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.  














Jurisdiction - From: 1849 To: 1899

This page lists 26 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.


 
 Vallee And Others v Dumergue; Cex 6-Jul-1849 - [1849] EngR 834; (1849) 4 Exch 290; (1849) 154 ER 1221
 
Burnard v Wainwright (1850) 19 LJ QB 423; [1850] LM&P 455
1850


Arbitration, Jurisdiction
B had succeeded in the arbitration award. W later discovered a letter written (he aid) by B which he said should require the re-opening of the arbitration. Held: The court remitted it saying that the arbitrators should decide the issue of whether B had written the letter and then decide what difference it should make. An arbitration clause is capable of governing isues as to jurisdiction.
1 Citers


 
The Bank of Australasia v Harding [1850] EngR 74; (1850) 9 CB 662; (1850) 137 ER 1052
1850


Company, Jurisdiction
The members, resident in England, of a company formed for the purpose of carrying on business in a place out of England, are bound, in respect of the transactions of that company, by the law of thc country in which the business is carried on accordingly. - A statute authorising an unincorporated company to sue and to be sued the name of its chairman, constitutes the chairman, when so suing or so sued, an agent for the members of the company in the aflairs of the company. - The members of a company formed for the purpose of carrying on business in a colony, are not discharged from liability on judgments obtained in the colony against the chairman, by reason of their having been resident in England, not being served with process, and having received no notice of the proceedings. - Where a statute subjects the property of members for the time being of an unincorporated company, to execution upon a judgment obtained against their chairman, reserving in other respects the liabilities of parties, the remedies given against the property are in cumulation, and a member may be proceeded against by action. - A judgment in a colonial court is no estoppel; nor is it pleadable in bar in an action brought in England for the same cause.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
The Bank of Australasia v Nias [1851] EngR 77; (1851) 16 QB 717; (1851) 117 ER 1055
1851


Jurisdiction, Company
By an Act of the Colonial Legislature of New South Wales, it was provided tbat a banking company should sue and be sued in the name of its chairman, arid that execution on any judgment against the oompany might be issued against the property of any member for the time being, in like manner as if such judgment had been obtairied against such member personally. In assumpsit against a member of the company on a judgment obtained in the colony against the chairman: Held, that the colonial Legislature had authority to pass the Act, and that there was nothing repugnant to the law of England, or to natural justice, in enacting that actions on contracts made by the company in the colony, instead of being brought against the shareholders individually, should be brought against the chairman whom they had appointed to represent them. That a judgment recovered in such an action, after service of process on the chairman, had the same effect beyond the territory of the colony which it would have had if the defendant had been personally served with process, and, he being a party to the record, the recovery had been personally against him. That, although in an action on a foreign or colonial judgment the judgment is examinable to a certain extent., as, for the purpose of shewing want of jurisdiction, or that defendant was not summoned, or that the judgment was fraudulently obtained, yet such judgment is not examinable upon the merits, as, for the purpose of shewing that the contract sued upon was not made, or was procured by fraud, or that the judgment was erroneous, But that a foreign or colonial judgment obtained against a co-contractor cannot be insisted on by way of merger in an action on the judgment.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 The Carron Iron Company Proprietors v Maclaren, Dawson, Stainton; PC 23-Jul-1855 - [1855] EngR 700; (1855) 5 HLC 416; (1855) 10 ER 961; (1855) HL Cas 416; [1855] UKPC 1
 
The 'Zollverein' (C H Fanichen, Master) [1856] EngR 412; (1856) Swab 96; (1856) 166 ER 1038
19 Apr 1856


Transport, Jurisdiction
Collision on high seas between a British and foreign vessel. The former not bound by statute.-A foreigner cannot set up against a British vessel with which she has been in collision the British vessd’s violation of British statute law on the high seas, for the foreigner could not herself be bound by it, as it is beyond the power of the Legslature to make rules applicable to foreign vessels beyond British waters. The rights and merits of a case may be governed by a different law from that applicable to the form of remedy and procedure.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Cope v Doherty (1858) 4 K and J 369
1858

Wood VC
Jurisdiction
Owners of an American ship which had collided with and sunk another American ship applied to limit their liability pursuant to section 504 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854. Held: The section did not apply to collisions between foreigners. When the owners argued that the limitation rule was procedural and should therefore be applied as part of the lex fori. I should have thought that the short answer was that whether the rule was substantive or procedural, Parliament had said that it should not apply to foreigners and that was the end of the matter: "Clearly an Act, which limits the damage to which the ship owner is to be liable under circumstances like the present, deals with the substance and not the form of the procedure. It in effect forms a contract that, whereas by the natural law the owner of the ship or property that has been injured would be entitled to damages to the full extent of the loss he has sustained, all those persons upon whom the Legislature can impose such a contract, that is to say, all its own subjects, shall forego that which the natural law - the common law, as we should call it in England - would give them, and shall be entitled only to the amount of the value of the ship by which the injury has been inflicted, and of the freight due or to grow due in respect of such ship during the voyage."
Merchant Shipping Act 1854 504
1 Citers


 
Cope v Doherty (1858) 2 De G and J 614
2 Jan 1858
CA
Turner LJ
Jurisdiction
Turner LJ: "An attempt was made on the part of the appellants to bring this case within Don v Lippman and cases of that class, but I think those cases have no bearing upon the point. This is a question of liability, and not of procedure."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
In Re Mansergh [1861] EngR 711; (1861) 1 B & S 400; (1861) 121 ER 764
11 Jun 1861


Armed Forces, Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction of Queen's bench over tribunals abroad. Court martial. Military status.-I. This Court has no jurisdiction over tribunals out of the realm of England, although in countries subject to the British Crown. 2. Where the civil rights of a person in military service are affected by the judgment of a military tribunal, in which that tribunal has acted without jurisdiction, or has exceeded its jurisdiction, this Court will interfere; aliter where nothing but the military status of the party is affected by the judgmeat.-3. A. Captain in the Queen's service, when stationed with his regiment in india, was gazetted to a majority ; and the appointment was notified in the general orders of the Commander-in-chief in India at head quarters, and in the regimental orders.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Norris v Chambres (1862) 3 De G.F. & J. 583
1862

Lord Campbell LC
Equity, Jurisdiction
A company director had advanced part of a loan for the purchase of a mine in Prussia. He died, and because of lack of funds, his estate risked losing everything. His estate sought its recovery. Held: "With respect to this advance, I think that, upon the authority of Penn v. Lord Baltimore, which has often been acted upon, the Plaintiff would have been entitled to succeed if he could have proved that the claim for a declaration of the proposed charge or lien on the Maria Anna mine was founded on any contract or privity between him or the deceased [director] and the Defendants, the purchasers of the mine, and if there had not been a suit in the Prussian Courts, in which the same question was raised and had been decided in the Plaintiff's favour. But I agree in thinking with the Master of the Rolls that the Plaintiff has failed to shew any such contract or privity. Upon the evidence adduced the purchasers of the mine, whom he sues, are to be considered as mere strangers, and any notice which they may have had of the transactions between [the deceased director] and [the old company] (which has now ceased to exist) cannot give this Court jurisdiction to declare the proposed lien or charge on lands in a foreign country. An English Court ought not to pronounce a decree, even in personam, which can have no specific operation without the intervention of a foreign Court, and which in the country where the lands to be charged by it lie would probably be treated as a brutum fulmen. I do not think that the Court of Chancery would give effect to a charge on land in the county of Middlesex so created by a Prussian Court sitting as Dusseldorf or Cologne. But another objection is lis alibi pendens, a suit pending before the proper tribunal in Prussia, and that by this tribunal, a decree has actually been pronounced in favour of the Plaintiff, giving him what he seeks… We must suppose that the Court at Dusseldorf has ample means to enforce the whole of its decree, and that the Plaintiff will have the full benefit of that decree, which may be considered as creating a debt for which the opposite parties are personally liable and a charge upon the property sold."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Diamond v Sutton [1866] LR 1 Ex 130
1866


Jurisdiction
A plaintiff who seeks leave to serve out of the jurisdiction in respect of publication within the jurisdiction is guilty of an abuse if he seeks to include in the same action matters occurring elsewhere.
1 Citers


 
Copin v Adamson (1875) 1 Ex D 17; (1875) 45 LJQB 15; (1875) 33 LT 560; (1875) WR 85
1875
CA

Jurisdiction
The plaintiff sought to enforce here a judgment obtained in France against the defendant, who now pleaded that he was not a native of and had not lived in France. He had not been served with any process or had any involvement in or knowledge of the proceedings in France. The plaintiff said that he owned shares in a French company which made him subject to its statutes which in turn provided for French law and jurisdiction on related disputes, and that any member must elect a French domicile, or that election could be made for it. The company having become insolvent, he was now pursued for the subscription promised. Held: The reply was effective even though he had hadno notice of the proceedings: "The Courts of this country consider the defendant bound . . where he has contracted to submit himself to the forum in which the judgment was obtained."
1 Citers



 
 Hatch v Baez; 1876 - (1876) 7 Hun 596
 
Twycross v Dreyfus (1877) LR 5 Ch D 605
1877
CA
Sir George Jessel MR
International, Jurisdiction
State immunity is not to be got around by suing the employees of the state. Here, the only possible case was against the state itself.
Sir George Jessel MR said: "the municipal law of this country does not enable the tribunals of this country to exercise any jurisdiction over foreign governments as such. Nor, so far as I am aware, is there any international tribunal which exercises any such jurisdiction. The result, therefore, is that these so-called bonds amount to nothing more than engagements of honour, binding, so far as engagements of honour can bind, the government which issues them, but are not contracts enforceable before the ordinary tribunals of any foreign government . . without the consent of the government of that country."
1 Citers


 
Ex parte Blain; In re Sawers (1879) 12 Ch D 522
1879
CA
James LJ
Jurisdiction, Insolvency
Where legislation regulates the conduct of an individual, it may be so construed as to limit it to conduct by United Kingdom citizens anywhere.
James LJ referred to "broad, general, universal principle that English legislation, unless the contrary is expressly enacted or so plainly implied as to make it the duty of an English court to give effect to an English statute, is applicable only to English subjects or to foreigners who by coming into this country, whether for a long or short time, have made themselves during that time subject to English jurisdiction . . But, if a foreigner remains abroad, if he has never come into this country at all, it seems to me impossible to imagine that the English legislature could have ever intended to make such a man subject to particular English legislation."
1 Citers


 
Rousillon v Rousillon (1880) 14 Ch D 351
1880

Fry J
Jurisdiction
Fry J considered Copin v Adamson as authority for the view that the foreign court would have jurisdiction where the judgment debtor "has contracted to submit himself to the forum in which the judgment was obtained".

 
Pitts v La Fontaine [1880] UKPC 27; (1879-80) LR 5 App Cas 564; (1880-81) LR 6 App Cas 482
11 May 1880
PC

Jurisdiction
Constantinople
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Commissioners for the Special Purposes of the Income Tax (1888) 21 QBD 313
1888

Lord Esher MR
Jurisdiction
"But there is another state of things which may exist. The legislature may intrust the tribunal or body with a jurisdiction, which includes the jurisdiction to determine whether the preliminary state of facts exists as well as the jurisdiction, on finding that it does exist, to proceed further …"
1 Citers


 
Sim v Robinow (1892) 19 R 665
1892

Lord Kinnear
Scotland, Jurisdiction
The task of the court in deciding jurisdiction is to identify the forum in which the case can be suitably tried for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice:
1 Citers



 
 British South Africa Company v Companhia de Mocambique; HL 1893 - [1893] AC 602
 
Holland v Leslie [1894] 2 QB 450
1894
CA
Lord Esher MR, A L Smith LJ
Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction
Leave to serve out of the jurisdiction had been granted in relation to a bill of exchange which had been erroneously described in the statement of claim indorsed on the writ. Held: The Court upheld the order giving leave to amend the writ.
Lord Esher MR said: "Leave was given for the issue of the writ so indorsed, and service of notice of it out of the jurisdiction; such notice was duly served upon the defendant abroad; and the defendant has in due course appeared in this country. It is argued that, under these circumstances, the writ cannot be amended. Why not? The rules with regard to amendments appear in terms to apply to such a case. It is contended, nevertheless that there cannot be an amendment, because the writ was for service, and has been served, out of the jurisdiction. But the defendant has now appeared in this country; and I can see no reason why an amendment such as this should not be made, just as in the case of a writ served within the jurisdiction. We were pressed with the possibility that, if such a writ could be amended, it might be amended so as to introduce a cause of action in respect of which leave could not have been originally given for service out of the jurisdiction. That is not the present case. When that case arises, there may be good reason for refusing to allow the amendment."
1 Citers


 
Sirdar Gurdyal Singh v The Rajah of Faridkote [1894] UKPC 44; [1894] AC 670
28 Jul 1894
PC
Lord Selborne LC
Commonwealth, Jurisdiction
(Punjab) THe Rajah of Faridkote had obtained in the Civil Court of Faridkote (a native state) ex parte judgments against Singh (his former treasurer), which he sought to enforce in Lahore, in British India. Singh was not then resident in Faridkote and did not appear in the actions or otherwise submit to the jurisdiction. It was argued, for the Rajah, that the Faridkote court had jurisdiction over Singh because, "[b]y becoming state treasurer, [he] submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Faridkote Court, for where a man takes office in a state he must be deemed to have agreed to be bound by the jurisdiction of that state as accounting for money due from him to that state in respect of that office. In any case, where an office is accepted in that way, and the whole cause of action arises in that state, there is jurisdiction which is obligatory on the acceptor"Held: The Board rejected the argument.
Lord Selborne LC, speaking for the Privy Council, said of an agreement or consent to the jurisdiction of a foreign court being implied or inferred, that "such obligation, unless expressed, could not be implied"
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
British Wagon Co Ltd v Gray [1896] 1 QB 35
1896


Jurisdiction

1 Citers


 
Machado v Fontes [1897] 2 QB 231
1897
CA

Jurisdiction
The court held that the double actionability test could be relaxed to the extent that it was sufficient if the act was wrongful in the country where it was committed, even though any damage would not have been actionable in civil proceedings there.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Commissioner for the Special Purposes of the Income Tax Acts, Ex parte R W Forsyth Ltd [1987] 1 All ER 1035
1897

Macpherson J
Jurisdiction
The Scottish taxpayer had agreed that this appeal againat an assessment to corporation tax issued in Scotland was better heard in England. He sought judicial review of a refusal to suspend an order for repayment pending his appeal. Held: While the court had jurisdiction to make such an order, the proper forum was Scotland.
1 Citers


 
Cook v Sprigg [1899] AC 572
1899
HL

Jurisdiction
Municipal courts have not and cannot have the competence to adjudicate upon or to enforce the rights arising out of transactions entered into by independent sovereign states between themselves on the plane of international law.
1 Citers


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