Restitution when Contract Void ab initio
A claim for restitution of money paid under a contract which was void ab initio is not a claim in contract, nor tort, nor delict, it was justiciable only in the court of domicile. The Brussels Convention does not decide jurisdiction. ‘But it is clearly recognised that article 5 is in derogation from the basic principle of domicile in article 2 and that as a result the provisions of article 5 are to be construed restrictively.’ The House rejected the argument that a claim for unjust enrichment fell within Article 5(3) because, other than in exceptional circumstances, such a claim did not pre-suppose either a harmful event or a threatened wrong.
Lord Goff
Gazette 19-Nov-1997, Times 31-Oct-1997, [1997] UKHL 43, [1999] 1 AC 153, [1997] 4 All ER 641, [1997] 3 WLR 923
House of Lords, Bailii
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Brussels Convention 1968 5
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schroder, Munchmeyer, Hengst and Co and others ECJ 27-Sep-1988
kalfelisECJ1988
ECJ For Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters to apply, a connection must exist between the various actions brought . .
Cited by:
Cited – Shahar v Tsitsekkos and others ChD 17-Nov-2004
The defendant wished to make a claim against another party outside the jurisdiction and was granted permission to serve documents which were headed ‘defence and counterclaim’. The proposed defendant argued that such a document could be served in . .
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 . .
Cited – Gomez and others v Vives CA 3-Oct-2008
The claimant appealed a finding that the court did not have jurisdiction over income payable to a trust governed by English law under which the claimant was beneficiary.
Held: The appeal failed in part. Because Article 5 is in derogation from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction, Contract
Leading Case
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.135204