Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














International - From: 1930 To: 1959

This page lists 42 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.

 
Nichols -v- Universal Pictures Co 45 F 2nd 119 (2nd Cir 1930)
1930

Learned Hand J
International, Intellectual Property
(US Second Circuit) The judge discussed the difficulty in copyright cases in drawing the line between the taking of general concepts and copying in an infringing manner: "Upon any work, and especially upon a play, a great number of patterns of increasing generality will fit equally well, as more and more of the incident is left out. The last may perhaps be no more than the most general statement of what the play is about, and at times may consist of only its title; but there is a point in this series of abstractions where they are no longer protected, since otherwise the playwright could prevent the use of his 'ideas', to which, apart from their expression, his property is never extended."
1 Citers


 
Great Northern Railway Co -v- Sunburst Oil & Refining Co [1932] 287 US 358
1932

Justice Cardozo
International
(US Supreme Court) The Constitution neither prohibits nor requires prospective overruling. The Federal Court, Cardoza J said, 'has no voice upon the subject.'
1 Citers



 
 United Motor Service -v- Tropic-aire; 1932 - (1932) 57 F 2d 479

 
 In re Piracy jure gentium; PC 1934 - [1934] AC 586
 
Compania Naviera Vascongado -v- Steamship "Cristina" [1938] AC 485
1938
HL
Lord Atkin
Jurisdiction, International
A state-owned ship that was used for public purposes could not be made the subject of proceedings in rem. Lord Atkin described the absolute immunity of a sovereign of a foreign state within this jurisdiction: "The foundation for the application to set aside the writ and arrest of the ship is to be found in two propositions of international law engrafted into our domestic law which seem to me to be well established and to be beyond dispute. The first is that the courts of a country will not implead a foreign sovereign, that is, they will not by their process make him against his will a party to legal proceedings whether the proceedings involve process against his person or seek to recover from him specific property or damages.
The second is that they will not by their process, whether the sovereign is a party to the proceedings or not, seize or detain property which is his or of which he is in possession or control. There has been some difference in the practice of nations as to possible limitations of this second principle as to whether it extends to property only used for the commercial purposes of the sovereign or to personal private property. In this country it is in my opinion well settled that it applies to both."
This doctrine derives from the maxim par in parem non habet imperium, but also from ideas as comity or reciprocity, the practicability of enforcement, or the respect for the dignity of other states.
1 Citers


 
Philippson -v- Imperial Airways Ltd [1939] AC 332
1939
HL

International, Contract
Where parties have entered into a domestic contract in which they have chosen to incorporate the terms of the treaty, the court may be called upon to interpret the treaty for the purposes of ascertaining the rights and obligations of the parties under their contract.
1 Citers



 
 Government of the Republic of Spain -v- SS "Arantzazu Mendi"; HL 1939 - [1939] AC 256

 
 Greenwood County -v- Duke Power; 1939 - (1939) 107 F(2d) 484
 
West Virginia State Board of Education -v- Barnette (1943) 319 US 624; [1943] USSC 130; 63 SCt 1178; 87 LEd 1628
14 Jun 1943

Jackson J
International, Human Rights
(United States Supreme Court) Jackson J said: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion to force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us."
1 Citers

[ Worldlii ]
 
Re Sandrock and Others (1945) 13 ILR 297
1945


International, Crime
(British Military Court in Holland ) It was submitted that this military court was a court constituted under an Order in Council and was accordingly a domestic court applying English Law.
1 Citers



 
 The Corfu Channel Case; ICJ 22-May-1947 -
 
Gregoire -v- GP Putnam's Sons (1948) 81 NE2d 45
1948


International, Defamation, Limitation
(New York Court of Appeals) A book had been placed on sale in 1941, but was still being reprinted and sold in 1946. Held. The rule in Duke of Brunswick v Harmer was formulated "in an era which long antedated the modern process of mass publication" and was therefore not suited to modern conditions. The limitation period started to run in 1941, when the book was first put on sale. The court pointed out that "Under [the rule in Duke of Brunswick v Harmer] the Statute of Limitation would never expire so long as a copy of such book remained in stock and is made by the publisher the subject of a sale or inspection by the public. Such a rule would thwart the purpose of the legislature."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Duke of Brunswick -v- The King of Hanover (1848) 2 HL Cas 1; (1844) 6 Beav 1; [1848] EngR 794; (1848) 2 HLC 1; (1848) 9 ER 993
31 Jul 1948
HL
Lord Chancellor
International
The Duke claimed that the King of Hanover had been involved in the removal of the Duke from his position as reigning Duke and in the maladministration of his estates. Held: "A foreign Sovereign, coming into this country cannot be made responsible here for an act done in his Sovereign character in his own country; whether it be an act right or wrong, whether according to the constitution of that country or not, the Courts of this country cannot sit in judgment upon an act of a Sovereign, effected by virtue of his Sovereign authority abroad, an act not done as a British subject, but supposed to be done in the exercise of his authority vested in him as Sovereign." and "If it be a matter of sovereign authority, we cannot try that fact, whether it be right or wrong. The allegation that it is contrary to the laws of Hanover, taken in conjunction with the allegation of the authority under which the defendant had acted, must be conceded to be an allegation, not that it was contrary to the existing laws as regulating the right of individuals, but that it was contrary to the laws and duties and rights and powers of a Sovereign exercising Sovereign authority. If that be so, it does not require another observation to shew, because it has not been doubted, that no Court in this country can entertain questions to bring Sovereigns to account for their acts done in their sovereign capacities abroad."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
M'Elroy -v- M'Allister [1948] ScotCS CSIH_4; 1949 SC 110; 1949 SLT 139
4 Nov 1948
SCS

Scotland, Torts - Other, International
The court rejected the renvoi doctrine in tort. An act done in a foreign country was actionable in Scotland only if it was, if done in Scotland, a tort, and was also actionable according to the law of the place in which it was done.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Eisentrager -v- Forrestal (1949) 174 F.2d 961
1949


International
(US Supreme Court) German citizens had been convicted of espionage by a United States military commission after the surrender of Germany at the end of the Second World War. They were repatriated to Landsberg Prison in Germany to serve their sentences. The prison was under the control of the United States army. The prisoners petitioned for writs of habeas corpus. Held: Justice Robert Jackson (majority) said that a court was unable to extend the writ of habeas corpus to aliens held outside the territory of the United States. He distinguished between aliens and citizens, observing that "citizenship as a head of jurisdiction and a ground of protection was old when Paul invoked it in his appeal to Caesar".
1 Citers



 
 L Albert & Son -v- Armstrong Rubber Co; 1949 - (1949) 178 F. 2d 182

 
 Labacianskas -v- Labacianskas; SCS 15-Feb-1949 - [1949] ScotCS CSIH_2

 
 United States -v- Rabinowitz; 1950 - 339 U S 56 (1950)

 
 The Colombian-Peruvian Asylum case; ICJ 20-Nov-1950 -
 
Request For Interpretation Of The Judgment Of 20 November 1950 In The Asylum Case
27 Nov 1950
ICJ

International

1 Cites

[ ICJ ]
 
De Haber -v- The Queen of Portugal (1951) 17 QB 171
1951

Lord Campbell
International

1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Vitkovice Horni a Hutni Tezirstvo -v- Korner [1951] AC 869
1951

Lord Radcliffe, Lord Simonds
International, Litigation Practice
The ordinary principles of international comity were invaded when courts permitted service out of jurisdiction and that the courts should therefore approach with circumspection any application for leave to serve a foreigner out of the jurisdiction. It is an 'exhorbitant jurisdiction', and should be ‘exercised with caution and with a bias against invading the sovereignty of a foreign State’ (Lord Simonds). A master or judge may on some occasions be obliged to assess the relative strength of the parties' cases. In doing so, he does not try the case on the affidavits, because he reaches only a provisional conclusion: the stage for trial and for final decision has not been reached. But he must have regard to all the admissible material before him not just the plaintiff's case. He must conclude that there is a good arguable case (Lord Simonds), not just a case that can be argued, or a strong argument (Lord Radcliffe).
Lord Radcliffe said: "It seems to me that the solution of disputes about the relative merits of trial in England and trial abroad is pre-eminently a matter for the trial judge. Commercial court judges are very experienced in these matters. In nearly every case evidence is on affidavit by witnesses of acknowledged probity. I hope that in future the judge will be allowed to study the evidence and refresh his memory of the speech of Lord Goff in this case in the quiet of his room without expense to the parties; that he will not be referred to other decisions on other facts; and that submissions will be measured in hours and not days. An appeal should be rare and the appellate court should be slow to interfere."
1 Citers


 
Kahan -v- Pakistan Federation [1951] 2 KB 1003; [1951] 2 TLR 697
1951


International
State immunity can only be lost by a submission to the jurisdiction when it was invoked, and not by an earlier act.
1 Citers


 
Haya de La Torre case
13 Jun 1951
ICJ

International

[ ICJ ]
 
Fisheries Case; United Kingdom -v- Norway
18 Dec 1951
ICJ

International, Agriculture

[ ICJ ]
 
Sayce -v- Ameer Ruler Sadig Mohommed Abbasi Bahawalpur State [1952] 2 QB 390
1952
CA

International
The court upheld a decision that the defendant was the ruler of Bahawalpur State which had been an independent state prior to the passing of the Indian Independence Act 1947 and the accession of that State to the Dominion of Pakistan. It was decisive that the British government had stated in a letter first that the State of Bahawalpur was not a part of His Majesty's Dominions and that the defendant, within the limitations imposed by the arrangements contained in the establishment of Pakistan was a sovereign ruler of a State.
1 Citers


 
Ambatielos (Greece -v- United Kingdom) (1951-1953)
1 Jul 1952
ICJ

International

[ ICJ ] - [ ICJ ]

 
 Anglo-lranian Oil Co. (United Kingdom -v- Iran) (1951-1952); ICJ 22-Jul-1952 - ICJ, 22 July 1952
 
Case Concerning Rights Of Nationals Of The United States Of America In Morocco
27 Aug 1952
ICJ

International

[ ICJ ]

 
 F & K Jabbour -v- Custodian of Israeli Absentee Property; 1953 - [1954] 1 WLR 139; [1953] 2 Lloyd's Rep 760
 
Minquiers and Ecrehos (France/United Kingdom) (1951-1953)
17 Nov 1953
ICJ

International

[ ICJ ]
 
Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) (1951-1955)
18 Nov 1953
ICJ

International

[ ICJ ] - [ ICJ ]
 
Peter Buchanan Limited and Macharg -v- McVey [1955] AC 516; [1954] IR 89
1954

Kingsmill Moore J
International, Taxes Management
(Supreme Court of Ireland) The plaintiff was a company registered in Scotland put into compulsory liquidation by the revenue under a substantial claim for excess profits tax and income tax. The liquidator was really a nominee of the revenue. The defendant director had realised all the company's assets and having paid all the debts save the revenue, had the balance transferred to himself to his credit with an Irish bank. He moved to Ireland. The action appeared to seek to recover the balance from the defendant at the instance of the company directed by the liquidator. Held: The director's actions were dishonestly intended to defeat the claim of the revenue in Scotland as a creditor. However though the action was in form an action by the company to recover these assets, it was found "For the purpose of this case it is sufficient to say that when it appears to the court that the whole object of the suit is to collect tax for a foreign revenue, and that this will be the sole result of a decision in favour of the plaintiff, then a court is entitled to reject the claim by refusing jurisdiction" and as an attempt to enforce indirectly a claim to tax by the revenue authorities of another State, the action was dismissed.
1 Citers



 
 In re Banque des Marchands de Moscou (Koupetschesky) (No 2); CA 1954 - [1954] 2 All ER 746; [1954] 1 WLR 1108; 98 Sol Jo 557

 
 Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy -v- France, United Kingdom and United States) (1953-1954); ICJ 15-Jun-1954 -

 
 Government of India -v- Taylor; HL 1955 - [1955] AC 491

 
 Entores Ltd -v- Miles Far East Corporation; CA 1955 - [1955] 2 All ER 394; [1955] 2 QB 327; [1955] EWCA Civ 3; [1955] 3 WLR 48; [1955] 1 Lloyds Rep 511; 99 Sol Jo 384

 
 Rahimtoola -v- Nizam of Hyderabad; CA 1957 - [1957] Ch 157
 
Rahimtoola -v- Nizam of Hyderabad [1958] AC 379; [1957] 3 WLR 884; [1957] 3 All ER 441
1957
HL
Lord Reid, Viscount Simonds
International
A claim was made against the former High Commissioner for Pakistan personally for money had and received. He established that he had received the money in England in his official capacity as High Commissioner. Held: Appeal allowed. The application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not depend upon the persons between whom the issue is joined, but upon the subject-matter of the issue. The House described the basis of state immunity: "The principle of sovereign immunity is not founded on any technical rules of law: it is founded on broad considerations of public policy, international law and comity." Lord Denning expressed, obiter, the view that judicial immunity should not apply to commercial transactions, but the other members of the House expressly dissociated themselves from this view, because the point had not been argued.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Baccus SRL -v- Servicio Nacional Del Trigo [1958] 1 QB 438
1958
CA
Jenkins LJ, Parker LJ, Singleton LJ (dissenting)
International, Contract
The defendant organisation carried on business from Spain and was sued in England for damages for breach of a commercial contract. An appearance was entered by their solicitors in London and a consent order made for security for the organisation's costs. These steps were taken on the instructions of the head of the organisation, Mr Cavero, who was a senior civil servant, without the Minister of Agriculture knowing of them. Eighteen months after the writ was served, steps were taken to stay proceedings on the ground that the organisation was a department of the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture. Held: (majority) The defendants were a department of the State of Spain and entitled to claim immunity. There could be no submission to the jurisdiction unless it were made by a person with knowledge of the right to be waived and with the authority of the foreign sovereign. Jenkins LJ: "Applying those authorities to the present case it seems to me that the evidence here, and in particular the evidence of the ambassador, .makes it reasonably plain that Mr Cavero knew nothing about sovereign immunity, or at all events, had no idea that by entering an appearance the defendants would· be giving up any advantage or; in particular, any right to claim immunity which they might otherwise have. Furthermore, Mr Cavero's superiors knew nothing about the matter at all until after the acts relied on as submissions to the jurisdiction had taken place. It seems to me, therefore, that what was done here was done by Mr Cavero without the knowledge of any of his superiors, in ignorance of his rights and without actual authority inasmuch as I think the evidence shows that the authority of the Minister of Agriculture would in fact have been necessary to enable Mr Cavero to submit to the jurisdiction."
Parker LJ: "Like Jenkins LJ, I confess that at first impression it seemed to me remarkable if the true view was that the State of Spain had not submitted to the jurisdiction. Not only was there an unconditional appearance entered on the instructions of the head of this body, Senor Cavero, himself a senior civil servant, but again on his instructions security for costs was asked for and obtained; and it was not until the writ had been served for some 18 months that any steps were taken to stay the proceedings. I am satisfied, however, as the result of Mr Kerr's argument and the cases to which he has referred, that there can be no submission in such a case as this unless it is made by a person with knowledge of the right to be waived, with knowledge of the effect of our law of procedure, and with the authority of the foreign sovereign. As Mr Kerr pointed out, proceedings against a foreign sovereign are wholly void." and "In those circumstances it does seem to me that it requires some solemn act of the foreign sovereign to bring to life something which is otherwise completely dead; and, without referring to the cases, I think that The Jassy and the case before Astbury J., In re Republic of Bolivia Exploration Syndicate Ltd., support that view. So far as this case is concerned, it is true that we have not had the benefit of an affidavit from Senor Cavero, but for my part I cannot impute to him knowledge of the effect of entering an unconditional appearance. Quite apart from that, it seems to me that the evidence is clear that although he is the person, the intermediary, to pass on instructions to English solicitors to deal with a case in England, he is bound to consult the appropriate minister as to whether sovereign immunity should be waived or not. It is true this does open up the rather alarming prospect that a foreign sovereign may allow proceedings to continue for years in this country before taking the point; but for my part I think that that is a theoretical difficulty. I do not think any person, even though he be a foreign sovereign, would be likely to be believed if in such an extreme case he were to come forward and assert that he had had no knowledge whatever of the proceedings. So far, however, as this case is concerned, I am satisfied that the point has been properly taken and that there has been no waiver."
Singleton LJ dissented. The state had created the organisation as a legal entity to trade with citizens and corporate bodies in other countries and that Mr Carvero was acting in the ordinary course of business left to him. That being so, he had, on behalf of the state, waived the state's right to claim immunity.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Perez -v- Brownell; 31-Mar-1958 - [1958] USSC 56; 356 US 44; 78 SCt 568; 2 LEd2d 603
 
Ogden -v- Association of the United States Army (1959) 1777 Fed Supp 498, 502
1959


International
(US Supreme Court)
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.