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: 1960 To: 1969
This page lists 14 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.
Phrantzes -v- Argenti [1960] 2 QB 19; [1960] 1 All ER 778
1960
CA
Lord Parker CJ
Torts - Other, International
The court was asked to enforce payment of a dowry which was owed under Greek law. Held: English law does not guarantee a remedy for every foreign cause of action. Lord Parker CJ said that to be available in support of a foreign cause of action, the remedies afforded by English law "must harmonise with the right according to its nature and extent as fixed by the foreign law."
What the High Court had said about the obligatio theory might be confined to foreign torts.
1 Citers
In re United Railways of Havana and Regla Warehouses Ltd; Tomkinson -v- First Pennsylvania Banking and Trust Co [1961] AC 1007; [1960] 2 WLR 969; [1960] 2 All ER 332
1960
HL
Lord Denning
International, Litigation Practice
A sum was held to be due from that company in US dollars under a lease and another agreement which were both governed by the law of Pennsylvania. Held: The sum provable in the liquidation of the company was to be converted at the rates of exchange prevailing at the respective dates when the several sums arising by the company to the creditor fell due and payable. Although the substantive debt was a US dollar debt, English procedural law dictated (a) that it must be converted into English pounds for the purposes of converting it into a debt provable in an English liquidation and (b) the date at which each debt should be converted into English currency.
Lord Denning said: if there is one thing clear in our law, it is that the claim must be made in sterling and the judgment given in sterling"
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina -v- Madan; CCA 1961 - [1961] QB 1
Rossano -v- Manufacturers Life Insurance Co [1963] 2 QB 352
1963
McNair J
Taxes Management, International
The plaintiff an Egyptian national bought insurance from the defendant Canadian company (MLI) with branches inter alia in Egypt. When the policies matured, Rassano brought an action in England claiming the money due under them. In defence, MLI argued, inter alia, that it was not liable to pay Rossano such sums as garnishee orders had been served upon MLI's Egyptian branch by the Egyptian tax department in respect of tax alleged to be due by Rassano and that payment to Rossano would expose MLI to the risk of having to pay the money twice. The policies prescribed the mode of payment as by banker's demand draft on London 'on New York, ie, the situs of the debt was not Egypt. Held: McNair J relied refused recognition of the validity of the garnishment orders, saying that recognition of those orders would offend against the well-settled principle that an English court would not enforce a foreign revenue law.
However, McNair J address the parties following arguments on the choice of law question outlined by the learned judge. On behalf of MLI it was submitted (1) that whatever be the proper law of the contract, the debt is and was situated in Cairo and that debt has been validly attached in the country where it was situated; (2) that an English court will as a matter of private international law recognise and give effect to the validity of that attachment and not put a garnishee in peril of having to pay twice, and that it does not matter whether the attachment proceedings are in respect of a revenue claim; (3) that if the debt is not situated in Egypt, the English court will as a matter of comity give effect to the proceedings and will not put the garnishee in peril of having to pay twice if the court is satisfied (a) that by the law of the place of attachment the situs of the debt is in that place, that is, Egypt; or (b) that by the law of the place of attachment there is jurisdiction over the debtor, Rossano, the garnishee, MLI, and the garnishor, the Egyptian tax department.
Rossano had submitted (1) that the situs of the debt was not Egypt; (2) that the garnishee orders were invalid (3) that the garnishee orders provide no defence since (a) no payment has been made under either or (b) Neither of them was made until after the maturity date on which MLI should have paid; (4) that the court should not recognise the garnishee order as to do so would be indirectly at least to enforce a foreign revenue law; and (5) that the orders being in the nature of administrative orders and not orders of any court, an English court will not enforce them. McNair J said: "Many of the points raised in these submissions raise difficult questions of private international law upon which English authority is scanty. But as I have reached the conclusion that the fundamental objection to the recognition of these orders is that their recognition would offend against the well-settled principle that the English court will not recognise or enforce directly or indirectly a foreign revenue law or claim, it is not necessary for me as a matter of decision to deal with many of the other points raised." He went on to observed obiter : "on the assumption that the garnishee orders or either of them are valid by Egyptian law, and by that law binding upon [MLI] . . being garnishee or sequestration orders imposed by the act of the executive, and not the result of any judicial proceedings, must or should an English court afford them recognition? . . The editors of Dicey when stating in rule 92 that the validity and effect of an attachment or garnishment of a debt is governed by the lex situs of the debt are clearly referring to garnishee orders made by a competent court. I should not be disposed on general principles to extend the recognition further."
1 Citers
Gray (orse Formosa) -v- Formosa [1963] P 259
1963
CA
Lord Denning MR
International
Lord Denning MR said: "Suffice it to say that I am content to decide this case on the simple basis that the courts of this country are not compelled to recognise the decree of the court of another country when it offends against our ideas of justice."
1 Citers
Linkletter -v- Walker (1965) 381 US 618
1965
International, Constitutional
(US Supreme Court) In both criminal and civil cases 'the accepted rule today is that in appropriate cases the Court may in the interests of justice make the rule prospective.'
1 Citers
United States -v- Seeger; 8-Mar-1965 - 380 US 163 (1965)
Colt Industries -v- Sarlie (No. 2) [1966] 1 WLR 1287; [1966] 3 All ER 85
1966
CA
Lord Denning MR, Russell LJ
Estoppel, International
Lord Denning MR discussed the status of a foreign judgment whilst under appeal: "The appeal itself does not render it not final and conclusive, nor should the possibility of leave to appeal. It seems to me that the proper test is this : is the judgment a final and conclusive judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction in the territory in which it was pronounced. The relevant territory here is the State of New York. Applying this test, there was here a final and conclusive judgment."
Russell LJ said: "on the question whether a judgment lacks finality or conclusiveness for lack of enforceability, regard can only be had to the system of law applied by the court whose foreign judgment is in question"
1 Citers
Salomon -v- Customs and Excise Commissioners; CA 1966 - [1967] 2 QB 116; [1966] 2 All ER 340; [1966] 2 Lloyds Rep 460; [1966] 3 WLR 36
South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia -v- South Africa) (Liberia -v- South Africa) (second phase) [1966] ICJ Rep 6, 293
18 Jul 1966
ICJ
International
ICJ The South West Africa cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), which relate to the continued existence of the Mandate for South West Africa and the duties and performance of South Africa as Mandatory thereunder, were instituted by Applications of the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia filed in the Registry on 4 November 1960. By an Order of 20 May 1961 the Court joined the proceedings in the two cases. The Government of South Africa raised preliminary objections to the Court's proceeding to hear the merits of the case, but these were dismissed by the Court on 21 December 1962, the Court finding that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the merits of the dispute.
In its Judgment on the second phase of the cases the Court, by the President's casting vote, the votes being equally divided (seven-seven), found that the Applicant States could not be considered to have established any legal right or interest in the subject matter of their claims and accordingly decided to reject them.
'we consider that the norm of non-discrimination or non-separation on the basis of race has become a rule of customary international law . . .'
1 Citers
[ ICJ ]
Miranda -v- Arizona (1966) 384 US 436; [1966] USSC 143; (1966) 86 SCt 1602; (1966) 16 LEd2d 694
10 Oct 1966
Warren CJ
International, Human Rights, Criminal Practice
(United States Supreme Court) The prosecution may not use statements, whether incriminatory or exculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of a defendant unless it demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards which were sufficient to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. These safeguards require that, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform the accused person of the right to silence and to assure continuous opportunity to exercise it, he must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement that he does make may be used as evidence against him, that he has the right to consult with an attorney and that, if he cannot afford one, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. "Custodial interrogation" for the purposes of this rule means questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
1 Citers
[ Worldlii ]
In re Duncan, decd, Garfield -v- Fay [1968] P 306; [1968] 2 WLR 1479
1968
Ormrod J
Legal Professions, Litigation Practice, International
Ormrod J rejected a submission that where foreign lawyers are involved no privilege is recognised by an English Court if privilege is not recognised by the municipal law of the forum of the foreign lawyer. He said: "The basis of the privilege is just as apt to cover foreign legal advisers as English lawyers, provided only that the relationship of lawyer and client subsists between them. Any other conclusion would lead to an impossible position for if this court were required to investigate the position of such communications in foreign law it must first determine the foreign law, but what law governs the relationship of English client and foreign lawyer, at any rate, when no proceedings are in contemplation? There is no forum and therefore no lex fori. The nationality of the foreign lawyer is as irrelevant as his address for this purpose.
It only remains to consider the position where proceedings are already on foot in a foreign court. If disclosure is required by the law of such a court the other side will see the documents in dispute and so gain an advantage. Is that a reason for making an exception to our lex fori? In my judgment it is not. These matters are matters to be decided according to the practice of this court. I, therefore, hold that all the documents which are communications passing between the plaintiff and his foreign legal advisers are privileged, whether or not proceedings in this or any other court were contemplated when they came into existence."
1 Cites
1 Citers
North Sea Continental Shelf cases; ICJ 1969 - [1969] ICJ Rep. 3
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany -v- Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany -v- Netherlands); ICJ 20-Feb-1969 - [1969] ICJ Rep 3
