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: 1993 To: 1993

This page lists 18 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.

 
Paklito Investment Ltd -v- Klockner East Asia Ltd [1993] HKLR 39
1993

Kaplan J
International, Arbitration
(Hong Kong) The plaintiff sought to enforce a Chinese arbitration award. The other party said it had not been allowed to present its case and resisted enforcement. Held. The defence succeeded. The court was still asked to to enforce it under its discretion. Kaplan J discussed an instance when it might be exercised in order to enforce an award: "He relied strongly upon the fact that the defendants had taken no steps to set aside the award in China and that this failure to so act was a factor upon which I could rely. I disagree. There is nothing in s.44 nor in the New York Convention which specifies that a defendant is obliged to apply to set aside an award in the country where it was made as a condition of opposing enforcement elsewhere . . It is clear to me that a party faced with a Convention award against him has two options. Firstly, he can apply to the courts of the country where the award was made to seek the setting aside of the award. If the award is set aside then this becomes a ground in itself for opposing enforcement under the Convention . . Secondly, the unsuccessful party can decide to take no steps to set aside the award but wait until enforcement is sought and attempt to establish a Convention ground of opposition.
That such a choice exists is made clear by Redfern and Hunter in International Commercial Arbitration p.474 where they state: "He may decide to take the initiative and challenge the award; or he may do nothing and resist any attempts by his adversary to obtain recognition and enforcement of the award. The choice is a clear one – to act or not to act." . . I therefore conclude that the defendant's failure to apply to set aside the award is not a factor upon which I should or could rely in relation to the exercise of my discretion . . In relation to the ground relied on in this case I could envisage circumstances where the court might exercise its discretion, having found the ground established, if the court were to conclude, having seen the new material which the defendant wished to put forward, that it would not affect the outcome of the dispute. This view is supported by Professor Albert Van den Berg in his book, the New York Convention of 1958, at p.302, where he states: "Thus only if it is beyond any doubt that the decision could have been the same would a court be allowed to override the serious violation."
It is not necessary for me in this judgment to decide whether this is the only circumstance where the discretion could be exercised or to lay down circumstances where it would be appropriate for the court to exercise its discretion after finding a serious due process violation."
1 Citers


 
Pelman -v- McDonald's Corporation 237 F.Supp.2d 512 (S.D.N.Y.2003).
1993

District Judge Sweet
International, Negligence, Consumer
(United States District Court, S.D. New York,) Customers sued McDonald's for the excess sale of fatty fast food products to children. Held: The action was dismissed. the defendants owed no duty to warn consumers of the products' well-known attributes, setting out the causes of action alleged by the plaintiffs, two of which were expressed in these terms: "Count III sounds in negligence, alleging that McDonalds acted at least negligently in selling food products that are high in cholesterol, fat, salt and sugar when studies show that such foods cause obesity and detrimental health effects. Count IV alleges that McDonalds failed to warn the consumers of McDonalds' products of the ingredients, quantity, qualities and levels of cholesterol, fat, salt and sugar content and other ingredients in those products, and that a diet high in fat, salt, sugar and cholesterol could lead to obesity and health problems." As to count III, at "It is well-known that fast food in general, and McDonalds' products in particular, contain high levels of cholesterol, fat, salt and sugar, and that such attributes are bad for one. . . . If a person knows or should know that eating copious orders of super- sized McDonalds' products is unhealthy and may result in weight gain (and its concomitant problems) because of the high levels of cholesterol, fat, salt and sugar, it is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excesses. Nobody is forced to eat at McDonalds. As long as a consumer exercises free choice with appropriate knowledge, liability for negligence will not attach to a manufacturer. [...] Plaintiffs have failed to allege in the Complaint that their decisions to eat at McDonalds several times a week were anything but a choice freely made and which now may not be pinned on McDonalds."
1 Citers


 
Paugh -v- RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company 834 F.Supp. 228 (N.D.Ohio 1993)
1993


International, Negligence
(United States District Court, N.D.Ohio, E.D) A tobacco company was sued in negligence. Held: "The dangers posed by tobacco smoking have long been within the ordinary knowledge common to the community. In fact, tobacco is specifically mentioned in the Restatement (Second) of Torts as an example of a product which is not defective merely because the effects of smoking may be harmful. Rest. (2d) of Torts §402A(i)." and "[E]specially in light of the Sixth Circuit's holding in Roysdon, this Court finds that the better-reasoned decisions are those finding the dangers of smoking to have been common knowledge. Much as in the case of alcohol, users of tobacco products have made a consumer choice in the face of health risks that are common to ordinary knowledge. [...] That some ignore or underestimate these risks has little bearing on the extent to which knowledge of the dangers [is] salient within the community. Therefore, because the risks posed by smoking are an inherent characteristic of cigarettes, and because knowledge of these risks has been common to the community since well before 1966, Paugh's allegations are insufficient to support her claim for damages caused by a product in an 'unsafe and defective' condition. . ."
1 Citers


 
Jaffe -v- Miller (1993) ILR 446
1993


Commonwealth, International
(Ontario Court of Appeal) Florida state officials were sued for alleged conspiracy maliciously to prosecute and to kidnap and detain the claimant, in order to blackmail him into giving up a civil suit. Held: It is the character of the act, rather than its purpose, that determines a claim for immunity in respect of the acts of a state official, but the purpose may throw some light on the nature of what is done and that a contextual approach is appropriate. If immunity was conferred on the government department of a foreign state but denied to “functionaries, who in the course of their duties performed the acts, [that] would render the State Immunity Act ineffective”, since the claimant would only have to sue the functionary and “In the event that the plaintiff recovered judgment, the foreign state would have to respond to it by indemnifying its functionaries, thus through this indirect route, losing the immunity conferred on it by the Act. Counsel submitted that when functionaries are acting within the scope of their official duties, as in the present case, they come within the definition of “foreign state”. The claimants submitted that, although the defendants were acting within the scope of their authority so as to make the State vicariously liable, their acts were so egregious that they could not shelter under the State's immunity. The Court said to this: “….. the use of adjectives cannot deprive them of their status as functionaries of the foreign sovereign. The illegal and malicious nature of the acts alleged do not of themselves move the actions outside the scope of the official duties of the responding defendants. Further … the appellants' statement of claim contains no express allegation that any of the respondents were acting outside of their official capacities.”
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
In re B-M (Wardship: Jurisdiction) [1993] 1 FLR 979
1993
FD
Eastham J
Children, International
The court considered a child who was a German national. He was taken by his mother out of England where they had been living and where they had their habitual residence. The mother was sole custodian of the child. On the application of the father the child was made a ward of court and the father applied for a declaration under the Hague Convention that the retention by the mother was wrongful. Held: The court concluded that the English wardship court had jurisdiction over an alien child provided England or England and Wales is the habitual residence of the child.

 
Tahir -v- Tahir (1993) SLT 194
1993
SCS
Lord Sutherland
Scotland, International, Family
The court was asked as to the recognition of a divorce decree from Pakistam. Held: Lord Sutherland observed: "What I have to look at is the decree which was pronounced in Pakistan. It would be contrary to public policy to recognise it, according to Choudhary, if both the motive and the effect were to deprive the pursuer of her rights in Scotland. That however is not the position because her rights are preserved under section 28 of the 1984 Act. There can therefore, in my view, be no public policy objection to written recognition of this divorce based on deprivation of the pursuer's financial rights. As I understood the submission made to me, it was only on the basis that she would be deprived of such rights that it was argued that there was a public policy objection to recognition."

 
Re N (A Minor) Ind Summary, 22 February 1993
22 Feb 1993
CA

Children, International
The application of Hague Convention to abduction was a statutory function. If the facts fell within the statute, the order should be made. In such cases the interests of the particular child may not be paramount because of the need to protect other children by enforcement of the Act. Such proceedings are neither adversarial, nor inquisitorial, but sui generis
Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985


 
 Republic of India and Others -v- India Steamship Co Ltd ('The Indian Endurance and The Indian Grace') (No 1); HL 29-Mar-1993 - Gazette, 07 April 1993; Ind Summary, 29 March 1993; [1993] 2 WLR 461; [1993] AC 410; [1993] 1 All ER 998
 
Application Of The Convention On The Prevention And Punishment Of The Crime Of Genocide (Bosnia And Herzegovina V. Serbia And Montenegro) Times, 03 May 1993
3 May 1993
ICJ

Human Rights, International
The ICJ Court may make interim orders despite doubts on status of parties and facts.
Convention On The Prevention And Punishment Of The Crime Of Genocide 48
[ ICJ ]
 
Maritime Delimitation In Area Between Greenland & Jan Mayen Times, 24 June 1993
24 Jun 1993
ICJ

International
Line dividing continental shelf & fishery zones is special circumstance.

 
Macmillan Inc -v- Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc and Others (No 3) [1995] 1 WLR 978; [1995] 3 All ER 747
1 Jul 1993
ChD
Millett J
Jurisdiction, International
Millett J described the case of Norris -v- Chambres: "A suit in equity was instituted between two parties resident in England to enforce an equitable lien to land situate abroad. The court declined to entertain the suit. It held that, although a purchaser to whom land out of the jurisdiction of the court had been agreed to be sold by a person within the jurisdiction may obtain an order for specific performance against the vendor . . he cannot obtain an order against a third party to whom the vendor has conveyed the property even though such person took with notice of the contract and is within the jurisdiction. The case was treated as one of jurisdiction, but it would today more properly be regarded as one of choice of law; whether the claim be brought against the vendor himself or against his transferee, the plaintiff would be invoking the in personam jurisdiction of the court against a defendant who was amenable to that jurisdiction. The difference between the two cases is that in the second case there is no equity or privity between the parties which the court can enforce except such equity, if any, as may arise from the transferee's notice; while the sufficiency of such notice to affect the transferee's title is a matter for the lex situs. If, by that law, the transfer to the defendant extinguished the plaintiff's interest notwithstanding the defendant's notice, the plaintiff no longer has any proprietary interest upon which he can base his suit in England."
Millett J said: "In order to ascertain the applicable law under English conflict of laws, it is not sufficient to characterise the nature of the claim: it is necessary to identify the question at issue . . Any claim, whether it be a claim that can be characterised as restitutionary or otherwise, may involve a number of issues which may have to be decided according to different issues of law. Thus it is necessary for the court to look at each issue and to decide the appropriate law to apply to the resolution of that dispute." and
"The determination of a question of priority between competing claims to property is based on considerations of domestic legal policy, since it involves striking a balance between two competing desiderata, the security of title and the security of a purchase. A decision by an English court, based on English principles of conflict of laws, that the question should be determined by the application of the rules of a foreign law is also based on considerations of legal policy, albeit at a higher level of abstraction. It involves a policy decision, at the higher level, that the policy which has been adopted, at the lower level, by English law should not be applied because the considerations which led to its adoption in the domestic law are not relevant in the particular circumstances of the case; and to a policy decision, at a higher level, that the policy which has been adopted, at the lower level, by the foreign law should be applied in its stead. In my judgment there is or ought to be no scope for the doctrine of renvoi in determining a question of priority between competing claims to shares, and in the absence of authority which compels me to do so – and there is none – I am not willing to extend it to such a question".
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 In Re S (Minors) (Convention On the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction); FD 21-Jul-1993 - Times, 21 July 1993; [1994] Fam 70
 
Gulf Bank Ksc -v- Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd Gazette, 17 November 1993; Ind Summary, 30 August 1993; Times, 24 August 1993
24 Aug 1993
QBD

Litigation Practice, International, Contract
A foreign contract was within the purview of Order 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. The presence of an indemnity clause which was expressly subject to UK law made the rest of the contract also subject to UK law. The indemnity clause was still part of the contract despite government decree.


 
 Scher and Others -v- Policyholders Protection Board and Others Ackman -v- Same; HL 1-Sep-1993 - Independent, 16 July 1993; Times, 16 July 1993; Gazette, 01 September 1993; Gazette, 19 January 1994; [1994] 2 AC 57
 
Societe D'Informatique Service Realisation Org -v- Ampersand Software Bv Gazette, 29 September 1993
29 Sep 1993
CA

International
Foreign judgment registered here despite claim that it was obtained by fraud.
1 Citers


 
Polly Peck International Ltd -v- Citibank and Others Times, 20 October 1993
20 Oct 1993
ChD

International
It is for the courts of each state to define when a case was started so as to define jurisdiction.


 
 Littrell -v- Government of the United States of America and Another (No 2); CA 24-Nov-1993 - Times, 24 November 1993; Independent, 02 December 1993; Gazette, 26 January 1994; [1995] 1 WLR 82; [1994] 4 All ER 203
 
Kuwait Airways Corporation -v- Iraqi Airways Company and Another Gazette, 08 December 1993
8 Dec 1993
CA

International, Transport
The taking of possession of airplanes by a company at the behest of a state is not justiciable because of sovereign immunity.

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