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: 1970 To: 1979

This page lists 27 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
The Eleftheria [1970] P 94
1970

Brandon J
Jurisdiction

1 Citers


 
Jamieson v Northern Electricity Supply Corp (Private) Ltd 1970 SLT 113
1970

Lord Johnston
Scotland, Jurisdiction
It was argued that there had been an implied submission to the Zambian courts by an employee because the contract of employment was entered into in, and to be performed in Zambia, and assumed to be governed by Zambian law, and that a Azambian judgement on the matter should be enforced. Held: Lord Johnston (at 116) took the view that a submission was not lightly to be implied, and could not be implied from a conjunction of those factors. Registration of the Zambian judgment was set aside because the 1933 Act did not apply to Zambia.
1 Citers


 
President of India v Metcalfe Shipping Co (The 'Dunelmia') [1970] 1 QB 289
1970
CA

Jurisdiction, Contract
Voyage charterers and owners disputed whether a claim for short delivery was subject to the jurisdiction clause in the charter party or in the bills of lading. Held: As the charter party authorised the master to sign the bill of lading “without prejudice to the charter party”, it operated as a mere receipt for the goods or as a document of title and, whilst forming part of the narrative, had no impact on the charter party.
1 Citers


 
National Bank of Greece SA v Westminster Bank Executor and Trustee Co (Channel Islands) Ltd [1971] AC 945
1971

Lord Hailsham LC
Jurisdiction

1 Citers


 
Coast Lines Ltd v Hudig and Veder Chartering NV [1971] 2 Lloyd's Rep 39
1971

Roskill J
Jurisdiction, Contract
Parties who contract to give the UK courts jurisdiction must be taken at least to have wanted a case to be heard by the UK courts. The fact that the foreign forum, notwithstanding the express choice of English law, may not apply English law, and may instead apply its own law is also an element on accepting or declining jurisdiction.
1 Citers



 
 Distillers Co Ltd v Thompson; HL 1971 - [1971] AC 458
 
Distiller's Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v Thompson [1971] AC 458; [1971] UKPC 3; [1971] 1 All ER 694; [1971] 2 WLR 441
19 Jan 1971
PC
Lord Pearson, Lord Reid, Lord Morris, Lord Upjohn, Lord Donovan
Torts - Other, Jurisdiction, Commonwealth
(Australia) There had been a negligent failure in New South Wales to warn a pregnant woman of the dangers of taking the drug thalidimide. Held: When looking at jurisdiction to hear a complaint of a tort, the court should look to where in substance the tort was committed. Lord Pearson said: "It is not the right approach to say that, because there was no complete tort until the damage occurred, therefore the cause of action arose wherever the damage happened to occur. The right approach is, when the tort is complete, to look back over the series of events constituting it and ask the question: where in substance did this cause of action arise?"
and it was "manifestly just and reasonable that a defendant should have to answer for his wrongdoing in the country where he did the wrong".
New South Wales Common Law Procedure Act 1899 18(4)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Warren v Warren [1972] Qd R 386
1972

Matthews J
Commonwealth, Jurisdiction, Torts - Other
(Australia) The plaintiff was injured in a car accident while on a visit to New South Wales, where she had no right of action in tort against her husband. She began her action in Queensland, where she was ordinarily resident and domiciled where such a right of action did exist. Held: The defendant's application to set aside the writ was dismissed. There was a degree of flexibility in the rule which admitted of exception where clear and satisfactory grounds were shown why it should be departed from and that, on the facts of that case, it was right to apply the law of the forum even if the acts were not actionable by the law of the locus delicti.
1 Citers


 
Vogel v RA Kohnstamm Ltd [1973] QB 133
1973

Ashworth J
Jurisdiction
Enforcement at common law wa sought of an Israeli default judgment in favour of an Israeli buyer of leather against an English company. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants were resident in Israel or had by implication agreed to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Tel Aviv court, relying on these alleged facts for the implied submission: (a) the contract was made within the jurisdiction of the foreign tribunal; (b) by or through an agent residing there; (c) such agent was a person carrying on business and resident within that jurisdiction; and (d) the contract was to be performed within the jurisdiction. Held: The defendants were not resident in Israel and that they had not agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the Tel Aviv court. An agreement to submit to the jurisdiction of a foreign court must be express: it cannot be implied.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Director of Public Prosecutions v Doot; HL 1973 - [1973] 1 All ER 940; [1973] AC 807

 
 In re Compania Merabello San Nicholas SA; ChD 1973 - [1973] Ch 75
 
Beck v Value Capital Ltd (No 2) [1975] 1 WLR 6; [1974] 3 All ER 442
1974

Goulding J
Jurisdiction
The plaintiffs had obtained leave to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction. They then sought to add a claim and argued that once an additional cause of action was shown to be generically within the scope of Order 11, that was an end of the matter. The court must exercise discretion as if the case were a domestic one, and may not enquire whether leave would have been granted in the circumstances of the particular case. Held: The court disagreed. Goulding said: "No authority directly on the point has been cited. In principle I find the plaintiff’s proposition unacceptable. It seems to me manifestly unfair to a foreign defendant, and it would often enable a plaintiff to circumvent the court’s discretion under RSC Ord. 11 by the familiar device of throwing a sprat to catch a mackerel . . It is enough to say that the discretion to allow an amendment… will not be exercised an injustice to the opposite party will result, and that it is in general unjust to amend a writ served under RSC Ord. 11 by adding something which the court would probably have refused to sanction under RSC Ord. 11."
If proceedings are served out of the jurisdiction, and the plaintiff later seeks to bring in by amendment another cause of action which could also be the subject of leave to serve out, then it seems that the amendment is permissible, so long as no injustice to the opposite party will result.
1 Citers


 
The Esso Malaysia [1974] 3 WLR 341; [1975] 1 QB 198
1974

Brandon J
Personal Injury, Jurisdiction
A Russian seaman died as the result of a collision in international waters between two foreign registered vessels. His family sought to claim here. Held: The benefit of the Fatal Accidents Acts can, in principle, be claimed by a foreigner. The rule which imposed liability for negligently causing a fatal injury was a universal rule of the law maritime. Brandon J declined to express any view on the applicability of the 1846 Act to deaths occurring abroad or in territorial waters.
Fatal Accidents Act 1976
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt; 1976 - [1976] 3 All ER 879; [1976] 1 WLR 788

 
 Beck v Value Capital Ltd (No 2); CA 1976 - [1976] 2 All ER 102; [1976] 1 WLR 572

 
 Handelswerkerij GJ Bier BV v Mines de Potasse d'Alsace SA; ECJ 1976 - [1978] QB 708; [1976] ECR 1735
 
Handelskwekerij G. J. Bier Bv v Mines De Potasse D'Alsace Sa R-21/76; [1976] EUECJ R-21/76; [1978] QB 708
30 Nov 1976
ECJ

European, Jurisdiction
Europa Where the place of the happening of the event which may give rise to liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict and the place where that event results in damage are not identical, the expression 'place where the harmful event occurred', in article 5(3) of the convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be understood as being intended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it. The result is that the defendant may be sued, at the option of the plaintiff, either in the courts for the place where the damage occurred or in the courts for the place of the event which gives rise to and is at the origin of that damage.
Brussels Convention 1968
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Handelskwekerij G. J. Bier BV v Mines de potasse d'Alsace SA [1976] ECR 1375; C-21/76
30 Nov 1976
ECJ

European, Jurisdiction
Europa A discharge into the French part of the Rhine of saline waste caused alleged damage to the horticultural business of the first plaintiff, and to the waters of the Rhine in general in the Netherlands. Held: Both the place of the event giving rise to the damage and the place where the damage occurred constituted a significant connecting factor from the point of view of jurisdiction, and each of them could be particularly helpful from the point of view of evidence and the conduct of proceedings. Accordingly the plaintiff had an option to commence proceedings either at the place where the damage occurred or the place of the event giving rise to it. Where the place of the happening of the event which may give rise to liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict and the place where that event results in damage are not identical, the expression 'place where the harmful event occurred', in article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be understood as being intended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it. The result is that the defendant may be sued, at the option of the plaintiff, either in the courts for the place where the damage occurred or in the courts for the place of the event which gives rise to and is at the origin of that damage.
1 Citers


 
Estasis Salotti Di Colzani Aimo Et Gianmario Colzani v Ruewa Polstereimaschinen Gmbh C-24/76; R-24/76; [1976] EUECJ R-24/76; [1976] ECR 1831
14 Dec 1976
ECJ

European, Jurisdiction
Europa The way in which article 17 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 is to be applied must be interpreted in the light of the effect of the conferment of jurisdiction by consent, which is to exclude both the jurisdiction determined by the general principle laid down in article 2 and the special jurisdictions provided for in articles 5 and 6 of that convention. In view of the consequences that such an option may have on the position of the parties to the action, the requirements set out in article 17 governing the validity of clauses conferring jurisdiction must be strictly construed.
By making the validity of clauses conferring jurisdiction subject to the existence of an ' agreement ' between the parties, article 17 imposes on the court before which the matter is brought the duty of examining, first, whether the clause conferring jurisdiction upon it was in fact the subject of a consensus between the parties, which must be clearly and precisely demonstrated, for the purpose of the formal requirements imposed by article 17 is to ensure that the consensus between the parties is in fact established.
In the case of a clause conferring jurisdiction, which is included among the general conditions of sale of one of the parties, printed on the back of the contract, the requirement of a writing under the first paragraph of article 17 of the convention of 27 september 1968 is only fulfilled if the contract signed by the two parties includes an express reference to those general conditions.
In the case of a contract concluded by reference to earlier offers, which were themselves made with reference to the general conditions of one of the parties including a clause conferring jurisdiction, the requirement of a writing under the first paragraph of article 17 of the convention of 27 september 1968 is satisfied only if the reference is express and can therefore be checked by a party exercising reasonable care.
Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
The Philippine Admiral [1977] AC 373
1977
PC

Jurisdiction
Sovereign immunity was denied to state trading ships, restricting the extent of state immunity.
1 Citers



 
 Trendtex Trading Corporation v Central Bank of Nigeria; CA 1977 - [1977] 1 QB 529; [1976] 3 All ER 437; [1976] 1 WLR 868
 
Sanders v Van Der Putte R-73/77; [1977] EUECJ R-73/77
14 Dec 1977
ECJ

Jurisdiction
Convention on jurisdiction.
[ Bailii ]
 
International Factors v Rodriguez [1979] 1 QB 351; [1978] 3 WLR 877
1978
CA
Sir David Cairns and Bridge LJ, Buckley LJ
Jurisdiction, Torts - Other
(Majority) Cheques were made payable to a company which had entered into a factoring agreement with the plaintiffs. The cheques were sent to the company in settlement of debts owed to the company but which had been assigned to the plaintiffs. The defendant, a Director of the company, paid the cheques into the company's bank account. Held: A mere contractual right to possession of cheques was insufficient to found an action in conversion, but the plaintiffs had more than a mere contractual right to possession, because they had equitable rights in the cheques.
Buckley LJ (minority) said that a contractual right to demand immediate delivery was a sufficient right to possession to give a status to sue in conversion.
Sir David Cairns said: "so a contractual right is not sufficient.
In my view, however, there was here something more than a contractual right. Clause 11(e) of the [Factoring] agreement provided both that the company was to hold any debt paid direct to the company in trust for the plaintiffs and immediately after receipt of a cheque, in the case of payment by cheque, to hand over that cheque to the plaintiffs. Taking together the trust which was thereby set up and the obligation immediately on receipt to hand over the cheque to the plaintiffs, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs had here a sufficient proprietary right to sue in conversion".
Bridge LJ said: "It is manifest on the terms of clause 11(e) of the agreement that the intention of the parties was that the cheque itself, if payment was by cheque, should be handed on, endorsed if necessary to the plaintiffs, and that confers upon the plaintiffs, as it seems to me an immediate right to possession if any such cheque quite sufficient to support a cause of action in conversion against anyone who wrongfully deals with the cheque in any other matter.
I think that there is a contractual right here for the plaintiffs to demand immediate delivery of the cheque to them, and that that is a sufficient right to possession to give them a status to sue in conversion".
1 Citers


 
Hesperides Hotels Ltd v Aegean Turkish Holidays Ltd, Muftizahde [1979] AC 508; [1978] 2 All ER 1168; [1978] 3 WLR 378; 142 JP 541; 122 Sol Jo 507
1978
HL
Lord Wilberforce
Jurisdiction, Land
No English action lay for trespass to a hotel on the island of Cyprus, but an action did lie for the conversion of the chattels present in that same hotel. Questions of comity might well be involved, and it had to be for Parliament to change the law.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
SA Consortium General Textiles v Sun and Sand Agencies Ltd [1978] QB 279
1978
CA
Goff LJ
Jurisdiction
The expression "agreed . . to submit to the jurisdiction" in the 1933 Act meant "expressed willingness or consented to or acknowledged that he would accept the jurisdiction of the foreign court. It does not require that the judgment debtor must have bound himself contractually or in formal terms so to do"
Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 4(2)(a)(ii)
1 Citers


 
Hesperides Hotels Ltd and Another v Aegean Turkish Holidays Ltd and Another [1978] 1 QB 205
1978
CA
Lord Denning MR
Jurisdiction
An action was brought by the displaced owner of a hotel in Northern Cyprus taken over by the Turkish administration. Held: The court declined to exercise an original jurisdiction in the northern part of Cyprus.
Lord Denning MR said that he would, if necessary, unhesitatingly hold that the courts of this country can recognise the laws or acts of a body which is in effective control of a territory even though it has not been recognised by the United Kingdom government de jure or de facto, "at any rate, in regard to the laws which regulate the day to day affairs of the people, such as their marriages, their divorces, their leases, their occupations, and so forth".
However: "Underlying this case is a divergence of view between two autonomous administrations in Cyprus. The northern administration sets itself up as an administration entitled to pass laws requisitioning this property. The southern administration denies the claim and says that the requisitioning was unlawful. It is not the province of these courts to resolve such a dispute. It is a dispute which should be settled by negotiation between the two administrations, aided, we hope, by intermediaries of goodwill. It is indeed, we hope, being settled at this very moment by negotiations in Vienna. If a settlement is reached it should deal with all questions relating to the taking of property, compensation and so forth. But, whether it is settled or not, it is not for these courts to decide between these conflicting views. The dispute, in my view, is not justiciable here. The action should be struck out as not sustainable. I would allow the appeal accordingly."
Roskill LJ stated: "The position in Cyprus, both on the Greek and on the Turkish side, is at the present juncture evolutionary and continues to evolve and develop. Delicate international negotiations have taken place and are about to continue. In those circumstances, for an English court to arrogate to itself the right at this juncture to determine questions of the right to possession of land in Cyprus by entertaining an action for conspiracy to trespass is something which in my view it ought not to do. Even if I am wrong in the view that the Mocambique [British South Africa Co v Companhia de Mocambique [1893] AC 602] principle applies, and even if I thought that our courts had jurisdiction and therefore a discretion whether or not to grant the injunction sought, in accordance with the principles recently laid down by the House of Lords in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. [1975] AC 396, I would not hesitate in the existing circumstances to exercise my discretion against granting the injunction sought."
1 Citers


 
Somafer Sa v Saar-Ferngas Ag R-33/78; [1978] EUECJ R-33/78
22 Nov 1978
ECJ

European, Jurisdiction
ECJ 1. The Convention of 27 September 1968 must be interpreted having regard both to its principles and objectives and to its relationship with the treaty. The question whether the words and concepts used in the convention must be regarded as having their own independent meaning and as being thus common to all the contracting states or as referring to substantive rules of the law applicable in each case under the rules of conflict of laws of the court before which the matter is first brought must be so answered as to ensure that the convention is fully effective in achieving the objects which it pursues.
2. The need to ensure legal certainty and equality of rights and obligations for the parties as regards the power to derogate from the general jurisdiction of article 2 requires an independent interpretation, common to all the contracting states, of the concepts in article 5(5) of the convention of 27 September 1968.
The concept of branch, agency or other establishment implies a place of business which has the appearance of permanency, such as the extension of a parent body, has a management and is materially equipped to negotiate business with third parties so that the latter, although knowing that there will if necessary be a legal link with the parent body, the head office of which is abroad, do not have to deal directly with such parent body but may transact business at the place of business constituting the extension.
The concept of "operations" comprises :
- actions relating to rights and contractual or non-contractual obligations concerning the management properly so-called of the agency, branch or other establishment itself such as those concerning the situation of the building where such entity is established or the local engagement of staff to work there;
- actions relating to undertakings which have been entered into at the above-mentioned place of business in the name of the parent body and which must be performed in the contracting state where the place of business is established and also actions concerning non-contractual obligations arising from the activities in which the branch, agency or other establishment within the above defined meaning, has engaged at the place in which it is established on behalf of the parent body.
It is in each case for the court before which the matter comes to find the facts whereon it may be established that an effective place of business exists and to determine the legal position by reference to the concept of "operations" as above defined.
1 Citers

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