Category: Jurisdiction

SCF Finance Co Ltd v Masri (No 3): 1987

The court accepted that in a case where the garnishee was not indebted within the jurisdiction that might be relevant to the exercise of the court’s discretion. Since, in this case, the debt in question was an English debt, the court’s jurisdiction in relation to foreign debts did not fall for decision. The legislation has from the beginning stipulated that the third party or garnishee should be within the jurisdiction but not that the debt to be attached should be within the jurisdiction.

Judges:

Slade and Ralph Gibson LJJ and Sir John Megaw

Citations:

[1987] QB 1028

Citing:

Distinguished – Richardson v Richardson KBD 1927
A bank owed debts to a judgment debtor customer on accounts held both in London and in Africa. It was accepted that the former were subject to a garnishee order. The dispute concerned the latter.
Held: The bank is no doubt indebted to the . .

Cited by:

Approved – Interpool Ltd v Galani CA 1988
The debtor appealed against an order to answer questions and disclose documents relating to any debts owed to him or other property or means belonging to him outside the jurisdiction. The court looked at the examination of a judgment debtor under . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183543

S and W Berisford plc v New Hampshire Insurance Co: 1990

Power to order stay for forum non conveniens when conflicting with mandatory jurisdiction. Hobhouse J said: ‘Further the Convention does not preclude the courts of a contracting state from applying principles such as those stated in the Aratra Potato Co, case (The El Amria) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 119 where its jurisdiction is being sought to be excluded in favour of a non-contracting state. Professor Schlosser says, at para 176: ‘If a court within the Community is applied to despite such an agreement, its decision on the validity of the agreement depriving it of jurisdiction must be taken in accordance with its own lex fori.”

Judges:

Hobhouse J

Citations:

(1990) 2 QB 631, [1993] 1 Lloyds Rep. 631

Cited by:

Cited – Brian McGowan v Summit at Lloyds SCS 12-Jun-2002
The contract provided for the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. The claimant challenged this under the Act. Held The 1982 Act modified art 17 of the Convention when putting it in effect. That difference did not lead to the conclusion . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.181250

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 preference’.

Judges:

Bingham LJ

Citations:

[1992] 5 CL 373, [1992] QB 502

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim and Others (No 4) CA 9-Sep-1992
A Court had jurisdiction to order the consolidation of actions even before their respective writs had been served. It became a ‘pending’ action under the Order on issue of the originating process. . .
Cited – 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 . .
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 . .
Considered – Neste Chemicals SA and Others v DK Line Sa and Another (‘The Sargasso’) CA 4-Apr-1994
An English Court becomes seised of a case on the service of the writ. Steyn LJ: ‘the general thrust of the Dresser UK Ltd case is not only binding on us but . . . is correct’. There were no ‘exceptions to the rule that date of service marks the time . .
Cited – Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2) HL 12-Oct-2000
The plaintiffs alleged the involvement of the defendant in a conspiracy to defraud. He had been domiciled in England, but had moved to Germany. He denied that the UK court had jurisdiction. The court of appeal said that jurisdiction was determined . .
Cited – Phillips and Another v Symes and others HL 23-Jan-2008
Various parties had sought relief in the English courts and in Switzerland after an alleged fraud. There had been a mistake in service of the proceedings in England. The high court had dispensed with service an backdated the effect of the order to . .
Cited – Thum v Thum FC 21-Oct-2016
No abuse of process in service error
The husband claimed that the W was guilty of abuse of process by issuing the divorce petion, but then not serving it for many months in an attempt to gain a tactical jurisdictional advantage under Brussels II.
Held: H’s application was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Jurisdiction

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180643

Khrapunov v JSC BTA Bank: CA 2 Feb 2017

Judges:

Gloster DBE, Beatson, Sales LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 40, [2017] WLR(D) 71

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov SC 21-Mar-2018
A had been chairman of the claimant bank. After removal, A fled to the UK, obtaining asylum. The bank then claimed embezzlement, and was sentenced for contempt after failing to disclose assets when ordered, but fled the UK. The Appellant, K, was A’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Torts – Other

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.573867

Sameon Co Sa v Nv Petrofina SA and Another (The World Hitachi Zosen): QBD 8 Apr 1996

An express contractual term will be required to displace the Convention rules on domicile. The standard wording in charterparty contracts is insufficient to do this. The word ‘adjusted’ by itself would normally be taken to refer to the process of assessment of general average contributions; more explicit wording would be needed to create a binding agreement as to the place of payment. Consequently, the wording of the clause was not sufficiently specific to bring the contract within article 5(1) or article 17 of the Brussels Convention, thereby enabling the general rule conferring jurisdiction on the courts of the defendants’ country of domicile to be ousted.

Judges:

Justice Langley

Citations:

Times 08-Apr-1996

Statutes:

1968 Brussels Convention 5(1) 17, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Jurisdiction

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88992

SC Rolinay Sea Star SRL v Compania de Navigatie Maritimie Petromin SA (The Bumbesti): QBD 12 Jul 1999

An award made by the Constanza Court of Arbitration of Romania could not be enforced in rem in the English courts against a ship here, since the award was not an agreement relating to the use of the hire of a ship within the section.

Citations:

Times 12-Jul-1999

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 20(2)(h)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.89037

Dollfus Mieg et Cie v CWD International Ltd; LBJ Regents Ltd and another v Dolifus Mieg et Cie: QBD 17 Mar 2003

The applicant was a Part 20 defendant in a cross action brought between two other parties. It sought to have its own claim against the original claimant heard as a counterclaim.
Held: Article 6 should not be construed so widely as to allow a cross claim by someone other than the original defendant to the counterclaim. The normal domicile rule could not support such a derogation.

Judges:

Havelock-Allan J

Citations:

Times 19-Apr-2003

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 20, Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 6(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 – Dollfus Mieg et Cie v CWD International Ltd; LBJ Regents Ltd and another v Dolifus Mieg et Cie QBD 17-Mar-2003
The applicant was a Part 20 defendant in a cross action brought between two other parties. It sought to have its own claim against the original claimant heard as a counterclaim.
Held: Article 6 should not be construed so widely as to allow a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Dollfus Mieg et Cie v CWD International Ltd; LBJ Regents Ltd and another v Dolifus Mieg et Cie QBD 17-Mar-2003
The applicant was a Part 20 defendant in a cross action brought between two other parties. It sought to have its own claim against the original claimant heard as a counterclaim.
Held: Article 6 should not be construed so widely as to allow a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules, European

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.180875

Lakah Group and Another v al-Jazeera Satellite Channel and Another: QBD 26 Mar 2003

The defendant sought an order that the defamation proceedings had been invalidly served.
Held: The Rule introduced an additional code and alternative method of service, but not a comprehensive code. Establishing a place of business under section 695 connoted a greater degree of permanence than was required under the rules. However the rules still required that the respondent had a ‘place of business’ and service at a place with which the company had no more than a transient connection was insufficient. The claimant had not established that service had been effective.

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

Times 18-Apr-2003

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 695, Civil Procedure Rules 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Lakah Group and Another v Al Jazeera Satellite Channel and Another CA 9-Dec-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Defamation

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.180855

Vik v Deutsche Bank Ag: CA 6 Sep 2018

DB sought to enforce payment of a judgment debt of US$320 million. The appellant was accused of failing to comply orders designed to facilitate collection. There was uncertainty in the rules: ‘this is a matter where consideration by the Rules Committee would be most welcome. Putting to one side the cases in which (on the view I take) permission is not required to serve an alleged contemnor out of the jurisdiction, it must be in the public interest that there should be a specific jurisdictional gateway permitting such service on an officer of a company, where the fact that he is out of the jurisdiction is no bar to the making of a committal application. ‘

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 2011)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Contempt of Court

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622329

Hellenische Republik v Kuhn: ECJ 4 Jul 2018

Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Scope – Article 1 (1) – Concept of’ civil and commercial matters’ – Obligations issued by a Member State – Participation to the restructuring of the public debt – Unilateral and retroactive modification of the conditions of the loan – Clauses of collective action – Recourse exercised against the State by private creditors holding these obligations as natural persons – Responsibility of the State for acta jure imperii – Special powers – Article 7 (1)(a) – Jurisdiction in contractual matters – Concept of ‘contractual matters’ – Concept of ‘free commitment of one party to another’ – Concept of ‘place of performance of the obligation on which the application is based ‘- Subscription conditions of the State bond – Successive transfers of the debt – Effective location of the’ principal obligation ‘- Payment of interest

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:528, C-308/17, [2018] EUECJ C-308/17 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Jurisdiction, Contract

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620027

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 reputations in England, and accordingly the proper place to sue was in England. Under English law the publication of a defamatory article carries with it a presumption that the person defamed by it has suffered damage, without the need to prove that anyone knowing that person has read the article.
Lord Steyn referred to the case law and said: ‘Counsel accepted that he could not object to a proposition that the place where in substance the tort arises is a weighty factor pointing to that jurisdiction being the appropriate one. This illustrates the weakness of the argument. The distinction between a prima facie position and treating the same factor as a weighty circumstance pointing in the same direction is a rather fine one. For my part the Albaforth line of authority is well established, tried and tested, and unobjectionable in principle. I would hold that Hirst LJ correctly relied on these decisions.’
Lord Hope said: ‘In a defamation case the judge is not required to disregard evidence that publication has taken place elsewhere as well as in England. On the contrary, this feature of the case, if present, will always be a relevant factor. The weight to be given to it will vary from case to case, having regard to the plaintiff’s connection with this country in which he wishes to raise his action. The rule which applies to these cases is that the plaintiff must limit his claim to the effects of the publication in England: Diamond v. Sutton (1866) L.R. 1 Ex. 130; Schapira v. Ahronson [1999] E.M.L.R. 735; see also Eyre v. Nationwide News Pty. Ltd. [1967] N.Z.L.R. 851. Common sense suggests that the more tenuous the connection with this country the harder it will be for the claim to survive the application of this rule’.

Judges:

Lord Steyn, Lord Nolan, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough

Citations:

Times 16-May-2000, Gazette 31-May-2000, [2000] 1 WLR 1004, [2000] UKHL 25, [2000] 2 All ER 986

Links:

House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – 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. . .
See Also – Berezovsky and Glouchkov v Forbes Inc and Michaels CA 31-Jul-2001
The claimant sought damages from the defendant for a magazine article claiming that he was involved in organised crime in Russia. The defendants appealed against the striking out of elements of the defence suggesting lesser meanings. Was meaning a . .
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 – Ladd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .
Cited – Duke of Brunswick v Harmer QBD 2-Nov-1849
On 19 September 1830 an article was published in the Weekly Dispatch. The limitation period for libel was six years. The article defamed the Duke of Brunswick. Seventeen years after its publication an agent of the Duke purchased a back number . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Ratcliffe v Evans CA 28-May-1892
The plaintiff was an engineer and boiler-maker. He alleged that a statement in the local newspaper that he had ceased business had caused him loss. The evidence that was given at trial consisted of general evidence of a downturn in trade; but the . .
Cited – Shevill and Others v Presse Alliance SA HL 26-Jul-1996
A libel case against a French paper was rightly brought in UK despite the small (250 copies nationally and 5 in the plaintiff’s local area (Yorkshire)) circulation here. The Brussels Convention allows a claim for defamation in UK though the main . .
Cited – 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 – Lee v Wilson and Mackinnon 19-Dec-1934
(High Court of Australia) More than one person can be identified in a defamatory piece.
In determining the meaning in fact conveyed by the publication, the intention of the publisher is irrelevant, and it does not matter not whether the . .
Cited – Kroch v Rossell CA 1937
The plaintiff brought libel proceedings against the publishers of French and Belgian newspapers. He obtained permission to serve each defendant out of the jurisdiction on the ground that a small number of copies of each newspaper had been published . .
Cited – 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 by:

Cited – Lewis and others v King CA 19-Oct-2004
The claimant sought damages for defamation for an article published on the Internet. The claimant Don King sued in London even though he lived in the US as did the defendants.
Held: A publication via the internet occurred when the material was . .
Cited – Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
See Also – Berezovsky and Glouchkov v Forbes Inc and Michaels CA 31-Jul-2001
The claimant sought damages from the defendant for a magazine article claiming that he was involved in organised crime in Russia. The defendants appealed against the striking out of elements of the defence suggesting lesser meanings. Was meaning a . .
Cited – Mardas v New York Times Company and Another QBD 17-Dec-2008
The claimant sought damages in defamation. The US publisher defendants denied that there had been any sufficient publication in the UK and that the court did not have jurisdiction. The claimant appealed the strike out of the claims.
Held: The . .
Cited – Metropolitan International Schools Ltd. (T/A Skillstrain And/Or Train2Game) v Designtechnica Corp (T/A Digital Trends) and Others QBD 16-Jul-2009
The claimant complained that the defendant had published on its internet forums comments by posters which were defamatory of it, and which were then made available by the second defendant search engine. The court was asked what responsibility a . .
Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 2-Oct-2009
The defendant had published a story in its newspaper. At that time it attracted Reynolds qualified privilege. After the circumstances changed, the paper offered an updating item. That offer was rejected as inadequate.
Held: The qualified . .
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 – Ahuja v Politika Novine I Magazini Doo and Others QBD 23-Nov-2015
Action for misuse of private information and libel. Application to have set aside leave to serve out of the jurisdiction. The defendant published a newspaper in Serbian, in print in Serbia and online. Though in Serbian, the claimant said that online . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Jurisdiction

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.78349

Villiers v Villiers: CA 17 May 2018

H’s appeal from interim maintenance and legal fees allowance order. He denied that the Court had jurisdiction.

Judges:

King, David Richards, Moylan LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1120, [2018] WLR(D) 303

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Maintenance) Regulations 2011, Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Jurisdiction

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616340

President of India v Metcalfe Shipping Co (The ‘Dunelmia’): CA 1970

Voyage charterers and owners disputed whether a claim for short delivery was subject to the jurisdiction clause in the charter party or in the bills of lading.
Held: As the charter party authorised the master to sign the bill of lading ‘without prejudice to the charter party’, it operated as a mere receipt for the goods or as a document of title and, whilst forming part of the narrative, had no impact on the charter party.

Citations:

[1970] 1 QB 289

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – Parsons Corporation and others v C V Scheepvaartonderneming ‘The Happy Ranger’ CA 17-May-2002
There was a contact for the carriage by sea of three reactors. The contract applied the Hage-Visby rules.
Held: The contract applied the rules as they would apply in the country of shipment if they were applied mandatorily. The contact should . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Contract

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.179878

The Rewia: CA 1991

The court considered a jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading which referred to the carrier’s principal place of business. The central management and control of the company was in Germany and the question was whether that was also its principal place of business.
Held: It was. The shareholders and officers of the shipowning company were all German, directors’ meetings were held in Hamburg, contractual commitments such as vessel charters had to be authorised from Hamburg and all earnings were remitted to Hamburg. Germany was the principal place of business rather than Hong Kong. Hong Kong was the principal place of business of the vessel’s managing agents. That company was in fact and not merely legal fiction a separate entity. The ‘principal’ place of business of a corporation within the article meant the ‘chief’ or ‘most important’ place of its business. The principal place was not necessarily where most of its business was carried out.

Judges:

Leggatt LJ

Citations:

[1991] 2 Lloyds Rep 325

Statutes:

Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 60

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – King v Crown Energy Trading AG and another ComC 11-Feb-2003
The defendant, a company incorporated in Russia, sought to set aside proceedings served on it. The contract made the agreement subject to the laws of England and Wales, but the Convention made the jurisdiction clause unenforceable. Evidence . .
Cited – 889457 Alberta Inc v Katanga Mining Ltd and others ComC 5-Nov-2008
The parties had set out on a joint venture with deeds providing for control of the shareholdings in each other. The claimant asserted a breach of the deed and sought a remedy. The first defendant company, incorporated in Bermuda argued that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Company

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.180099

In re A (a Child) (Foreign contact order: Jurisdiction): FD 2 Dec 2003

A Spanish court had given the mother permission to remove the child to England and for contact. That order had been made final in Spain. The father now sought here to amend it, and to enforce the contact element.
Held: The Spanish proceedings had been concluded by the rejection of the father’s appeal in Spain. The convention allowed that further proceddings might be appropriate where children are concerned. However the father could still apply to enforce the order here or to apply within the UK’s own jurisdiction.

Judges:

Sumner J

Citations:

Times 10-Dec-2003, Gazette 22-Jan-2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Jurisdiction

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.188705

Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) Anstalt Des Offentlichen Rechts v JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. and Another: CA 28 Apr 2010

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction in a dispute regarding a default credit swap agreement.

Judges:

Pill, Etherton, Aikens LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 390, [2010] CP Rep 32, [2010] 1 CLC 628, [2010] ILPr 28

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – JP Morgan Chase Bank NA and Another v Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) and Another ComC 9-Jul-2009
Application by the Defendant for an order pursuant to Article 22(2) of the Council Regulation No.44/2001 on Jurisdiction that this court has no jurisdiction. The proceedings before this court are said to be ‘proceedings which have as their object . . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Jurisdiction, European

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.408661

Akcil and Others v Koza Ltd and Another: SC 29 Jul 2019

The first claimant was an English company all of whose shares were owned by a Turkish company. The second claimant as director caused changes to the company’s constitution and share structure. The parties disputed the jurisdiction of the UK Courts to hear the claim.
Held: Lord Sales said: ‘I would allow the appeals by Koza Altin and the trustees and would accept their case that (i) the English courts have no jurisdiction under article 24(2) of the Recast Regulation over the trustees in relation to any part of the claims; (ii) the English courts have jurisdiction under that provision over Koza Altin in respect of the English company law claim, which is principally concerned with the affairs of Koza Ltd; and (iii) the English courts have no jurisdiction under that provision over Koza Altin in respect of the authority claim, which is principally concerned with the conduct of the business of Koza Altin.’

Judges:

Lord Reed, Deputy President,Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Briggs, Lord Sales

Citations:

[2019] UKSC 40, UKSC 2017/0195, [2020] 1 BCLC 399, [2019] ILPr 37, [2020] 3 All ER 97, [2019] 1 WLR 4830, [2019] BCC 1194

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2019 Mar 19 am Video, SC 2019 Mar 19 pm Video

Statutes:

Brussels I Recast Regulation (Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 24(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Koza Ltd and Another v Akcil and Others CA 18-Oct-2017
Appeal as to jurisdiction in dispute over control of English registered company based in Turkey. . .
See Also – Koza Ltd and Another v Akcil and Others ChD 21-Dec-2016
. .
See Also – Koza Ltd and Another v Akcil and Others ChD 16-Nov-2017
. .
See Also – Koza Ltd and Another v Akcil and Others ChD 26-Feb-2018
Application to add party out of jurisdiction and for service . .
At first Instance – Koza Ltd and Another v Akcil and Others ChD 19-Jun-2018
Struggle for control of company . .
Cited – Hassett v South Eastern Health Board, Doherty v North Western Health Board, (Judgments Convention / Enforcement of Judgments) ECJ 2-Oct-2008
Europa Jurisdiction Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 Point 2 of Article 22 Disputes as to the validity of decisions of organs of companies Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State where the company has its . .
Cited – Gesellschaft fur Antriebstechnik mbH and Co. KG v Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG ECJ 13-Jul-2006
ECJ Brussels Convention – Article 16(4) – Proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents – Exclusive jurisdiction of the court of the place of deposit or registration – Declaratory action to . .
Cited – EON Czech Holding v Dedouch and Others ECJ 7-Mar-2018
(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Exclusive jurisdiction – Article 22(2) – Validity of decisions of the organs of companies or legal persons having their seat . .
Cited – Schmidt v Schmidt ECJ 16-Nov-2016
Avoidance of gift of land for lack of capacity
ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial . .
Cited – Granarolo SpA v Ambrosi Emmi France SA ECJ 14-Jul-2016
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001- Article 5(1) and (3) – Court having jurisdiction – Concepts of ‘matters . .
Cited – Hassett v South Eastern Health Board, Doherty v North Western Health Board, (Judgments Convention / Enforcement of Judgments) ECJ 2-Oct-2008
Europa Jurisdiction Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 Point 2 of Article 22 Disputes as to the validity of decisions of organs of companies Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State where the company has its . .
Cited – Falco Privatstiftung And Rabitsch v Weller-Lindhorst ECJ 23-Apr-2009
Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 Special jurisdiction Article 5(1)(a) and the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) The concept ‘provision of services’ Contract . .
Cited – Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice) ECJ 12-May-2011
ECJ Jurisdiction in civil matters – Articles 22(2) and 27 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State in which a company has its seat to adjudicate upon disputes relating to . .
Cited – Taser International v SC Gate 4 Business SRL ECJ 17-Mar-2016
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Contracts imposing an obligation on a Romanian . .
Cited – As Flylal-Lithuanian Airlines v VAS ‘Starptautiska lidosta ‘Riga” and AS ‘Air Baltic Corporation’ ECJ 3-Jul-2014
ECJ Opinion – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Scope – Concept of civil and commercial matters – Compensation for breach of EU competition law – Recognition of provisional and protective measures – Public Order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, European

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.640084

EON Czech Holding v Dedouch and Others: ECJ 7 Mar 2018

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Exclusive jurisdiction – Article 22(2) – Validity of decisions of the organs of companies or legal persons having their seat in the territory of a Member State – Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of that Member State – Decision of the general meeting of a company ordering the compulsory transfer to that company’s principal shareholder of the shares held by the company’s minority shareholders and determining the consideration to be paid to them by the principal shareholder – Judicial procedure for reviewing the reasonableness of that consideration

Citations:

C-560/16, [2018] EUECJ C-560/16, [2018] WLR(D) 149, ECLI:EU:C:2018:167, [2018] ILPr 19, [2018] 4 WLR 94

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Akcil and Others v Koza Ltd and Another SC 29-Jul-2019
The first claimant was an English company all of whose shares were owned by a Turkish company. The second claimant as director caused changes to the company’s constitution and share structure. The parties disputed the jurisdiction of the UK Courts . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.606004

JP Morgan Chase Bank NA and Another v Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) and Another: ComC 9 Jul 2009

Application by the Defendant for an order pursuant to Article 22(2) of the Council Regulation No.44/2001 on Jurisdiction that this court has no jurisdiction. The proceedings before this court are said to be ‘proceedings which have as their object . . the validity of the decisions’ of the organs of a legal person, the Defendant, whose seat is in Germany. If that is so, then the courts of the Member State in which the company, legal person or association has its seat have exclusive jurisdiction.

Judges:

Teare J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1627 (Comm), [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 1167, [2009] ILPr 47, [2010] QB 276, [2010] 2 WLR 690, [2010] Bus LR 138, [2009] 2 CLC 22

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation No.44/2001 22(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) Anstalt Des Offentlichen Rechts v JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. and Another CA 28-Apr-2010
The court considered whether it had jurisdiction in a dispute regarding a default credit swap agreement. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, European

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.347699

Koza Ltd and Another v Akcil and Others: CA 18 Oct 2017

Appeal as to jurisdiction in dispute over control of English registered company based in Turkey.

Judges:

Floyd, Flaux LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1609, [2018] 1 BCLC 591

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Koza Ltd and Another v Akcil and Others ChD 21-Dec-2016
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Koza Ltd and Another v Akcil and Others ChD 16-Nov-2017
. .
See Also – Koza Ltd and Another v Akcil and Others ChD 26-Feb-2018
Application to add party out of jurisdiction and for service . .
See Also – Koza Ltd and Another v Akcil and Others ChD 19-Jun-2018
Struggle for control of company . .
See Also – Koza Ltd and Another v Akcil and Others CA 23-May-2019
Whether proposed payments would be in breach of undertakings given as to dealing with assets in impending litigation. . .
See Also – Akcil and Others v Koza Ltd and Another SC 29-Jul-2019
The first claimant was an English company all of whose shares were owned by a Turkish company. The second claimant as director caused changes to the company’s constitution and share structure. The parties disputed the jurisdiction of the UK Courts . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Company, European

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.597404

Falco Privatstiftung And Rabitsch v Weller-Lindhorst: ECJ 23 Apr 2009

Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 Special jurisdiction Article 5(1)(a) and the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) The concept ‘provision of services’ Contract assigning intellectual property rights

Citations:

[2009] EUECJ C-533/07 – O, C-533/07, [2009] ECR I-3327, [2009] ECDR 14, ECLI:EU:C:2009:257, [2010] Bus LR 210

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Opinion – Falco Privatstiftung And Rabitsch v Weller-Lindhorst ECJ 27-Jan-2009
ECJ (Opinion) Regulation (EC) no 44/2001 Article 5, point 1 Competence in contractual matters Contract having as its object the supply of services Concept of’ services ‘License contract Intellectual property . .

Cited by:

Cited – Akcil and Others v Koza Ltd and Another SC 29-Jul-2019
The first claimant was an English company all of whose shares were owned by a Turkish company. The second claimant as director caused changes to the company’s constitution and share structure. The parties disputed the jurisdiction of the UK Courts . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Jurisdiction

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.659936

Kurz v Stella Musical Veranstaltungs GmbH: ChD 1991

A prorogation clause which claimed to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of one country would, if it complied with Article 17 in point of form, be given effect so as to exclude any other jurisdictions which might otherwise be competent under the Convention; but a prorogation clause which bore merely to confer non-exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of one country would not be made exclusive by virtue of the Article.

Judges:

Hoffmann J

Citations:

[1992] Ch 196, [1991] 3 WLR 1046, Gazette 04-Dec-1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Insured Financial Structures Ltd v Elektrocleplownia Tychy SA CA 28-Jan-2003
The parties to a contract had agreed that Poland should have non-exclusive jurisdiction over disputes. Poland was not a party to the Lugano Convention, but both parties were domiciled in contracting states.
Held: The agreement had extended . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 15 April 2022; Ref: scu.180043

Mattar and Saba v Public Trustee: 1952

Alberta Appellate Division – The court denied enforcement of a Quebec judgment on promissory notes, and held that an agreement to submit to the jurisdiction of a foreign court is not to be implied from the fact that the defendant has entered into a contract in the foreign country or to be performed there.

Citations:

[1952] 3 DLR 399, 401 (NS)

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Citing:

Cited – Sirdar Gurdyal Singh v The Rajah of Faridkote PC 28-Jul-1894
(Punjab) THe Rajah of Faridkote had obtained in the Civil Court of Faridkote (a native state) ex parte judgments against Singh (his former treasurer), which he sought to enforce in Lahore, in British India. Singh was not then resident in Faridkote . .

Cited by:

Cited – Vizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and Another PC 3-Feb-2016
No Contractual Obligation to Try Case in New York
(Gibraltar) The appellant had invested in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff. They were repaid sums before the fund collapsed, and the trustees now sought repayment by way of enforcement of an order obtained in New York.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.565129

Ahmed v Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: CA 1996

Where a defence had been filed to an action without a claim for state immunity having been made, it would have to be shown that the head of mission had submitted to the jurisdiction.

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ

Citations:

[1996] ICR 25

Statutes:

State Immunity Act 1978

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Aziz v Republic of Yemen CA 17-Jun-2005
The claimant had made a claim for unfair dismissal. The defendant state had filed a defence instead of claiming state immunity. It then sought to assert such immunity. The claimant said the state had waived its immunity.
Held: Section 2(7) of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Jurisdiction

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.227913

The Attorney General for St Christopher and Nevis v Rodionov: PC 20 Jul 2004

(St. Christopher and Nevis) The government of Canada requested the extradition of the respondent. The Attorney General sought special leave to appeal against the order for his discharge from custody, which had been on the grounds of the prejudice through long delay. The Board was concerned as to its jurisdiction.
Held: No appeal lay against the judge’s decision to the domestic Court of Appeal. Former common law rights of appeal to the Board were superceded by the new constitution. The current rules allowed no especial appeal to the Board save from the Cort of Appeal. Accordingly the Board had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Citations:

[2004] UKPC 38, [2004] 1 WLR 2796

Links:

Bailii, PC

Statutes:

Judicial Committee Act 1844 1

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Citing:

Cited – De Morgan and Another v Director-General of Social Welfare PC 7-Oct-1997
The right of appeal to the Privy Council can be removed or limited by the use of words which fell short of an express limitation, but which still showed the necessary intention. Lord Browne-Wilkinson said that the power is ‘at best, a power which is . .
Cited – Walker and Another v Regina; Douglas v The Same; Glanville v Same PC 4-Nov-1993
The Privy Council lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals against sentence on ground of delay, and until all domestic remedies have been exhausted. . .
Cited – Mitchell v Director of Public Prosecutions of Grenada PC 1986
(Grenada) The petitioner sought to appeal to the Board from Grenada. The powers conferred on the Board by the Acts of 1833 and 1844, and other later instruments, have superceded the old prerogative power formerly exercised by the King in Council. . .
Cited – British Coal Corporation v The King PC 1935
The Board was asked as to the competency of a petition for special leave to appeal to the King in Council from a judgment of a court in Quebec in a criminal matter. The petitioners argued that notwithstanding the provisions of a Canadian statute . .
Cited – Ibralebbe v The Queen PC 1964
(St. Christopher and Nevis) A power to make laws for ‘peace, order and good government’ was used to confer legislative power on the Parliament of independent Ceylon, to connote ‘in British constitutional language, the widest law-making powers . .
Cited – Maharaj v Attorney General for Trinidad and Tobago PC 11-Oct-1976
A judge of the High Court had committed the barrister appellant to prison for seven days for contempt in the face of the court. The barrister was granted special leave to appeal to the Board against the committal order.
Held: Allowing the . .
Cited – Maharaj v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (No 2) PC 27-Feb-1978
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant barrister has been convicted of contempt. The Board had previously found the conviction improper because the basis of the complaint had not been made clear to him. The appellant now sought damages for his . .
Cited – Electrotec Services Limited v Issa Nicholas (Grenada) Limited PC 27-Oct-1997
(Grenada) The Court of Appeal of Grenada in granting leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee had imposed a condition requiring security of andpound;500. The respondent then applied to the Judicial Committee for an order under its inherent . .
Cited – Noel Heath Charles Miller and Glenroy Matthew v The Government of the United States of America PC 19-Jun-2002
PC (Saint Christopher and Nevis) The US requested extradition of the defendant and others from St Kitts. A magistrate declined to do so, and ordered their discharge. The High Court quashed (or intended to quash) . .
Cited – Cox v Hakes HL 5-Aug-1890
No Appeal from Order granting Habeas Corpus
Where a person has been discharged from custody by an order of the High Court under a habeas corpus the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal.
So held by Lord Halsbury L.C. and Lords Watson, Bramwell, Herschell, and . .
Cited – The United States of America v Gaynor PC 1905
The Privy Council allowed an appeal from an order of a Judge, itself having given special leave to appeal.
Lord Halsbury LC said: ‘Their Lordships do not mean to suggest that the writ of habeas corpus is not applicable when there is a . .
Cited – Attorney General for Canada v Fedorenko PC 1911
. .
Cited – King-Emperor v Deshpande 7-May-1946
. .
Cited – King-Emperor v Banerji 1945
. .
Cited – Secretary of State for Home Affairs v O’Brien HL 1923
The Crown has no right of appeal against the grant of a discharge of a prisoner on a writ of habeas corpus.
The Home Secrtary appealed against the issue of a writ of habeas corpus against him in respect of a prisoner held in Mountjoy prison in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.199403

Turner v Grovit and others: CA 28 May 1999

A court has an inherent power to injunct a party not to institute or continue proceedings abroad, where they appear intended purely to harass another party in proceedings here. The two actions here were based upon the ‘same contractual relationship’ and concerned the ‘same subject matter’. This is not limited to cases of exclusive jurisdiction or under article 21 of the Convention.

Citations:

Times 16-Jun-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1532, [2000] 1 QB 345

Statutes:

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1968) (Cmnd 7395) Art 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Turner v Grovit and Others ChD 15-Apr-1999
It is recognised to be improper for a court in one jurisdiction to declare that a foreign court does not have jurisdiction, when acting under its own rules and procedures, and in the absence of a contract clause specifying the jurisdiction. . .
Cited – Gubisch Maschinenfabrik KG v Giulio Palumbo ECJ 8-Dec-1987
The claimant in Germany sought to enforce a contract by claiming the price of a delivered machine; the claimant in Italy asked for a declaration that no contract had been entered into or, if it had, that it had been discharged by repudiatory conduct . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Appealed to – Turner v Grovit and Others ChD 15-Apr-1999
It is recognised to be improper for a court in one jurisdiction to declare that a foreign court does not have jurisdiction, when acting under its own rules and procedures, and in the absence of a contract clause specifying the jurisdiction. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.146447

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.

Citations:

Times 24-Oct-1997

Statutes:

Brussels Convention 1968 Art 2

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Jurisdiction

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.136112

Kongress Agentur Hagen GmbH v Zeehaghe BV: ECJ 15 May 1990

Europa Where a defendant domiciled in a Contracting State is sued in a court of another Contracting State pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgment in civil and commercial matters, that court also has jurisdiction by virtue of Article 6(2) of the Convention to entertain an action on a warranty or guarantee brought against a person domiciled in a Contracting State other than that of the court seised of the original proceedings. To enable the entire dispute to be heard by a single court, Article 6(2) simply requires there to be a connecting factor between the main action and the action on a warranty or guarantee, irrespective of the basis on which the court has jurisdiction in the original proceedings. Article 6(2) must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the national court to accede to the request for leave to bring an action on a warranty or guarantee and that the national court may apply the procedural rules of its national law in order to determine whether that action is admissible, provided that the effectiveness of the Convention in that regard is not impaired and, in particular, that leave to bring the action on the warranty or guarantee is not refused on the ground that the third party resides or is domiciled in a Contracting State other than that of the court seised of the original proceedings.

Citations:

C-365/88

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.

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 11 April 2022; Ref: scu.134997

AS-Autoteile Service GmbH v Pierre Malhe (Judgment): ECJ 4 Jul 1985

The particular areas which fall under Article 16, certain disputes regarding tenancies, companies, registers, industrial property and the enforcement of judgments, are matters which, because of their particular difficulty or complexity, require that the court having jurisdiction should be particularly familiar with the relevant national law.

Judges:

Lenz AG

Citations:

Case 220/84, [1985] ECR 2267

Statutes:

Lugano Convention

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

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 11 April 2022; Ref: scu.133962

Denilauler v SNC Couchet Freres (Judgment): ECJ 21 May 1980

The courts of the place or, in any event, of the Contracting State, where the assets subject to the measures sought are located, are those best able to assess the circumstances which may lead to the grant or refusal of the measures sought or to the laying down of procedures and conditions which the plaintiff must observe in order to guarantee the provisional and protective character of the measures ordered.

Citations:

[1980] ECR 1553, C-125/79

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

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.132901

Youell v Kara Mara Shipping Company Ltd and others: ComC 29 Nov 1999

The parties were in dispute arising from matters covered by an insurance policy which provided for the exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts in settling any such dispute. One party obtained judgment under the laws of Louisiana, and sought to enforce it here. The court refused to do so. The parties had been entitled to an anti-suit action against the action in Louisiana. The action there could only be judged after the court here had looked at jurisdiction. The exclusive jurisdiction clause precluded the validity of the judgment.
ComC Anti-Suit Injunction. Whether application to be heard pending challenge to English jurisdiction.

Judges:

Longmore J

Citations:

Times 10-Apr-2000, [2000] CLC 1058, [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 102

Cited by:

See Also – Youell and others v Kara Mara Shipping Company Ltd and others ComC 13-Mar-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Insurance

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90674

Trasporti Castelleti Spedizioni Internazionali SpA v Hugo Trumpy SpA: ECJ 30 Jun 1999

The conduct of parties with usage consistent with rules under the convention governing consent to jurisdiction, and where they ought to know of such rules, made such rules part of their contract. Such usage is determined by the trade practice rather than national or international law. A national court must look to such trade usage to see whether such a clause is imported.

Citations:

Gazette 30-Jun-1999, C-159/97

Statutes:

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1968) (Cmnd 7395) Art 17

Jurisdiction

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.89979

Reid v Ramlort Ltd: IHCS 14 Oct 1998

A Scottish court has no jurisdiction to act in a Scottish bankruptcy case could not act to retrieve property assigned without consideration to an English company with no connection to Scotland other than the gift.

Citations:

Times 14-Oct-1998

Statutes:

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Sch 8

Citing:

See also – Re Thoars (Dec’d); Reid v Ramlort Ltd ChD 15-Nov-2002
The deceased had a valuable life insurance policy. Before an operation he wrote it in trust with no consideration. He died in the operation. He was insolvent. The issue was as to when the policy was to be valued.
Held: The property was to be . .

Cited by:

See Also – Re Thoars (Dec’d); Reid v Ramlort Ltd ChD 15-Nov-2002
The deceased had a valuable life insurance policy. Before an operation he wrote it in trust with no consideration. He died in the operation. He was insolvent. The issue was as to when the policy was to be valued.
Held: The property was to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88725

Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich Ag v Five Star General Trading Llc and Others: QBD 21 Jun 2000

A marine insurance policy governed by English law but made with French insurers was assigned, but notice of the assignment was not made according to French law through a bailiff. Nevertheless recovery under the policy was ordered. Under the Rome Convention the validity of the assignment was governed by the law which in turn governed the underlying asset.

Judges:

Longmore J

Citations:

Times 21-Jun-2000, Gazette 22-Jun-2000, [2000] 2 Ll.R. 684

Statutes:

Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 Sch 1

Cited by:

Appeal from – Raffelsen Zentralbank Osterreich Ag v Five Star General Trading Llc and Others CA 1-Mar-2001
An assigned marine insurance policy was subject to a claim. The issue was the ability of an assignee to claim as a claim in contract where the proper law was that under which the contract was made, or a claim of an intangible right to claim against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85648

Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich Aktiengesellschaft v National Bank of Greece Sa: QBD 25 Sep 1998

A term which had only been found to be implied into a contract could still prove to be central to its performance and so could be the deciding factor in a claim for jurisdiction under the Brussels Convention.

Citations:

Times 25-Sep-1998

Statutes:

Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 Art 5

Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85647

Ot Africa Line Ltd v Fayad Hijazy and Another; Same v Fayad Hijazy and Others: QBD 28 Nov 2000

The human right to a fair trial did not amount to a right to an unfettered choice of tribunal. Contracts said that they were exclusively governed by English law and to be decided in England. Proceedings between the parties having already commenced in England some of the defendants were enjoined from continuing another action they had begun in Belgium arising from the same contract.

Citations:

Times 28-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 art 17

Litigation Practice, Human Rights, Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84487

Montagu Evans v Young: OHCS 19 Sep 2000

In order to use the convention to give a country jurisdiction in a claim involving the payment of money only, it was not enough that the vendor had the option of paying in the UK, or that other parts of the contract might have been performed in the UK. They had to establish that Scotland was the sole place provided by the contract for performance of the particular obligation in issue.

Citations:

Times 19-Sep-2000

Statutes:

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

Contract, Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83806

Jyske Bank (Gibraltar) Ltd v Spjeldnaes and Others (No 2): ChD 4 Nov 1998

A creditor is not able to enforce his rights directly against a third party holding money in trust for the debtor. Without taking out a winding up order he has no locus standi to claim. Case against Irish company to be dropped and restarted in Ireland.

Citations:

Times 06-Nov-1998, Gazette 04-Nov-1998

Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82651

Hough v P and O Containers Ltd; Blohm and Voss Holding Ag and Others Third Parties: QBD 6 Apr 1998

Where a contract contained a clear exclusive jurisdiction clause, a proposed defendant had a clear right to insist on the parties using that jurisdiction.

Citations:

Times 06-Apr-1998, Gazette 29-Apr-1998

Statutes:

Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 Art 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Contract

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81484

Gidrxsime Shipping Co Ltd v Tantomar Transporters Maritimos Ltd: QBD 27 May 1994

The disclosure of papers which are outside the jurisdiction can be ordered within Mareva proceedings, and after judgment.

Citations:

Times 27-May-1994, Gazette 13-Jul-1994, [1995] 1 WLR 299

Cited by:

Cited – Parker v C S Structured Credit Fund Ltd and another ChD 12-Feb-2003
The claimant alleged a breach of a share sale agreement, and sought information in advance of discovery.
Held: The court’s power to order information to be provided in anticipation of discovery was not to be used as a fishing expedition. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80817

Seashell Shipping Corporation v Mutualidad de Seguros del Instituto Nacional de Industria (“The Magnum” ex “Tarraco Augusta”): CA 1989

Where the decision as to forum depends upon the construction of the document or documents in one language and the rival courts are, on the one hand, courts whose native language is that of the document and on the other hand, courts whose native language is not that of the document, it is in the interests of the parties and the ends of justice that the true meaning should be ascertained and be decided by the courts whose native language is that of the document.
Parker LJ said: ‘In my view it would be unjust to the plaintiff to prevent him from proceeding in Courts where the result of his bargain would be to produce success and to force him to proceed in Courts where the result would or might be that the defendants escaped from their bargain.’

Judges:

Parker LJ

Citations:

[1989] 1 Lloyds Rep 47

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sawyer v Atari Interactive Inc ChD 1-Nov-2005
The claimant owned the copyright in several successful computer games. He had granted licenses for the use of the software, which licences were assigned to the defendants. Disputes arose as to the calculation of royalty payments, and the claimant . .
Cited – Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co HL 1983
A claimant must show good reason why service on a foreign defendant should be permitted. This head of jurisdiction was an exorbitant jurisdiction, one which, under general English conflict rules, an English court would not recognise as possessed by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Contract

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.237272

The Chaparral: CA 1968

A contract conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the English court as a neutral forum. In the context not only of English and other jurisdiction clauses the court held: ‘In the present case the choice of the parties was the English Court, and . . I should myself require strong grounds for saying that one of the parties should not keep his word.’

Judges:

Diplock LJ

Citations:

[1968] 2 Lloyds Rep 158

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Contract, Jurisdiction

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.186473

Ilyssia Compania Naviera SA v Bamaodah “The Elli 2”: CA 1985

May LJ considered the creation of a contract by implication, saying: ‘no such contract should be implied on the facts of any given case unless it is necessary to do so: necessary, that is to say, in order to give business reality to a transaction and to create enforceable obligations between parties who are dealing with one another in circumstances in which one would expect that business reality and those enforceable obligations to exist.’
As to choice of jurisdiction by choice of law, May LJ considered BP v Hunt, saying that he would not go so far as Kerr J in saying that the fact that the contract was governed by English law was a predominating factor. That factor would have a different weight in different circumstances.
Ackner LJ observed that where exclusive reliance was placed on the contract being governed by English law, the burden of showing that there was good reason justifying service out of the jurisdiction was a particularly heavy one.

Judges:

May LJ, Ackner LJ

Citations:

[1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 107

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sawyer v Atari Interactive Inc ChD 1-Nov-2005
The claimant owned the copyright in several successful computer games. He had granted licenses for the use of the software, which licences were assigned to the defendants. Disputes arose as to the calculation of royalty payments, and the claimant . .
Cited – Novus Aviation Ltd v Onur Air Tasimacilik As CA 27-Feb-2009
The defendant appealed against a refusal to set aside the grant of leave to serve outside the jurisdiction granted to the claimant. Neither party conducted and business in England, and the contract was made in Switzerland, but was expressed to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Jurisdiction

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.237264

du Pont du Nemours v Agnew: CA 1987

An application was made to injunct the commencement of proceedings in England.
Held: The request failed. The court was asked whether the English claimants had shown a good argument for invoking the jurisdiction of the English court against foreign defendants.
An element which may persuade the English court that the choice of English law makes England the appropriate forum include the fact that issues of English public policy may be involved. It remains however a fundamental error simply to equate choice of governing law with the choice of forum. Litigation in one place and at one time is, if it can be achieved, preferable, though: ‘the general undesirability of such concurrent proceedings is, however, but one consideration to be weighed as part of the overall assessment . . The policy of the law must nonetheless be to favour the litigation of issues once only, in the most appropriate forum’. He stated that ‘It cannot necessarily lead to a stay or setting aside of English proceedings’.
As to the affect of timing, Bingham LJ said: ‘. . I do not regard this as a case in which the dates of the beginning proceedings are significant. As it happens, the English proceedings began first and the Illinois action a month later. It might have been the other way round. I do not think the outcome of these appeals should be affected by what is little more than an accident of timing.’

Judges:

Bingham LJ

Citations:

[1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 585

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sawyer v Atari Interactive Inc ChD 1-Nov-2005
The claimant owned the copyright in several successful computer games. He had granted licenses for the use of the software, which licences were assigned to the defendants. Disputes arose as to the calculation of royalty payments, and the claimant . .
Cited – Novus Aviation Ltd v Onur Air Tasimacilik As CA 27-Feb-2009
The defendant appealed against a refusal to set aside the grant of leave to serve outside the jurisdiction granted to the claimant. Neither party conducted and business in England, and the contract was made in Switzerland, but was expressed to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.237270

Petronas Lubricants Italy SpA v Livio Guida: ECJ 7 Mar 2018

ECJ Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Jurisdiction in respect of individual employment contracts – Employer who has been sued in the courts of the Member State where he is domiciled – Counterclaim for the employer – Determination of competent jurisdiction

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:163, [2018] EUECJ C-1/17 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Jurisdiction, Employment

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.606017

Saey Home and Garden NV/SA v Lusavouga-Maquinas e Acessorios Industriais SA: ECJ 8 Mar 2018

Judicial Cooperation In Civil Matters – Verbal Agreement Without Written Confirmation – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Article 25 – Existence of a jurisdiction clause – Verbal agreement without written confirmation – Clause contained in the general terms and conditions of sale mentioned in invoices – Article 7(1)(b) – Commercial concession agreement between two companies established in different Member States in respect of the market of a third Member State – Article 7(1)(b), second indent – Determination of the court with jurisdiction – Place of performance of the obligation that is characteristic of such a contract

Citations:

[2018] WLR(D) 152, [2018] EUECJ C-64/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:173

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Jurisdiction

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.606024

Citibank Na, London Branch v Oceanwood Opportunities Master Fund and Others: ChD 19 Feb 2018

Application by the claimant, Citibank, for directions as to whether it should, as security trustee and security agent under complex loan arrangements, seek and/or act in accordance with the directions of a body of creditors of which the first defendant, Oceanwood was a majority holder of debt, and whose wishes or vote would therefore govern; or whether provisions of the documentation which exclude from voting those who ‘control’ the debtor mean that Oceanwood’s voice cannot be heard. The matter with which this judgment deals is one of jurisdiction – whether this court or the courts of New York, should be dealing with this matter in the light of the jurisdictional clauses contained in the loan documentation.

Judges:

Mann J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 305 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Insolvency

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605341

Wink v Croatio Osiguranje Dd: QBD 3 May 2013

The meaning of ‘damage . . sustained within the jurisdiction’ in the jurisdiction ‘gateway’ under Ground 9(a) of paragraph 3.1(9) of CPR PD 6B ‘Claims in Tort’.

Judges:

Haddon-Cave J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1118 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Personal Injury

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.601872

FKI Engineering Ltd and Another v Stribog Ltd: ComC 21 May 2010

The defendant sought a stay under the Regulation, saying that the matter was already being litigated in Germany.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1160 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/200

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Stribog Ltd v FKI Engineering Ltd CA 25-May-2011
The defendants sought a stay of the proceedings on the ground that there were related actions already in existence in Germany.
Held: Rix LJ said:
As to article 27, Rix LJ said: ‘where the ‘same cause of action’ or the ‘same parties’ are . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.415981

Edate Advertising v X, Martinez v MGN Ltd: ECJ 25 Oct 2011

Grand Chamber – Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice) – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ – Directive 2000/31/EC – Publication of information on the internet – Adverse effect on personality rights – Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur – Law applicable to information society services

Judges:

V Skouris, P

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ C-509/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:685, [2012] QB 654, [2012] 3 WLR 227

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, Directive 2000/31/EC 3

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See Also – Edate Advertising v X ECJ 29-Mar-2011
ECJ Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction ‘in tort or quasi-delict’ – Violation of personal rights that may have been committed by the publication of information . .

Cited by:

See Also – eDate Advertising GmbH v X ECJ 25-Oct-2011
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ – Directive . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.603733

Vilca and Others v Xstrata Ltd and Another: QBD 19 Jan 2018

Claims for personal injuries suffered during a protest in Peru about a company whose parent company was registered within the UK. The court now heard submissions as to the Peruvian law of limitation.

Judges:

Stuart-Smith J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 27 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Limitation, International

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.603732

Allianz Spa (Anciennement Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta) v West Tankers Inc (‘the Front Comor’): ECJ 10 Feb 2009

ECJ (Judgment) A West Tankers ship damaged a jetty in Syracuse. An agreement provided for an arbitration in London. The insurers having paid out brought a subrogated action in Italy. West Tankers sought an order in England to restrain the Italian proceedings because of the arbitration agreement.
Held: It was not open to the courts of one country to seek to restrain those of another on the basis of such an arbitration agreement. Where the subject matter under dispute might come within the regulations, a preliminary application also came within the regulations. It was for each court to determine for itself which matters fell under its jurisdiction.
‘the court finds, as noted by the Advocate General in paras 53 and 54 of her opinion, that if, because of the subject matter of the dispute, that is, the nature of the rights to be protected in proceedings, such as a claim for damages, those proceedings come within the scope of Regulation No 44/2001, a preliminary issue concerning the applicability of an arbitration agreement, including in particular its validity, also comes within its scope of application.’

Judges:

V Skouris, President and Judges P. Jann, C. W. A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts, A. O Caoimh, P. Kuris, E. Juhasz, G. Arestis, A. Borg Barthet, J. Klucka, E. Levits and L. Bay Larsen Advocate General J. Kokott

Citations:

[2009] EUECJ C-185/07, C-185/07, [2009] 3 WLR 696, [2009] ILPr 20, [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 413, [2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 435, [2009] All ER (EC) 491, [2009] 1 CLC 96, [2009] 1 AC 1138

Links:

Bailii, Times

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of December 22, 2000, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – Allianz Spa (Anciennement Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta) v West Tankers Inc (Judgments Convention/Enforcement of Judgments) (‘the Front Comor’) ECJ 4-Sep-2008
Europa (Opinion) Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 Scope Arbitration Order restraining a person from commencing or continuing proceedings before the national courts of another Member State instead of before an arbitral . .
At High Court – West Tankers Inc v Ras Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta Spa and Another (‘The Front Comor’) ComC 21-Mar-2005
Appeal against anti-suit order. The court ordered that since the question of whether an anti-suit injunction could be made to restrain proceedings abroad had been decided in Through Transport, that issue could go straight to the House of Lords. . .
At House of Lords – West Tankers Inc v Ras Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta Spa and others (The Front Comor) HL 21-Feb-2007
A ship had foundered, and the owners disputed their insurance claim. The policy provided for arbitration in London, and one party sought an order to prevent the other commencing proceedings in another EU state in breach of the arbitration agreement. . .
Cited – Erich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl ECJ 9-Dec-2003
The claimant Austrian company had for many years sold goods to the defendant an Italian company. Eventually it presented a claim before the court in Italy. Having obtained judgement, it later sought to enforce the order through the Austrian court . .
Cited – Turner v Grovit ECJ 27-Apr-2004
The claimant had been employed as a solicitor by the respondent at locations across Europe, and came to claim in England that they had wrongly implicated him in unlawful activity. The company sought to issue proceedings in Spain.
Held: The . .

Cited by:

Cited – Clyde and Co Llp and Another v Winkelhof QBD 22-Mar-2011
The claimant firm of solicitors sought an order requiring the defendant to amend her employment tribunal claim so as to accord with the partnership agreement to which she was party, and to submit to arbitration. The defendant said that statutory . .
Cited – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Cited – Soleymani v Nifty Gateway Llc ComC 24-Mar-2022
Arbitration jurisdiction applications stayed
The claimant sought declaratory relief as to the basis of a purchase after he placed a bid for a blockchain-based non-fungible token (also known as an NFT) associated with an artwork by the artist known as Beeple titled ‘Abundance’. The court was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.332839

Through Transport Mutual Insurance Association (Eurasia) Ltd v New India Assurance Association Company Ltd: CA 2 Dec 2004

Judges:

Lord Justice Clarke The Lord Chief Justice Of England &Amp; Wales Lord Justice Rix

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1598, [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 67

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC Regulation 44/2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Through Transport Mutual Insurance Association (Eurasia) Ltd v New India Assurance Co Ltd ComC 18-Dec-2003
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Through Transport Mutual Insurance Association (Eurasia) Ltd v New India Assurance Co Ltd ComC 21-Mar-2005
Application for court to nominate arbitrator. . .
Cited – West Tankers Inc v Ras Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta Spa and Another (‘The Front Comor’) ComC 21-Mar-2005
Appeal against anti-suit order. The court ordered that since the question of whether an anti-suit injunction could be made to restrain proceedings abroad had been decided in Through Transport, that issue could go straight to the House of Lords. . .
Cited – West Tankers Inc v Ras Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta Spa and others (The Front Comor) HL 21-Feb-2007
A ship had foundered, and the owners disputed their insurance claim. The policy provided for arbitration in London, and one party sought an order to prevent the other commencing proceedings in another EU state in breach of the arbitration agreement. . .
Cited – Soleymani v Nifty Gateway Llc ComC 24-Mar-2022
Arbitration jurisdiction applications stayed
The claimant sought declaratory relief as to the basis of a purchase after he placed a bid for a blockchain-based non-fungible token (also known as an NFT) associated with an artwork by the artist known as Beeple titled ‘Abundance’. The court was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.219897

Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA: SC 4 Jul 2018

A banking facility was provided under a contract applying English law and jurisdiction. The parties now disputed whether on an assignment the dispute was to be resolved under Portuguese law.
Held: Recognition in the United Kingdom of measures by a foreign Resolution Authority in accordance with its own national legislation implementing the EBRRD. Any pan-European scheme for dealing with the systemic risks of bank failures must depend for its efficacy on the widest possible recognition of a home state’s measures in other jurisdictions where banks in the course of reorganisation may have interests or assets or under whose laws it may have contracted.
Lord Sumption said: ‘I reject the proposition, which was fundamental to both the Judge’s analysis and the appellants’ case, that the effect of the August decision can be recognised without regard to the December decision. On the face of it, the December decision was not an interpretation of the August decision or an amendment of it, retrospective or otherwise. Nor was it a retransfer of a liability previously transferred to Novo Banco. It was a ruling that under the terms of article 145-H(2) of the Banking Law and paragraph (b)(i)(a) of Annexe 2 of the August decision, the Oak liability had never been transferred. But, like the courts below, I do not think that it matters what the correct analysis of the December decision is, provided that it is accepted (as it is) that as a matter of Portuguese law it is conclusive of that point unless and until annulled by a Portuguese administrative court. It follows from the agreed propositions of Portuguese law and from the requirement of article 3.2 of the Reorganisation Directive that an English court must treat the Oak liability as never having been transferred to Novo Banco. It was therefore never party to the jurisdiction clause.’
and, as to the ‘better of the argument test’: ‘What is meant is (i) that the claimant must supply a plausible evidential basis for the application of a relevant jurisdictional gateway; (ii) that if there is an issue of fact about it, or some other reason for doubting whether it applies, the court must take a view on the material available if it can reliably do so; but (iii) the nature of the issue and the limitations of the material available at the interlocutory stage may be such that no reliable assessment can be made, in which case there is a good arguable case for the application of the gateway if there is a plausible (albeit contested) evidential basis for it.’

Judges:

Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones JJSC, Lord Mance

Citations:

[2018] UKSC 34, [2018] WLR(D) 440, [2018] 2 BCLC 141, [2018] 1 WLR 3683

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary

Statutes:

Parliament and Council Directive 2001/24/EC, Parliament and Council Directive 2014/59/EU

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 – 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 . .
At ComC – Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco Sa ComC 7-Aug-2015
. .
Appeal from – Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation Fund and Others v Novo Banco, Sa CA 4-Nov-2016
. .
Cited – National Bank of Greece and Athens v Metliss HL 1957
The National Bank of Greece had been created under the law of Greece. By a Greek decree, the bank was dissolved and, by the same decree, amalgamated with another bank into a new banking corporation under the name of ‘National Bank of Greece and . .
Cited – LBI HF v Kepler Capital Markets SA ECJ 24-Oct-2013
ECJ Request for a preliminary ruling – Reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions – Directive 2001/24/EC – Articles 3, 9 and 32 – National legislative act conferring on reorganisation measures the . .
Cited – Kotnik And Others v Drzavni Zbor Republike Slovenije ECJ 19-Jul-2016
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Validity and interpretation of the Banking Communication from the Commission – Interpretation of Directives 2001/24/EC and 2012/30/EU – State aid to banks in . .

Cited by:

Cited – Soleymani v Nifty Gateway Llc ComC 24-Mar-2022
Arbitration jurisdiction applications stayed
The claimant sought declaratory relief as to the basis of a purchase after he placed a bid for a blockchain-based non-fungible token (also known as an NFT) associated with an artwork by the artist known as Beeple titled ‘Abundance’. The court was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.619945

Bitar v Banque Libano-Francaise SAL: QBD 20 Oct 2021

Judges:

Michael Kent QC

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 2787 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Soleymani v Nifty Gateway Llc ComC 24-Mar-2022
Arbitration jurisdiction applications stayed
The claimant sought declaratory relief as to the basis of a purchase after he placed a bid for a blockchain-based non-fungible token (also known as an NFT) associated with an artwork by the artist known as Beeple titled ‘Abundance’. The court was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.669700

Peter Pammer v Reederei Karl Schluter GmbH and Co KG etc: ECJ 7 Dec 2010

ECJ (Grand Chamber) Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 15(1)(c) and (3) – Jurisdiction over consumer contracts – Contract for a voyage by freighter – Concept of ‘package travel’ – Contract for a hotel stay – Presentation of the voyage and the hotel on a website – Concept of activity ‘directed to’ the Member State of the consumer’s domicile – Criteria – Accessibility of the website
The ECJ established the following principles: i) The trader must have manifested its intention to establish commercial relations with consumers from one or more other member states including that of the consumer’s domicile. Specifically, in the case of a contract between a trader and a given consumer, it must be determined (by reference to the trader’s websites and overall activity), whether before any contract with that consumer was concluded, there was evidence demonstrating that the trader was envisaging doing business with consumers in other member states, including the member state of that consumer’s domicile, in the sense that it was minded to conclude a contract with those consumers;
ii) While the dissemination of traditional forms of advertising in other member states, such as by the press, radio, television or other medium, may of itself demonstrate an intention of the trader to direct its activities towards those states, the mere establishment of a website which is accessible in other member states will not of itself do so since use of the internet may automatically give worldwide reach without any intention on the part of the trader to target consumers outside of the state in which it is established.
iii) When considering advertising (whether by the use of the internet or by other media which may reach across borders without any necessary intention to target consumers in other member states) the Court should look for ‘clear expressions of the intention to solicit the custom of that state’s consumers’. Such clear expressions include mention that it is offering its services or its goods in one or more member states designated by name or mention of an international clientele composed of customers domiciled in various states; however, a finding that an activity is ‘directed to’ other member states does not depend solely on the existence of such patent evidence.

Judges:

V Skouris, P

Citations:

[2010] EUECJ C-144/09, [2012] Bus LR 972, [2012] All ER (EC) 34, [2011] 2 All ER (Comm) 888, [2010] ECR I-12527

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 15(1)

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – Peter Pammer v Reederei Karl Schluter GmbH and Co KG etc ECJ 18-May-2010
ECJ (Opinion) Regulation No 44/2001 – Article 15, paragraph 1 (c) and 3 – Jurisdiction over consumer contracts – Management of a business to a Member State where the consumer’s home – Accessibility of website – . .

Cited by:

Applied. – Oak Leaf Conservatories Ltd v Weir and Another TCC 24-Oct-2013
The claimant conservatory installers claimed wrongful repudiation of the contract by the defendant householders. The defendants, living in Ayrshire, said that the English courts had no jurisdiction over the contract.
Held: The court gave its . .
Cited – Soleymani v Nifty Gateway Llc ComC 24-Mar-2022
Arbitration jurisdiction applications stayed
The claimant sought declaratory relief as to the basis of a purchase after he placed a bid for a blockchain-based non-fungible token (also known as an NFT) associated with an artwork by the artist known as Beeple titled ‘Abundance’. The court was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Jurisdiction, Consumer

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.517366

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 in Canada, and denied that the English court had jurisdiction. Each party appealed against a judgment allowing service under the contract and 1976 Act claim, but disallowing it under the 1934 Act claim and for her own personal injuries.
Held: The Hotel company’s appeal succeeded. The negligence was governed by the law of Egypt, and the 1976 Act applied only to a tort not governed by English law. The Rome II Regulation dealt with applicable law, not jurisdiction, and could not support her claims.
The claimant had failed to bring her claims within the jurisdictional gateways which would allow service, and had not established that a viable claim existed. The Hotel had proved not to be owned by the appellant company, and any claim in contract against it must fail. On the one hand she pleaded that the contract was ‘made within the jurisdiction’ and on the other that the damage was ‘sustained within the jurisdiction’.
In determining an issue about jurisdiction, the traditional test has been whether the claimant had ‘the better of the argument’ on the facts going to jurisdiction. The Court restated that test: ‘ the claimant must supply a plausible evidential basis for the application of a relevant jurisdictional gateway; (ii) that if there is an issue of fact about it, or some other reason for doubting whether it applies, the court must take a view on the material available if it can reliably do so; but (iii) the nature of the issue and the limitations of the material available at the interlocutory stage may be such that no reliable assessment can be made, in which case there is a good arguable case for the application of the gateway if there is a plausible (albeit contested) evidential basis for it.’

Judges:

Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 80, [2018] 1 WLR 192, [2018] 2 All ER 91, UKSC 2016/0045, UKSC 2015/0175

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary, SC 2017 May 09 am Video, SC 2017 May 09 pm Video, SC 2017 Jul 20 am Video, SC 2017 Jul 20 pm Video

Statutes:

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, Fatal Accidents Act 1976, Regulation (EC) 84/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Mentioned – 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 – 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. . .
At CA – Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated CA 3-Jul-2015
The claimant commenced an action here after suffering injury whilst in Egypt on an excursion organised under the control of the defendant. The defendant denied jurisdiction as regards the damage suffered.
Held: The defendant’s appeal was . .
Cited – Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation CA 1955
The plaintiff traded from London, and telexed an offer to purchase cathodes to a company in Holland, who signified their acceptance by return, again by telex. Entores later wanted to sue the defendant, the parent company of the Dutch party. It was . .
Cited – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 . .
Cited – Adams v Lindsell KBD 5-Jun-1818
No Contract by Post until Acceptance Received
The defendant sent his offer of wool for sale to the plaintiff by post. The plaintiff’s acceptance was at first misdirected. Before receiving the reply the defendant had sold the wool elsewhere, but this was only after he would have received the . .
At first Instance – 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. . .
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 – Cox v Ergo Versicherung Ag CA 25-Jun-2012
The deceased member of the armed forces had died in a road traffic accident in Germany. The parties didputed whether the principles governing the calculation of damages were those in the 1976 Act and UK law, or under German law.
Held: ‘There . .
Cited – Dunlop v Higgins HL 24-Feb-1848
Contracts made by post are complete when and where the letter of acceptance is posted.
Lord Cottenham LC said that the explanation for the contract arising was that there was a usage of trade to accept a postal offer by post. The Post Office . .
Cited – Wong Mee Administratrix of The Estate of Ho Shui Yee, Deceased v Kwan Kin Travel Services Ltd, China Travel Services Co (Zhong Shan) And, Pak Tang Lake Travel Services Co (Doumen County) Co PC 6-Nov-1995
The appellant’s daughter died in an accident whilst on holiday in China from Hong Kong on a trip booked with the respondent.
Held: Lord Slynn said: ‘ . . the issue is thus whether . . [the package tour operator] undertook no more than that . .
Cited – Chandler v Cape Plc CA 25-Apr-2012
. .
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 – Moran v First Choice Holidays QBD 2005
. .
Cited – Parker v Tui UK Ltd CA 27-Nov-2009
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA SC 4-Jul-2018
A banking facility was provided under a contract applying English law and jurisdiction. The parties now disputed whether on an assignment the dispute was to be resolved under Portuguese law.
Held: Recognition in the United Kingdom of measures . .
See Also – Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Inc QBD 1-Oct-2019
Application to substitute defendant. . .
Cited – Soleymani v Nifty Gateway Llc ComC 24-Mar-2022
The claimant sought declaratory relief as to the basis of a purchase after he placed a bid for a blockchain-based non-fungible token (also known as an NFT) associated with an artwork by the artist known as Beeple titled ‘Abundance’. The court was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Jurisdiction, European

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.601508

The Health Service Executive of Ireland v IM and Another: CoP 26 Oct 2020

Determination of where IM, now aged 92 years, is habitually resident. She is presently living in Ireland, having moved there in September 2018. Prior to that move, she had been resident in Kent for over 55 years. If, as the Applicant contended, IM remained habitually resident in this jurisdiction, then issues as to her health and welfare were matters for the Court of Protection. If she was now habitually resident in Ireland as both Respondents contended, then such matters would fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court in Ireland.

Judges:

Mrs Justice Knowles

Citations:

[2020] EWCOP 51

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Health

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.655597

Docherty and Others v The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills: SCS 21 Mar 2018

The House was asked: ‘Where a man, while working in Scotland, inhales asbestos fibres that cause injury to his body after he has become resident in England, which law is applicable to determine the admissibility of claims for damages made by his executors and relatives after his death?’

Citations:

[2018] ScotCS CSOH – 25

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.609346

The British Council v Jeffery and Others: CA 16 Oct 2018

The respondents worked outside the UK, living and working for United Kingdom company. Their contracts of employment were expressed to be governed by English law. The court was asked whether that created a sufficient connection with British employment law to bring claims of detrimental treatment in employment tribunal.
Held: The appeal failed. Making the contract subject to English law was enough to create the connection needed.

Judges:

Underhill, Longmore, Peter Jackson LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 2253, [2018] WLR(D) 629

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Employment

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.625953

Newland Shipping and Forwarding Ltd v Toba Trading Fzc and Others: ComC 16 Jun 2017

Dual application by the Fifth Defendant Shaikh Ahmad Saqer Mohamed Alqasemi firstly for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 and secondly to dispute jurisdiction under CPR 11.

Judges:

Sara Cockerill QC

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1416 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.594589

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 that the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction in relation to disputes arising out of that agreement.

Judges:

Blair J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 4169 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Jurisdiction, Insurance

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.539959

B v L: FC 20 Oct 2016

H, a devout Muslim, objected to the English court dealing with the divorce proceedings brought by W. He said that under Sharia law, any proceedings had to occur in Pakistan.
Held: The court had jurisdiction. There was clear evidence that the law of divorce in Pakistan was discriminatory, and that W would have less rights there. Though both parties had dual English and Pakistani nationality both were clearly resident here.

Judges:

Francis J

Citations:

[2016] EWFC 67

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Jurisdiction

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.592356

Ahmed and Another v Ali Khalifa: ComC 23 May 2017

Application to stay the proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens on the basis that the courts of Bahrain would be a distinctly more appropriate venue for the trial of the claim than the courts of England.

Judges:

Sir Jeremy Cooke

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1198 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588909

Kareda v Stefan Benko: ECJ 15 Jun 2017

ECJ (Jurisdiction In Civil and Commercial Matters : Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Article 7(1) – Concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and of a ‘contract for the provision of services’ – Recourse claim between jointly and severally liable debtors under a credit agreement – Determination of the place of performance of the credit agreement

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:472, [2017] WLR(D) 395, [2017] EUECJ C-249/16

Links:

WLRD, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Jurisdiction

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588279

Twin Benefits Ltd v Barker: ChD 19 Jun 2017

The defendant applied to have set aside an order allowing service on him of proceedings under a trust.
Held: The application succeeded.

Judges:

Marcus Smith J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1412 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Trusts, Jurisdiction

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588219