The court was concerned with conflicts between different jurisdictions dealing with related matters. Hirst LJ said: ‘Conflicting findings of fact, on the other hand, are virtually impossible to reconcile if different judges in different jurisdictions within the EEC, hearing and seeing different witnesses, reach different conclusions which have hinged on an assessment of the reliability of individual witnesses; and of course the problem may be compounded in cases where there are different procedures in the different national courts in the way in which they hear the evidence and assess it. Moreover, different findings of fact also frequently lead to different conclusions of law.’
Judges:
Hirst LJ
Citations:
[1994] 1 LPr 82, Times 26-Nov-1991
Statutes:
Brussels Convention 1968 Art 22
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd CA 24-Oct-2005
The defendants who were resident in Greece appealed a decision that the English court had jurisdiction over them, by virtue of a close connection of the matter with earlier proceedings heard here.
Held: The fact that the defendants were all . .
Cited – Casio Computer Co Ltd v Sayo and others CA 11-Apr-2001
The court was asked whether a constructive trust claim based on dishonest assistance is a matter ‘relating to tort, delict or quasi delict’ for the purpose of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention?
Held: A constructive trust claim based upon . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.235391