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: 2002 To: 2002

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


 
 Voss -v- APL Co Pte Limited; 2002 - [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 707

 
 Shum Kwok Sher; 2002 - [2002] 5 HKFAR 381
 
Kuwait Oil Tanker Company S A K Sitka Shipping Incorporated -v- UBS Ag [2002] EWCA Civ 34
25 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Laws, And, Lord Justice Longmore,
Banking, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules, International
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.
Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1988 Art 16(5) - Civil Procedure Rules 50.1
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Roerig -v- Valiant Trawlers Ltd [2002] All ER (D) 234; [2002] EWCA Civ 21; [2002] 1 WLR 2304
28 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown Vice-President Of The Court Of Appeal Civil Division, Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Sedley
Damages, Personal Injury, International
The claimant who was Dutch, was a widow of a fisherman who had died at sea. The question on appeal was 'in assessing damages for loss of dependency should benefits resulting from the loss be deducted from the damages?' The claimant's position under Dutch law was different, with all benefits deducted from any compensation awarded. Held: The accident occurred on an English registered trawler, and the applicable law was English as to liability but possibly Dutch as to damages. If the 1976 Act was procedural rather than substantive, the law applicable would be English, and the Dutch law as to deduction of all benefits would not apply. Traditionally, issues as to the quantification of damages have been seen as procedural rather than substantive. The general structure of the Act also suggested that it was intended to offer English remedies, and those should be applied: "the general rule is not to be dislodged easily".
After referring to the case of Boys v Chaplin, Waller LJ said: "The passages referred to support the view that so far as damages are concerned it is a question for the substantive law whether a head of damage is recoverable, but quantification of the actual head is procedural. If one poses the question whether the issue in this case is about the right to recover certain benefits or whether it is about the quantification of the damages for loss of dependency the answer seems to me to be that it is about the quantification of the damages. The concern of the court in considering a tortious claim should be as to liability, including liability for particular heads of damage without the existence of which liability might not be complete. The question whether deductions should be made for benefits is not a question which goes to liability: it is a question going to assessment" and "Procedurally an action on behalf of a person killed in an accident is only available in the English courts by virtue of what is now sections 1 and 2 of the 1976 Act . . As I have already said, we are concerned with an action which can only be brought in this country by virtue of the 1976 Act."
Fatal Accidents Act 1976 4 - Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 11 - Merchant Shipping Act 1995 25
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Lewis -v- Eliades and Others Times, 28 February 2002
1 Feb 2002
QBD
McCombe J
International, Litigation Practice
The claimant sought judgment in the USA, and obtained an ex parte world-wide asset freezing order in the UK. When he applied for the order to be extended, the application was withdrawn. Held: Those advising foreign litigants to apply for such orders here, should remember, and respect, the particular difficulties involved. In particular the legal obligations may be different, and in what were usually very complicated situations financially, the UK lawyer taking a case on needs to take and be given the opportunity and time to assimilate the case properly.
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 25

 
Henderson -v- Jaouen and Another Times, 07 March 2002; Gazette, 21 March 2002
1 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Mantell and Mr Justice Wall
International, Personal Injury, Damages, European
The plaintiff had been injured in an accident and had sued and recovered damages for his injuries in France. Later, his condition deteriorated. In France he would have been able to revive his action to claim further damages, but he sought a similar right from an English Court, claiming a right to do so under the Act because the deterioration had occurred exclusively whilst he was in England. The defendant and his insurers appealed a refusal to strike out the claimant's claim. Held: The claim should be struck out. The harmful even required by the Convention had occurred in France. The Bier case was not on all fours and was to be interpreted restrictively.
Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 (Cmnd 7395) - Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Glencore International Ag -v- Metro Trading International Inc Credit Lyonnais (France) Sa and others [2002] EWCA Civ 138
6 Feb 2002
CA
Potter, Kay LJJ
International, Costs
Application for leave to appeal against costs order.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo -v- Belgium) (2000-2002); ICJ 14-Feb-2002 - [2002] ICJ Rep 3

 
 Kuwait Airways Corporation -v- Iraqi Airways Company and Others (Nos 4 and 5); HL 16-May-2002 - Times, 21 May 2002; [2002] 2 WLR 1353; [2002] 2 AC 883; [2002] UKHL 19

 
 Iran Continental Shelf Oil Co 7 Others -v- IRI International Corp; CA 28-Jun-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 1024; [2004] 2 CLC 696
 
Firth -v- State of New York (2002) NY int 88
2 Jul 2002


International, Defamation, Limitation
(New York Court of Appeals) A report published at a press conference on 16 December 1996 was placed on the internet the same day. A claim was filed over a year later. Held. The limitation period started when the report was first uploaded onto the website and did not begin anew each time the website version of the report was accessed by a user: "The policies impelling the original adoption of the single publication rule support its application to the posting of . . the report . . on the website . . These policies are even more cogent when considered in connection with the exponential growth of the instantaneous, worldwide ability to communicate through the Internet . . Thus a multiple publication rule would implicate an even greater potential for endless retriggering of the statute of limitations, multiplicity of suits and harassment of defendants. Inevitably, there would be a serious inhibitory effect on the open, pervasive dissemination of information and ideas over the Internet which is, of course, its greatest beneficial promise."
1 Citers

[ Cornell ]
 
In re B (A child) (Care proceedings: Diplomatic Immunity) Times, 14 October 2002; Gazette, 24 October 2002
30 Jul 2002
FD
Butler-Sloss President
Children, International
An order was sought in care proceedings with regard to a child of a family where the father was a member of the administrative and diplomatic staff of a diplomatic mission. Held: Where a child was present in the UK at the time of the application, an English court had jurisdiction. Such a worker was protected only to the extent that his acts formed part of his duties. An exception to the Vienna Convention (37(2)) which underpinned the 1964 Act allowed the court to make an order even if the child was within a protected residence. Article 30 protected the premises of the diplomatic agent, not to the consequences of his acts.
Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 4 - Children Act 1989 31

 
Connecticut Bank of Commerce -v- Republic of Congo [2002] 309 F3d 240
29 Aug 2002

Emilio M Garza
International, Banking
(United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit) Connecticut Bank had acquired the rights to a valid London judgment against the Congo for defaulting on a loan agreement. It obtained a default judgment in New York in relation to the London judgment debt. The Bank then sought to attach various debts owed by a group of Texas oil companies to the Congo. The debts constituted various royalty obligations by the oil companies for activities connected with the exploration for and the sale of the Congo's oil. Held: The debts due from the oil companies were not "property . . used for a commercial activity" within the meaning of section 1610(a). Judge Garza, for the majority said: "The phrase 'used for' on its face denotes something different and more specific than the phrases 'integral to' or 'necessary to'. It also denotes something distinct (and narrower) than the other phrases the Bank uses in its petition, such as 'related to' or 'contemplated by.'"
Judge Garza said: "What matters under the statute is what the property is 'used for', not how it was generated or produced. If property in the United States is used for a commercial purpose here, that property is subject to attachment and execution even if it was purchased with tax revenues or some other noncommercial source of government income. Conversely, even if a foreign state's property has been generated by commercial activity in the United States, that property is not thereby subject to execution or attachment if it is not 'used for' a commercial activity within our borders. The district court (and the litigants) have focused on the question of whether the Congo's joint venture with the garnishees, which gave rise to the royalty and tax obligations that the Bank want to garnish, was a 'commercial activity in the United States'. This was the wrong question to consider. What matters under the statute is not how the Congo made its money, but how it spends it. The amenability of these royalties and taxes to garnishment depends on what they are 'used for', not on how they were raised."
He added: "The phrase 'used for' in section 1610(a) is not a mere syntactical infelicity that permits courts to look beyond the 'use' of property, and instead try to find any kind of nexus or connection to a commercial activity in the United States. The statute means what it says: property of a foreign sovereign…may be executed against only if it is 'used for' a commercial activity. That the property is revenue from or otherwise generated by commercial activity in the United States does not thereby render the property amenable to execution.
. . To use property for a commercial activity, within the ordinary meaning of 'use', would be to put the property in the service of the commercial activity, to carry out the activity by means of the property. Here, the royalty obligations in question represent the revenue, the income, from an allegedly commercial activity. In ordinary usage, we would not say that the revenue from a transaction is 'used for' that transaction."
He referred to the Act, noting the distinction in the Act between the jurisdictional immunity in section 3(1), which provides that a state is not immune as respects proceedings "relating to" a commercial transaction and section 13(4), which, as he put it, makes explicit that the mere relationship to a commercial activity does not suffice to permit execution, the property must "for the time being" be "in use or intended for use for a commercial purpose". He concluded that the Act parallels the FSIA on the footing that: "it allows jurisdiction based on mere relationship to a commercial activity, but very clearly permits execution only depending on the 'use' of the property."
1 Citers

[ Worldlii ]
 
Schreiber -v- Canada (Attorney General) [2002] SCJ No 63; [2002] 3 SCR 269; [2002] SCC 62
12 Sep 2002

McLachlin, Beverley; Gonthier, Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ
Commonwealth, International, Extradition
SCC (Supreme Court of Canada) International law - Sovereign immunity - Attornment to Canadian court's jurisdiction exception - Germany initiating extradition process against Canadian citizen - Citizen arrested by RCMP and spending eight days in jail - Citizen suing Germany seeking damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of his arrest and detention in Canada - Whether Germany immune from jurisdiction of Canadian courts - Whether attornment to Canadian court's jurisdiction exception applicable so as to deprive Germany of its immunity from instant action - Whether Germany waived its immunity from lawsuits in Canadian courts when it initiated extradition process - State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18, s. 4(2)(b).
International law - Sovereign immunity -- Personal injury exception -- Scope of exception -- Germany initiating extradition process against Canadian citizen -- Citizen arrested by RCMP and spending eight days in jail -- Citizen suing Germany seeking damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of his arrest and detention in Canada -- Whether Germany immune from jurisdiction of Canadian courts -- Whether personal injury exception applicable so as to deprive Germany of its immunity from instant action -- Whether exception distinguishes between jure imperii and jure gestionis acts -- Whether exception applies only to claim of physical injury -- State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18, s. 6(a).
Statutes -- Interpretation -- Bilingual statutes -- Personal injury exception to state immunity -- Meaning of expression "personal injury" -- Whether French version best reflects common intention of legislator found in both versions -- Whether amendment made by Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act to English version substantively changed the law -- Purpose of harmonization legislation -- State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18, s. 6(a) -- Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, S.C. 2001, c. 4, s. 121.
1 Citers

[ SCC ]
 
Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd -v- The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Another Times, 27 November 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1643
14 Nov 2002
CA
Sir Martin Nourse, Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Pill
Jurisdiction, International
An order was sought to restrain proceedings in Pakistan. Held: The agreement provided that it should be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of England. The national state was also party to the agreement, and had waived sovereign immunity. It was not clear which proceedings had commenced first, but the terms of the guarantee were clear enough to justify an anti-suit injunction from the English courts. Clauses dealing with waiver of immunity need not be construed tightly.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Peer International Corporation and Others -v- Termidor Music Publishers Ktd and Another; ChD 11-Dec-2002 - Times, 02 January 2003

 
 Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) -v- Prime Minister and others; Admn 17-Dec-2002 - [2002] EWHC 2777 (Admin); [2003] LRC 335

 
 The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament -v- The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Others; QBD 17-Dec-2002 - Times, 27 December 2002; [2002] EWHC 2759 (QB)
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.