Gur Corporation v Trust Bank of Africa: 1987

Governmental acts of an unrecognised state cannot be recognised by an English court but ‘Common sense and justice may combine to require the qualification of these principles in certain respects.’ Discussing the Carl Zeiss case: ‘Carl Zeiss was decided on the basis of the application of principles of agency: on the materials before the House of Lords the relevant acts were categorised as those of the U.S.S.R. rather than the G.D.R. This route was open to their Lordships because there was an executive certificate, which expressly stated: ‘up to the present date Her Majesty’s Government have recognised the State and Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as de jure entitled to exercise governing authority in respect of that zone [the G.D.R.].’


Steyn J


[1987] 1 QB 599


CitedCarl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner and Keeler Ltd (No 2) HL 1966
An agency had to be proved in a search to identify an entity which the law recognised (a) existed and (b) was legally responsible for the acts in issue in the proceedings. The House was asked whether the fact that an issue had already been . .

Cited by:

CitedNorth Cyprus Tourism Centre Ltd and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Transport for London Admn 28-Jul-2005
The defendants had prevented the claimants from advertising their services in North Cyprus on their buses, and justified this saying that the Crown did not recognise the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus since it was the result of an unlawful . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.230016