only in the court of domicile. The Brussels Convention does not decide jurisdiction. ‘But it is . .
Cited – Khaled Naser Hamoud Al-Sabah and Juan Jose Folchi Bonafonte v Grupo Torras SA CA 2-Nov-2000
The court discussed the approach to be taken when asked to act upon evidence which it found to be unreliable, though the witness’s credibility had not been destroyed. In a claim for dishonest assistance it is not necessary to show a precise causal . .
Cited – Gascoigne v Pyrah CA 26-Nov-1991
The court was concerned with conflicts between different jurisdictions dealing with related matters. Hirst LJ said: ‘Conflicting findings of fact, on the other hand, are virtually impossible to reconcile if different judges in different . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Khaled Naser Hamoud Al-Sabah and Juan Jose Folchi Bonafonte v Grupo Torras SA CA 2-Nov-2000
The court discussed the approach to be taken when asked to act upon evidence which it found to be unreliable, though the witness’s credibility had not been destroyed. In a claim for dishonest assistance it is not necessary to show a precise causal . .
Cited – Reunion Europeenne Sa and Others v Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor Bv and Another ECJ 27-Oct-1998
French consignees of a shipment of peaches sued in France the Australian issuers of the bill of laiding under which the goods were carried (a contract claim) and the Dutch carriers and master of the ship in which they were carried (tort claims).

Cited by:

See Also – Casio Computer Company Ltd v Sayo and others CA 13-Dec-2001
Applications for leave to appeal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Torts – Other

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.200960

Anton Durbeck GmbH v Den Norske Bank ASA: CA 3 Feb 2003

Claimant cargo owners sought to have decided in England, their dispute with the respondent. The respondent was domiciled in a country signatory to the Convention, and had offices here.
Held: To establish jurisdiction for the English courts, the claimant had to show that there was a sufficient connection to say properly that the loss arose from operations at the branch office in England, but that was short of requiring it to be shown that the branch activities had led directly to the events the subject of the dispute. The words of article 5 should be given their natural meaning.

Judges:

Phillips of Worth Matravers, MR, Broke, Laws, LJJ

Citations:

Times 06-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 147, [2003] 4 All ER 543, [2003] 2 WLR 1296, [2003] ILPr 27, [2003] QB 1160, [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 411

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Lugano Covention 1988 5(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lloyd’s Register of Shipping v Societe Campenon Bernard ECJ 6-Apr-1995
Actions which would be deemed to have been undertaken by a branch of company need not necessarily be performed where the branch is physically located. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.178987

Owners of the Ship Herceg Novi v Owners of the Ship Ming Galaxy: CA 16 Jul 1998

A claim for daages was made after ships collided, and one sank.
Held: The judge had been wrong not to stay an action here where the proper jurisdiction was Singapore. That higher damages might be available under a different convention applying here did not mean that a party should be deprived of justice in Singapore. There is no one dominant international standard.

Citations:

Times 30-Jul-1998, [1998] EWCA (Civ) 1223

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Negligence, Jurisdiction

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.84506

Christofi v National Bank of Greece (Cyprus) Ltd: QBD 14 Apr 2015

The applicant challenged registration here for enforcement of judgments obtained in Cyprus.

Judges:

Andrews DBE J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 986 (QB), [2015] 1 WLR 5405, [2015] WLR(D) 170

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Council Regulation EC 44/2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.545350

Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others: ChD 25 Mar 2013

Application for leave to appeal – refused.

Judges:

Peter Smith J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 856 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others (Experts) ChD 22-Mar-2013
Consideration of the protocol for the instruction of experts . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others (Jurisdiction) ChD 22-Mar-2013
The case was broght in respect of a foundation in Ethiopia; the parties were alll Ethiopian, the assets and the law. The defendants disputed that the English court had jurisdiction. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others ChD 26-Mar-2013
The defendants were seeking an order for wasted costs against the solicitors for the claimants. The claimants had requested the judge to recuse himself from hearing that complaint. He now gave his reasons for refusing that request. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others ChD 1-May-2013
Judgment on wasted costs after findings critical of an expert witness. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others CA 14-Aug-2013
The solicitors appealed against the making of a wasted costs order against them. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others ChD 11-Dec-2014
The Claimants asserted that judgments in Ethiopia were obtained by perjury and fraudulent means in particular by the deliberate withholding of material evidence. They also claimed that the Ethiopian Courts were biased against them. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others CA 11-Nov-2015
Appeal against refusal to lift a stay on the proceedings. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.472643

Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others (Jurisdiction): ChD 22 Mar 2013

The case was broght in respect of a foundation in Ethiopia; the parties were alll Ethiopian, the assets and the law. The defendants disputed that the English court had jurisdiction.

Judges:

Peter Smith J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 599 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others (Experts) ChD 22-Mar-2013
Consideration of the protocol for the instruction of experts . .

Cited by:

See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others ChD 25-Mar-2013
Application for leave to appeal – refused. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others ChD 26-Mar-2013
The defendants were seeking an order for wasted costs against the solicitors for the claimants. The claimants had requested the judge to recuse himself from hearing that complaint. He now gave his reasons for refusing that request. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others ChD 1-May-2013
Judgment on wasted costs after findings critical of an expert witness. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others CA 14-Aug-2013
The solicitors appealed against the making of a wasted costs order against them. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others ChD 11-Dec-2014
The Claimants asserted that judgments in Ethiopia were obtained by perjury and fraudulent means in particular by the deliberate withholding of material evidence. They also claimed that the Ethiopian Courts were biased against them. . .
See Also – Mengiste and Another v Endowment Fund for The Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others CA 11-Nov-2015
Appeal against refusal to lift a stay on the proceedings. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.471967

AIC Limited v The Federal Government of Nigeria, the Attorney General of the Federation of Nigeria: QBD 13 Jun 2003

AIC had used the 1920 Act to register a judgment obtained in Nigeria against the Nigerian Government. The underlying matter was a commercial transaction. Nigeria applied to set the registration aside, saying that registration was an adjudicative act and that Nigeria was protected by state immunity by reason of section 1 of the 1978 Act. AIC argued that their application to register the judgment was a ‘proceeding relating to a commercial transaction’ within section 3(1)(a).
Held: The submissions was rejected: ‘In my judgment, the proceedings resulting from an application to register a judgment under the 1920 Act relate not to the transaction or transactions underlying the original judgment but to that judgment. The issues in such proceedings are concerned essentially with the question whether the original judgment was regular or not.’
Section 9 of the 1978 Act excludes immunity ‘as respects proceedings . . which relate to [an] arbitration’ where the state has entered into a written arbitration agreement. Since most arbitrations relate to commercial transactions, section 9 would be unnecessary if a claim in respect of an arbitration constituted a ‘proceeding relating to the commercial transaction’ to which the arbitration related, for that would fall within 3(1)(a). It would also be illogical to exempt from immunity the enforcement of a judgment in relation to a commercial transaction, but not the enforcement of a judgment in relation to any of the other matters in respect of which the 1978 Act provided exceptions to immunity under sections 3 to 11 of the Act.
It was unsurprising that the defendants were immune from proceedings for the registration of the Nigerian judgment: ‘the underlying principle of the State Immunity Act is that a state is not immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom if it enters into commercial transactions or undertakes certain activities having some connection with this jurisdiction. Purely domestic activities of a foreign state are not the subject of any exception to immunity. Sections 3(1)(b), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 all contain territorial qualifications to the exceptions to immunity to which they relate. Section 3(1)(a) does not include any such qualification, but even there the claimant wishing to bring proceedings must establish a basis for jurisdiction under CPR Part 6.20, normally under paragraphs (5) or (6), relating to contractual claims.’
Lord Denning MR when advancing the restrictive doctrine of state immunity in Rahimtoola v Nizam of Hyderabad [1958] AC 379, 422, in Thai-Europe Tapioca Service Ltd v Government of Pakistan, Directorate of Agricultural Supplies [1975] 1 WLR 1485, 1491 and in Trendtex Trading v Bank of Nigeria [1977] 1 QB 529, 558 had emphasised the significance not merely of the fact that the proceedings related to a commercial transaction, but that the transaction was connected with the United Kingdom.

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1357 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Administration of Justice Act 1920 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rahimtoola v Nizam of Hyderabad HL 1957
A claim was made against the former High Commissioner for Pakistan personally for money had and received. He established that he had received the money in England in his official capacity as High Commissioner.
Held: Appeal allowed. The . .
Cited – Thai-Europe Tapioca Service Ltd v Government of Pakistan, Directorate of Agricultural Supplies 1975
Lord Denning said: ‘a foreign sovereign has no immunity when it enters into a commercial transaction with a trader here and a dispute arises which is properly within the territorial jurisdiction of our courts. If a foreign government incorporates a . .
Cited – Trendtex Trading Corporation v Central Bank of Nigeria CA 1977
The court considered the developing international jurisdiction over commercial activities of state bodies which might enjoy state immunity, and sought to ascertain whether or not the Central Bank of Nigeria was entitled to immunity from suit.

Cited by:

Cited – Republic of Argentina v NML Capital Ltd CA 4-Feb-2010
The appellant republic appealed against an order allowing the enforcement against it of a judgment obtained in the US by the claimant. There is no treaty between the US and the UK for the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments, and an . .
Cited – NML Capital Ltd v Argentina SC 6-Jul-2011
The respondent had issued bonds but in 2001 had declared a moratorium on paying them. The appellant hedge fund later bought the bonds, heavily discounted. Judgment was obtained in New York, which the appellants now sought to enforce against assets . .
Applied – Svenska Petroleum Exploration Ab v Lithuania and Another (No 2) ComC 4-Nov-2005
The court was asked whether a claim to enforce an arbitration award constituted ‘proceedings relating to’ the transaction that gave rise to the award for the purposes of section 3(1)(a).
Held: It did not. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Banking, International

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.183563

Credit 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 conceded that there was a good arguable case against Mr Cuoghi, which would have justified worldwide Mareva relief if the action had been brought in England. Mr Cuoghi relied on earlier decisions in support of his argument that Mareva relief should be confined to his assets in England and Wales. No criterion or guide line is provided as to the test to be applied by the court in considering whether it is inexpedient to grant an order under the Act. ‘It is the ancillary or subordinate nature of the jurisdiction rather than its source which is material, and the test is one of expediency. The structure of sub-sections (1) and (2) and the way in which their scope has been progressively widened indicate . . an intention on the part of Parliament that the English courts should in principle be willing to grant appropriate interim relief in support of substantive proceedings taking place elsewhere, and that it should not be deterred from doing so by the fact that its role is only an ancillary one unless the circumstances of the particular case make the grant of such relief inexpedient.’

Judges:

Millett LJ

Citations:

Times 03-Jul-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 1831, [1998] QB 818

Statutes:

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 25

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others (No 2) CA 12-Jun-2003
World-wide freezing orders had been made under the 1982 Act. The defendants were members of a Turkish family with substantial business interests in the telecommunications industry. In breach of orders made in the US some defendants had sought to . .
Cited – BAS Capital Funding Corporation, Deutsche Bank Ag London, Paine Webber Capital Inc, PW Exe Lp, Pw Partners 1999 Lp v Medfinco Limited, Abacus Holdings Limited, Andreas W Gerdes, HTC Inc, etc ChD 25-Jul-2003
The claimants wanted to bring actions in respect of various matters under shareholders agreements in complex international joint ventures. Leave was given to serve English proceedings in Malta, and the claim form and particulars of claim were faxed . .
Cited – ETI 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.

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.183509

Oxnard Financing SA v Rahn and Others: CA 1 Apr 1998

Where defendants were members of a partnership in Swiss law capable of being sued in firm name, an English plaintiff may sue in firm or member names as he chose, and even though had no business operation within the jurisdiction.

Judges:

Mummery LJ

Citations:

Times 22-Apr-1998, Gazette 13-May-1998, [1998] 3 All ER 19, [1998] EWCA Civ 594, [1998] WLR 1465

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Company

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.144072

Misland (Cyprus) Investments Ltd and Another v Mckillen and Another: ChD 25 Nov 2014

Judges:

His Honour Judge Behrens sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 3859 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Mckillen v Misland (Cyprus) Investments Ltd and Others ChD 2-Feb-2012
Preliminary judgment as to interpretation of shareholder agreement . .
See Also – McKillen v Misland (Cyprus) Investments Ltd and Others ChD 21-Dec-2011
‘prejudice need not be financial in character. A disregard of the rights of a member as such, without any financial consequences, may amount to prejudice falling within the section.’ . .
See Also – Mckillen v Misland (Cyprus) Investments Ltd and Another CA 24-Feb-2012
Coroin Limited . .
See Also – Mckillen v Misland (Cyprus) Investments Ltd and Others ChD 26-Apr-2012
Application by the petitioner and claimant for the continuation during the trial of a confidentiality regime imposed for the purposes of pre-trial steps, particularly disclosure. . .
See Also – McKillen v Misland (Cyprus) Investments Ltd and Others ChD 10-Aug-2012
Re Coroin
The parties battled for the control of major London hotels. The claimant alleged unfair dealings in attempts to secure that control.
Held: David Richards J said that prejudice: ‘will certainly encompass damage to the financial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.539389

In re S (A Child): FD 25 Mar 2013

The mother in England with S and the father in Spain disputed arrangements for his residence. They now disagreed whether a court order made by consent in Spain having been completed, Spain continued to have jurisdiction.

Judges:

Cob J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 647 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Children

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472084

Navig8 Pte Ltd v Al-Riyadh Co for Vegetable Oil Industry: ComC 22 Feb 2013

Application by the defendant, a Jordanian company to challenge the jurisdiction of the court over these proceedings brought by the claimant, a Singaporean company. Navig8 served proceedings in Jordan, having been permitted to do so by Hamblen J on 9 May 2012. Al-Riyadh contend that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear Navig8’s claims and should not exercise it even if it has.

Judges:

Andrew Smith J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 328 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471178

Alliance Bank Jsc v Aquanta Corporation and Others: CA 12 Dec 2012

Judges:

Lloyd, Elias, Tomlinson LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1588, [2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 819, [2012] 2 CLC 1027, [2013] 1 Lloyds Rep 175

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – King v The Victoria Insurance Company Limited PC 20-Mar-1896
Queensland – A cargo of wool was insured ‘at and from Townsville to London’. The lighter carrying the cargo to the ship capsized in the harbour. The insurers paid out and, taking an assignment of the action sued the defendant Government. The latter . .
Appeal from – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Torts – Other, Jurisdiction

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.467056

Dubai Islamic Bank Pjsc v PSI Energy Holding Company and Others: ComC 19 Apr 2011

The bank claimant alleged that it was the victim of a substantial fraud. Defendants now sought the setting aside of worldwide asset freezing orders and some denied that the court had proper jurisdiction.

Judges:

Beatson J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1019 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Jurisdiction

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.432857

Lucasfilm Ltd and Others v Ainsworth and Another: SC 27 Jul 2011

The claimant had produced the Star War films which made use of props, in particular a ‘Stormtrooper’ helmet designed by the defendant. The defendant had then himself distributed models of the designs he had created. The appellant obtained judgment against the respondent in the US for punitive damages, but these had not been collected, and the courts below had declared then unenforceable here.
Held: The judgment as to the applicability of English copyright below was upheld insofar as the helmets were not sculptures. It would be inappropriate to stray too far from what would normally be regarded as a sculpture. Not every three dimensional representation of a concept qualifies. The helmet remained a utilitarian item, even though it had a clear role in an artistic work, the film.
However the US judgment was justiciable here. English courts have jurisdiction to entertain claims in relation to infringement of foreign copyrights where there is a basis for in personam jurisdiction for those courts over a defendant: ‘in the case of a claim for infringement of copyright of the present kind, the claim is one over which the English court has jurisdiction, provided that there is a basis for in personam jurisdiction over the defendant, or, to put it differently, the claim is justiciable. It is clear that much of the underpinning of the Mocambique rule and the decision in Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd has been eroded. All that is left of the Mocambique rule (except to the extent that it is modified by the Brussels I Regulation) is that there is no jurisdiction in proceedings for infringement of rights in foreign land where the proceedings are ‘principally concerned with a question of the title, or the right to possession, of that property.’ So also article 22(1) of the Brussels I Regulation does not apply to actions for damages for infringement of rights in land.’

Judges:

Lord Phillips, President, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Collins

Citations:

[2011] 3 WLR 487, [2011] FSR 41, [2011] Bus LR 1211, [2011] UKSC 39, UKSC 2010/0015, [2011] 4 All ER 817, [2011] FSR 41, [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 1011, [2012] 1 AC 208, [2012] EMLR 3,, [2011] ECDR 21

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary

Statutes:

Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 4 51 52, Copyright (Industrial Process and Excluded Articles) (No 2) Order 1989 (SI 1989/1070)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At ChD – Lucasfilm Ltd and others v Ainsworth and Another ChD 31-Jul-2008
The parties disputed ownership of the designs for various props used in the Star Wars films. The defendant had developed designs from ideas originating within the claimant’s companies.
Held: The judgment from the US in a similar claim was . .
Appeal from – Lucasfilm Ltd and Others v Ainsworth and Another CA 16-Dec-2009
The claimants had made several Star Wars films for which the defendants had designed various props items. The parties disputed ownership of the rights in the designs, and in articular of a stormtrooper helmet. The issues came down to whether the . .
Cited – Gahagan v Cooper 4-Dec-1811
Lord Ellenborough discussed the 1798 Act, saying: ‘The statute seems to have been framed with a view to defeat its own object’ . .
Cited – Britain v Hanks Bros and Co 1902
The plaintiff claimed copyright in a model soldier cast in metal as a statue. The defendant argued that the statute was intended to apply only to substantial works of art, such as busts, large sculptures and casts of copies of works recognised as . .
Cited – Pytram v Models (Leicester) Ltd ChD 1930
A model of a wolf-cub’s head was produced from a papier-mache mould in order to be used as a totem by the Boy Scouts Association. They had failed to register it as a design under the 1907 Act and sued for infringement of their copyright under the . .
Cited – British Leyland Motor Corporation Ltd v Armstrong Patents Co Ltd HL 1986
The claimant’s product was made from drawings. The drawings were protected as copyright artistic works. They were reproduced in a three dimensional form by the claimant’s own products. Someone who copied the claimant’s products indirectly copied the . .
Cited – Swarbrick v Burge 26-Apr-2007
Austlii (High Court of Australia) Copyright – Artistic works – Works of artistic craftsmanship – The respondent obtained an injunction against infringement by the appellants of the respondent’s ownership of . .
Cited – King Features Syndicate Inc v O and M Kleeman Ltd ChD 1940
The plaintiff alleging copyright infringement, had relied on fifty five drawings of the Popeye character out of the many thousands of such drawings in the cartoon series. The defendant might have copied from any one of those thousands.
Held: . .
Cited – King Features Syndicate Inc v O and M Kleeman Ltd HL 1941
The owners of copyright in drawings of ‘Popeye, the Sailor’ sued importers of ‘Popeye’ dolls and other toys. The defendants contended that the copyright in the original work had been lost by the operation of section 22 of the 1911 Act because the . .
Cited – George Hensher Ltd v Restawile Upholstery (Lancs) Ltd HL 1975
The parties dispute the existence of copyright in a prototype of a piece of furniture.
Held: The term ‘craftsmanship’ in the Act suggests a durable useful handmade object.
Lord Reid explained the significance of the intention of the maker . .
Cited – Wham-O Manufacturing Co v Lincoln Industries Ltd 1984
(Court of Appeal New Zealand) The wooden models made from preliminary drawings, which was used to produce a mould from which moulded discs known as Frisbees were made, fell ‘within the definition of sculptures and are thus properly the subject of . .
Cited – Wildash v Klein 2004
(Supreme Court of the Northern Territory – Australia) The parties, two women, each of whom made craftwork depicting local wildlife for sale at markets. Initially they co-operated but later each accused the other of copyright infringement. The . .
Cited – Metix (UK) Ltd v G H Maughan (Plastics) Ltd ChD 1997
The plaintiff sought protect its products by claiming copyright protection in the moulds made for making industrial products (twin cartridges like a double-barrelled syringe, which held products prior to their being mixed) The plaintiff claimed that . .
Cited – Breville Europe v Thorn EMI Domestic Appliances Ltd ChD 1995
Copyright was asserted in plastic shapes used as moulds for the heated plates in a sandwich toaster.
Held: The defendants had not appropriated the plaintiff’s designs contained in their drawings in producing their own machine. Falconer J . .
Cited – Davis (J and S) Holdings v Wright Health Group ChD 1988
The parties disputed the status in intellectual property law of a model of a dental impression tray. A cast was prepared from the model, and a final form prepared from the cast. The author, a professor, made a mock-up of materials but then drew from . .
Mentioned – Pro Sieben Media AG v Carlton Television Ltd and Another CA 7-Jan-1999
The defendant was accused of infringing copyright in a TV programme relating to the pregnancy of a woman with eight foetuses. The defendant claimed fair dealing, but that defence was rejected by the trial judge.
Held: The decision was . .
Approved – Mehdi Norowzian v Arks Ltd and Guinness Brewing Worldwide Limited (No 2) CA 11-Nov-1999
The claimant film artist showed a film to an advertising agency, who did not make use of it, but later appeared to use techniques and styles displayed in the film in subsequent material sold to third parties.
Held: A film was protected as a . .
Cited – Biogen Plc v Medeva Plc HL 31-Oct-1996
The claim patented sought to protect a genetic molecule rather than a whole mouse namely that the molecule would, if inserted into a suitable host cell, cause the cell to make antigens of the Hepatitis B virus. A recombinant method of making the . .
Overruled – Tyburn Productions Ltd v Conan Doyle ChD 1990
The rule in ‘British South Africa’ extends also to intellectual property. The court was asked whether, many years after the death of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, there still existed copyrights or other intellectual property rights under the laws of the . .
Cited – AMP Inc v Utilux Pty Ltd HL 1971
The 1949 Act denied protection to the features of a design that were solely dictated by a product’s technical function.
Held: A product’s configuration was solely dictated by its technical function if every feature of the design was determined . .
Cited – Hosokawa Micron International Inc v Fortune 1990
(Federal Court of Australia) A design which is dictated solely by function is not a ‘design’ within the meaning of section 4 of the Designs Act 1906. Lockhart J said that: ‘The essence of the registrability of a design is that it has an element of . .
Cited – Duke of Brunswick v The King of Hanover HL 31-Jul-1948
The Duke claimed that the King of Hanover had been involved in the removal of the Duke from his position as reigning Duke and in the maladministration of his estates.
Held: ‘A foreign Sovereign, coming into this country cannot be made . .
Cited – Underhill v Hernandez 29-Nov-1897
(US Supreme Court) Underhill, a US citizen, had constructed a waterworks in Bolivar for the government which was eventually overthrown by revolutionary forces, one of whose generals was Hernandez. After Hernandez had captured Bolivar, Underhill . .
Cited – Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd 21-Aug-1905
VLR (Supreme Court – Victoria) International law – Conflict of laws – Tort committed abroad – Jurisdiction – Patent in New South Wales – Infringement by Victorian company in New South Wales of New South Wales . .
Mentioned – Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd 20-Mar-1906
(High Court of Australia) (affirmed) . .
Cited – British South Africa Company v Companhia de Mocambique HL 8-Sep-1893
Two companies, one Portuguese, the other British and controlled by Cecil Rhodes, were in dispute about a large territory called Manica. The Portuguese company complained that they owned lands and mineral rights in Manica yet the British company had . .
Cited – Land Oberosterreich v CEZ (Judgments Convention/Enforcement Of Judgments) ECJ 11-Jan-2006
ECJ Interpretation of Article 16(1)(a) of the Brussels Convention – Exclusive jurisdiction for ‘proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property’ – Action for the abatement of a nuisance . .
Cited – Def Lepp Music v Stuart-Brown 1986
A claim to infringement of copyright by acts performed in the Netherlands and Luxembourg was not justiciable in England, because such a claim cannot satisfy the double-actionability rule, namely, that the relevant acts must be actionable in the . .
Cited – Owusu v Jackson ECJ 1-Mar-2005
ECJ Brussels Convention – Territorial scope of the Brussels Convention – Article 2 – Jurisdiction – Accident which occurred in a non – Contracting State – Personal injury – Action brought in a Contracting State . .
Cited – Hesperides Hotels Ltd and Another v Aegean Turkish Holidays Ltd and Another CA 1978
An action was brought by the displaced owner of a hotel in Northern Cyprus taken over by the Turkish administration.
Held: The court declined to exercise an original jurisdiction in the northern part of Cyprus.
Lord Denning MR said that . .
Cited – Aksionairnoye Obschestvo A M Luther v James Sagor and Co CA 1921
A claim was made as to property seized by a decree of Russian revolutionaries later recognised as the government.
Held: A court is required to recognise a foreign state’s dealings with private proprietary rights within its jurisdiction. An . .
Cited – Buttes Gas and Oil Co v Hammer (No 3) HL 1981
In a defamation action, issues arose as to two conflicting oil concessions which neighbouring states in the Arabian Gulf had granted over their territorial and offshore waters. The foreign relations of the United Kingdom and Iran were also involved . .

Cited by:

Cited – Human Genome Sciences Inc v Eli Lilly and Company SC 2-Nov-2011
The court considered an appeal against the declaration of invalidity of a biomedical patent for a new human protein on the grounds that it was not susceptible of industrial application.
Held: The patentee’s appeal succeeded. The court had to . .
Cited – Seven Arts Entertainment Ltd v Content Media Corporation Plc and Others ChD 18-Mar-2013
The claimant sought summary judgment on its claim for copyright infringement based upon judgements on the same materials in Canada. . .
Cited – PMS International Group Plc v Magmatic Ltd SC 9-Mar-2016
Overall Impression of Design is a Judgment
The respondent had alleged infringement of its registered design in the ‘Trunki’, a ride-on children’s suitcase. At first instance, the judge had held that the surface decorations were to be ignored. On appeal it had been held that the judge had . .
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2022; Ref: scu.442226

Pearce v Ove Arup Partnership Ltd and others: CA 21 Jan 1999

An English court does not have to refuse an application which sought to apply a foreign copyright law in a claim based on acts committed abroad on the basis that not actionable here. Such restrictions applicable to land actions only: ‘It is, we think, clear from an analysis of the judgments in the Mocambique case that the House of Lords treated the question whether the English courts should entertain an action for trespass to foreign land as one of justiciability. The English courts should not claim jurisdiction to adjudicate upon matters which, under generally accepted principles of private international law, were the peculiar province and competence of another state . . ‘

Citations:

Gazette 03-Mar-1999, Times 10-Feb-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 625, [2000] Ch D 402, [1999] 1 All ER 769

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Pearce v Ove Arup Partnership Ltd and Others ChD 17-Mar-1997
A UK court may not decline jurisdiction in enforcing Dutch copyright law if it is asked to do so. . .
Cited – British South Africa Company v Companhia de Mocambique HL 8-Sep-1893
Two companies, one Portuguese, the other British and controlled by Cecil Rhodes, were in dispute about a large territory called Manica. The Portuguese company complained that they owned lands and mineral rights in Manica yet the British company had . .

Cited by:

Cited – Chagos Islanders v The Attorney General, Her Majesty’s British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner QBD 9-Oct-2003
The Chagos Islands had been a British dependent territory since 1814. The British government repatriated the islanders in the 1960s, and the Ilois now sought damages for their wrongful displacement, misfeasance, deceit, negligence and to establish a . .
Cited – R Griggs Group Ltd and others v Evans and others (No 2) ChD 12-May-2004
A logo had been created for the claimants, by an independent sub-contractor. They sought assignment of their legal title, but, knowing of the claimant’s interest the copyright was assigned to a third party out of the jurisdiction. The claimant . .
Cited – Sawyer v Atari Interactive Inc CA 2-Mar-2007
The claimant designed games software and complained of infringements by the defendant of licensing agreements by failing to allow audits as required.
Held: The defendant should be allowed to be heard on the standard practices for management of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Intellectual Property

Updated: 11 November 2022; Ref: scu.145540

Huber v Steiner: 1835

An action was brought in 1835 on a French promissory note made in 1813 and payable in 1817. The defendant pleaded that by French law an action upon the note was prescribed.
Held: On its true construction, French law did not extinguish the debt but only barred the creditor from obtaining a remedy. This was a matter of French procedure which an English court would disregard.

Judges:

Tindal CJ

Citations:

(1835) 2 Bing NC 203

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Phillips v Eyre CEC 1870
The court considered the rule of double actionability. The court laid down the test for whether a tort committed abroad was actionable in this jurisdiction: ‘As a general rule, in order to found a suit in England for a wrong alleged to have been . .
Cited – Harding v Wealands HL 5-Jul-2006
Claim in UK for Accident in Australia
The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Limitation

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.242981

Fort Dodge Animal Health Ltd v Akzo Nobel Nv: CA 27 Oct 1997

(Patents) ‘The United Kingdom courts have jurisdiction to prevent vexation and oppression by persons subject to their jurisdiction. In particular, the courts are entitled to prevent persons domiciled in this country from being submitted to vexatious or oppressive litigation whether started or to be started in this country or another country. As was stated in the advice of the Privy Council in SNI Aerospatiale v Lee, a court can restrain a person from pursuing proceedings in a foreign court where a remedy is available both in that foreign court and [in] this country, but will only do so if pursuit by the person ‘would be vexatious or oppressive’. Further, since such order indirectly affects the foreign court, the jurisdiction must be exercised with caution and only if the ends of justice so require. We emphasise that injunctions granted for such purpose are directed against the vexatious party and not the courts of the other jurisdiction.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 3096, [1998] FSR 222, [1998] ILPr 732

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak, Yong Joon Kim and, Lee Kui Jak (F) PC 14-May-1987
Brunei Darussalam – The Board was asked where a civil claim should be tried.
Held: The court stated some principles governing the grant of anti-suit injunctions restraining foreign proceedings. The inconvenience of a forum is of itself not a . .
Appeal from – Fort Dodge Animal Health Limited, Arthur Webster Pty Ltd, Webster Animal Health (Uk) Ltd, Willows Francis Limited, Fort Dodge Animal Health Benelux B V v Akzo Novel N V, Intervet International B V PatC 15-Oct-1997
The English court will not be used to block proper access for a party to justice in a foreign court; matters are to be tried according to cConvention in the proper home state. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Turner v Grovit and others HL 13-Dec-2001
The applicant was a solicitor employed by a company in Belgium. He later resigned claiming unfair dismissal, saying he had been pressed to become involved in unlawful activities. The defendants sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the English . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.276281

Konkola Copper Mines Plc and Another v Coromin Ltd and others: CA 17 Jan 2006

A stay was sought to allow other proceedings to continue.
Held: A stay of the court’s own proceedings in support of an arbitration elsewhere ‘required rare and compelling circumstances’.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rix Sir Anthony Clarke MR Lord Justice Richards

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 5, [2006] ILPr 46, [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 437, [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 410, [2007] Lloyd’s Rep IR Plus 12, [2006] 1 CLC 1, [2007] Lloyd’s Rep IR 247

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Konkola Copper Mines Plc v Coromin Admn 10-May-2005
Re-insurers liability under Part 20 claims. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ashton Investments Ltd. and Another v OJSC Russian Aluminium (Rusal) and others ComC 18-Oct-2006
The claimants sought damages for breach of confidence saying that the defendants had hacked into their computer systems via the internet to seek privileged information in the course of litigation. The defendants denied this and said the courts had . .
See Also – Konkola Copper Mines Plc and Another v Coromin Ltd. and others No.2 ComC 16-May-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.237712

Jordan Grand Prix Limited v Baltic Insurance Group and others: CA 24 Oct 1997

A counterclaim by insurers had to be limited to the original defendants. There is no jurisdiction to join additional third parties who were not within the jurisdiction.

Citations:

Gazette 12-Nov-1997, Times 14-Nov-1997, Gazette 14-Jan-1998, [1997] EWCA Civ 2567, [1998] 3 All ER 418, [1998] 1 WLR 1049

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Brussels Convention 1968 Art 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Baltic Insurance Group v Jordan Grand Prix Limited and Others and Quay Financial Software Limited and Others (By Counter Claim and One Other Action) HL 20-May-1998
The Brussels Convention requires an insurance company to commence a claim against an insured in the country in which it operates. This applies also to non-convention countries, and a counterclaim may not add a new party from another jurisdiction. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Baltic Insurance Group v Jordan Grand Prix Limited and Others and Quay Financial Software Limited and Others (By Counter Claim and One Other Action) HL 20-May-1998
The Brussels Convention requires an insurance company to commence a claim against an insured in the country in which it operates. This applies also to non-convention countries, and a counterclaim may not add a new party from another jurisdiction. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Insurance, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.142967

BMG Trading Limited v A S Mckay Limited and Azov Shipping Company: CA 3 Oct 1997

A contract for shipping was subject to the Hague Visby Rules, but provided that jurisdiction was for the place where the carrier had his business, in this case in Mariupol. The question was: where an application is made under O.12 r.8 to set aside leave to serve out granted under O.11 r.1(1)(c) should the court consider the validity of this head of jurisdiction on the basis of the facts pertaining when the application is heard or the facts pertaining when leave was given?

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2406

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.142804

Allied Irish Bank v Ashford Hotels Limited and Ashford Hotels Limited v Higgins; Tyree and Emblem Bv: CA 8 May 1997

The court asked itself whether it had power to require a cross-undertaking in favour of third parties as a condition of appointing a receiver.
Held: Phillips LJ: ‘The Mareva injunction is a comparatively recent addition to the armoury of the court. Having discovered the existence of, or some would say invented, this weapon, the court went on to invent the ancillary weapon of the cross-undertaking in damages for the benefit of third parties (see Z Ltd v A [1982] QB 558). In that case the cross-undertaking approved by the court was one designed to protect third parties from the consequences of compliance with the injunction but the scope of the protection of the undertaking has since been expanded to embrace third parties adversely affected by the injunction.
For myself, I cannot accept that the jurisdiction of the court to require such an undertaking only exists where a Mareva injunction is ordered. Once the cross-undertaking for the benefit of third parties became a recognised feature of the court’s jurisdiction in that context, it necessarily followed that the court could make use of it when granting other discretionary relief, at least where that relief was empowered under the same statutory provision.’

Judges:

Phillips LJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1635, [1997] 3 All ER 309, [1998] BCC 440

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Smithkline Beecham Plc and others v Apotex Europe Ltd and others PatC 26-Jul-2005
Application was made to join in further parties to support a cross undertaking on being made subject to interim injunctions.
Held: On orders other than asset freezing orders it was not open to the court to impose cross-undertakings against . .
Cited – Smithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2) CA 23-May-2006
The parties to the action had given cross undertakings to support the grant of an interim injunction. A third party subsequently applied to be joined, and now sought to take advantage of the cross undertakings to claim the losses incurred through . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.142031

Credit Lyonnais v New Hampshire Insurance Company: CA 12 Mar 1997

Whether two policies of insurance were governed by English or French law.

Citations:

[1997] CLC 909, [1997] EWCA Civ 1218, [1997] 2 Lloyds Rep 1, [1997] 2 CMLR 610

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Caledonia Subsea Limited v Micoperi SRL SCS 9-Mar-2001
The parties disputed which court should have jurisdiction to hear their contract dispute.
Held: There has been an ongoing difference in the interpretation of the Rome Convention as to the relative weight to be given to the place of business of . .
Cited – Tryg Baltic International (UK) Ltd v Boston Compania De Seguros Sa and others ComC 28-May-2004
Four defendants from Argentina sought to have set aside an order for them to be served, saying the appropriate jursidiction, if there was a triable issue, would be Argentina.
Held: The agreements were to be construed according to English Law. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Insurance

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.141614

AIC Ltd v Federal Government of Nigeria: QBD 13 Jun 2003

The court was asked: ‘i. whether a judgment against a State may be registered under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1920 and enforced in this country; and
ii. whether moneys in a bank account of a central bank that is a separate legal entity, belonging beneficially to the government of its state, are liable to execution if those moneys are used or intended for use for commercial purposes.’
Held: Stanley Burnton J noted after referring to Alcom, that evidence of recent use of an account wholly for commercial purposes over a significant period of time may lead to the conclusion that the account is used or intended for use wholly for commercial purposes; but the older the use in evidence, the weaker the inference that may be drawn as to the use or intended use of the account. The focus is throughout on actual use. There was evidence that the relevant bank account had been dormant and said that, if an account was dormant for at least 18 months, it cannot be said to be presently used for any relevant purpose, and that the previous use was weak evidence of a present intention as to its use. The evidence was insufficient to disprove the statement in the Certificate.

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1357 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Administration of Justice Act 1920 9

Citing:

Cited – Alcom Ltd v Republic of Colombia HL 1984
A bank account used to cover the day-to-day expenses of an Embassy, clearly served sovereign purposes and therefore was immune from enforcement measures. The Act of 1978 must be read against the background of customary international law current in . .

Cited by:

Cited – SerVaas Incorporated v Rafidian Bank and Others SC 17-Aug-2012
The appellant had contracted to construct a factory in Iraq. On the imposition of sanctions, the respondent bank’s assets were frozen. The appellant sought to recover the sums due to it, and obtained judgment in France. After the fall of Hussain, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Jurisdiction

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464930

Comdel Commodities Limited v Siporex Trade S a: CA 5 Feb 1997

Comdel sought recovery of sums due under a performance bond.
Held: Potter LJ discussed the authorities and said: ‘Those authorities are to the effect that it is implicit in the nature of a performance bond that, in the absence of some clear words to a different effect, when the bond is called, there will at some stage in the future be an ‘accounting’ between the parties to the contract of sale in the sense that their rights and obligations will finally be determined at some future date. The bond is a guarantee of due performance; it is not to be treated as representing a pre-estimate of the amount of damages to which the beneficiary may be entitled in respect of the breach of contract giving rise to the right to call for payment under the bond. If the amount of the bond is not enough to satisfy the seller’s claim for damages, the buyer is liable to the seller for damages in excess of the amount of the bond. On the other hand, if the amount of the bond is more than enough to satisfy the seller’s claim for damages, the buyer can recover from the seller the amount of the bond which exceeds the seller’s damages.
It does not appear that there is anything in the words of the contracts of sale in this case to exclude the implication that there would at some stage be an ‘accounting’ between the parties in the sense that their rights and obligations would be finally determined at some future date.’

Judges:

Butler-Sloss LJ, Peter Gibson LJ, Potter LJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 925, [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 424, [1997] 1 LLR 424

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Van Der Merwe and Another v IIG Capital Llc ChD 13-Nov-2007
The parties had entered into a debt factoring agreement, under which repayment was sought of some $30m, and the claimants were said to have guaranteed the loan by the factor to their company. The court was asked whether the guarantors had the same . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Jurisdiction, Contract

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.141321

Camdex International Ltd v Bank of Zambia and Others (2): CA 28 Jan 1997

English Courts have no power to enforce foreign public law here.

Judges:

Simon Brown, Otton, Phillips LJJ

Citations:

Times 28-Jan-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 798

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Camdex International Ltd v Bank of Zambia and Another CA 3-Apr-1996
Appeal by the Defendant from a judgment on an application for summary judgment under RSC Order 14 by the Plaintiffs, Camdex International Ltd judgment was entered for the Plaintiffs in the sum of Kuwaiti Dinars 20,595,557.429. The Plaintiffs pleaded . .
See Also – Camdex International Ltd v Bank of Zambia and Another CA 22-May-1996
Application by the defendant for leave to appeal and, should leave be granted, an appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.78857