A debt or liability arising in any country may be discharged by the laws of that country, and such a discharge, if it extinguishes the debt or liability, and does not merely interfere with the remedies or course of procedure to enforce it, will be an effectual answer to the claim, not only in the courts of that country, but in every other country. This is a principle of private international law adopted in other countries. Secondly, as a general proposition, it is also true that the discharge of a debt or liability by the law of a country other than that in which the debt arises, does not relieve the debtor in any other country.
Judges:
Bovill CJ
Citations:
(1871) LR 6 CP 228
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Smith v Buchanan 1800
The discharge of a debt or liability by the law of a country other than that in which the debt arises, does not relieve the debtor in any other country. . .
Cited – Burrows v Jemino 1726
A debt or liability arising in any country may be discharged by the laws of that country, and that such a discharge, if it extinguishes the debt or liability, and does not merely interfere with the remedies or course of procedure to enforce it, will . .
Cited – Ballantine v Golding 1784
. .
Cited – Odwin v Forbes PC 1817
. .
Cited – Quelin v Moisson 1828
. .
Cited – Gardiner v Houghton QBD 1862
. .
Cited – Potter v Brown 1804
. .
Cited – Phillips v Eyre CEC 1870
The court considered the rule of double actionability. The court laid down the test for whether a tort committed abroad was actionable in this jurisdiction: ‘As a general rule, in order to found a suit in England for a wrong alleged to have been . .
Cited – Smith v Buchanan 1800
The discharge of a debt or liability by the law of a country other than that in which the debt arises, does not relieve the debtor in any other country. . .
Cited – Lewis v Owen 1821
. .
Cited – Phillips v Allan 1828
. .
Cited – Bartley v Hodges 1861
. .
Cited by:
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 . .
Approved – Martin v Nadel CA 17-May-1906
A garnishee order was sought in England against the London branch of a German bank to attach a balance owed to the judgment debtor by the Berlin branch of the bank.
Held: A garnishee order is of the nature of an execution, and is governed by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183527