Kuwait Oil Tanker Company S A K Sitka Shipping Incorporated v UBS Ag: CA 25 Jan 2002

Officers of the claimant had been found to have defrauded the plaintiff of many millions of pounds. Money had been paid through the defendant, a Swiss bank, and a garnishee order was sought. There was no presumption that, merely because a debt was a foreign debt, garnishee relief should be refused. The real issue was any possibility of double jeopardy, not whether the order of an English court would be recognised. Swiss law debarred disclosure of any of the details suggested, and payment under a garnishee order would not discharge the bank’s debt to its client. The debt constituted by a bank account is located in whatever country the account is kept. Nevertheless the order was being sought to be enforced in England, and the Swiss courts did not have exclusive jurisdiction. The case was remitted to the divisional court to consider the issue of double jeopardy.


Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Laws, And, Lord Justice Longmore,


[2002] EWCA Civ 34, [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 351




Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1988 Art 16(5), Civil Procedure Rules 50.1


England and Wales


CitedReichart v Dresdner Bank ECJ 1992
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules, International

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.167540