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: 1980 To: 1984
This page lists 19 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Schibsby v Westenholz (1870-1871) LR 6 QB 155; (1870) LR QB 155; [1861-73] All ER Rep 988; 40 LJqB 73; 24 LT 93; 19 WR 587
1980
CA
Blackburn J
Jurisdiction
The parties were both Danish, the plaintiffs resident in France and the defendants in London. The plaintiffs now sought to enforce a judgment obtained against the defendangt in France in default of their appearance. The defendants had no property in France, and the contract was not made there. It had been obtained under standard practice in France. Held: Foreign judgments are to be enforced here on the basis that there is a duty to submit to the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction. However, anything which might negative such a duty operates as a defence. Thesee defendants were not French subjects and owed no allegiance even temporary to France, wree not there when the contracual obligations arose, had had no participation in the proceedings and were not subject to French jurisdiction. They had no obligation to submit to a jurisdiction assumed over foreigners and the judgment could not be enforced against them here.
1 Citers
Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] 1 Ch 433
1980
ChD
Scott J
Company, Jurisdiction
The piercing of the veil argument was used to attempt to bring an English public company, which was the parent company of a group which included subsidiaries in the United States, within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. Where a foreign judgment is impeachable on the ground of denial of procedural fairness, its enforcement would be contrary to public policy.
Scott J cautioned against ignoring the principle in Salomon merely because justice may be seen to require it, but at the same time recognised that the question is in each case the fact of presence and not some law of individual personality.
An agreement to accept jurisdiction must be express and cannot be implied.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Siegfried Zelger v Sebastiano Salinitri C-56/79; R-56/79; [1980] EUECJ R-56/79
17 Jan 1980
ECJ
European, Jurisdiction
The provisions of article 5(1) of the Convention, to the effect that in matters relating to a contract a defendant domiciled in a contracting state may be sued in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question, introduce a criterion for jurisdiction, the selection of which is at the option of the plaintiff and which is justified by the existence of a direct link between the dispute and the court called upon to take cognizance of it. By contrast, article 17 of the convention, which provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of the court designated by the parties in accordance with the prescribed form, puts aside both the rule of general jurisdiction - provided for in article 2 - and the rules of special jurisdiction - provided for in article 5 - and dispenses with any objective connexion between the legal relationship in dispute and the court designated. It thus appears that the jurisdiction of the court for the place of performance and that of the selected court are two distinct concepts and only agreements selecting a court are subject to the requirements of form prescribed by article 17 of the convention.
if the place of performance of a contractual obligation has been specified by the parties in a clause which is valid according to the national law applicable to the contract, the court for that place has jurisdiction to take cognizance of disputes relating to that obligation under article 5(1) of the convention , irrespective of whether the formal conditions provided for under article 17 have been observed.
Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Denilauler v SNC Couchet Freres (Judgment) [1980] ECR 1553; C-125/79
21 May 1980
ECJ
European, Jurisdiction
The courts of the place or, in any event, of the Contracting State, where the assets subject to the measures sought are located, are those best able to assess the circumstances which may lead to the grant or refusal of the measures sought or to the laying down of procedures and conditions which the plaintiff must observe in order to guarantee the provisional and protective character of the measures ordered.
1 Citers
The El Amria [1981] 2 Lloyds Rep 119
1981
Brandon J
Jurisdiction
The court set out the principles to be applied where a party seeks to enforce or act in breach of a choice of jurisdiction contract. If a party seek to sue here in breach of such a clause, the court has a discretion to stay, but a stay should be granted unless there is good cause shown by the plaintiff. The court must allow for all the circumstances including the country in which the factual evidence is situated, or more readily available, and consequent convenience and expense of trial in English; whether the law of the foreign Court applies and, if so, any differences, any close connection with the countries; whether only a procedural advantage is sought; and any prejudice by way of deprivation of security, the ability to enforce a judgment or be faced with a time-bar or for political, racial, religious or other reasons the plaintiff may be unlikely to get a fair trial.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v Grossman; CA 1981 - (1981) 73 Cr App R 302
Elefanten Schuh Gmbh v Pierre Jacqmain [1982] 3 CMLR 1; R-150/80; [1981] EUECJ R-150/80; [1981] ECR 1671
24 Jun 1981
ECJ
European, Jurisdiction
ECJ 1. Article 18 of the convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters applies even where the parties have by agreement designated a court which is to have jurisdiction within the meaning of article 17 of that convention.
2. Article 18 of the Convention of 27 september 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that the rule on jurisdiction which that provision lays down does not apply where the defendant not only contests the court's jurisdiction but also makes submissions on the substance of the action, provided that if the challenge to jurisdiction is not preliminary to any defence as to the substance it does not occur after the making of the submissions which under national procedural law are considered to be the first defence addressed to the court seised.
3. Since the aim of article 17 of the Convention is to lay down the formal requirements which agreements conferring jurisdiction must meet, contracting states are not free to lay down formal requirements other than those contained in the Convention. When those rules are applied to provisions concerning the language to be used in an agreement conferring jurisdiction they imply that the legislation of a contracting state may not allow the validity of such an agreement to be called in question solely on the ground that the language used is not that prescribed by that legislation.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH; HL 1982 - [1983] 2 AC 34
Clark (Inspector of Taxes) v Oceanic Contractors Inc [1983] 2 AC 130; [1982] UKHL TC_56_183
16 Dec 1982
HL
Lord Wilberforce, Lord Scarman
Jurisdiction, Taxes Management, Income Tax
HL Income tax, Schedule E - Non-resident employer - Employees working in U.K. sector of North Sea - Whether employer liable to deduct tax from emoluments - Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1973 - Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, s 181 and s 204 - Finance Act 1973, 5 38 - Continental Shelf Act 1964 - A foreign company which was not resident in, but maintained places of business within the United Kingdom, engaged personnel (United Kingdom residents and others) to work on barges and other vessels in the United Kingdom sector and other sectors of the North Sea. The employees were paid in U.S. dollars by cheques drawn in Brussels on a New York bank account. Cheques might be (a) deposited in a bank designated by the employee, (b) seat to any person designated by the employee or (c) delivered to the employee himself on his barge or vessel.
The House considered the principle of statutory interpretation that a statute should be confined to the territory within which it operates. Lord Wilberforce said: "That principle, which is really a rule of construction of statutes expressed in general terms, and which as James LJ said is a "broad principle", requires an enquiry to be made as to the persons with respect to whom Parliament is presumed, in the particular case, to be legislating. Who, it is to be asked, is within the legislative grasp or intendment, of the statute under consideration?" and
Lord Scarman said: "the general principle . . is simply that, unless the contrary is expressly enacted or is so plainly implied that the courts must give effect to it, United Kingdom legislation is applicable only to British subjects or to foreigners who by coming to the United Kingdom, whether for a short or a long time, have made themselves subject to British jurisdiction. Two points would seem to be clear: first, that the principle is a rule of construction only, and secondly, that it contemplates mere presence within the jurisdiction as sufficient to attract the application of British legislation."
Whether and to what extent a law applies in relation to foreigners outside the jurisdiction depends upon who is "within the legislative grasp, or intendment" of the relevant provision.
Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1973 - Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 181 204 - Finance Act 1973 38 - Continental Shelf Act 1964
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Empresa Exportadora de Azucar v Industria Azucarera Nacional S.A, The Playa Larga; CA 1983 - [1983] 2 Lloyds Rep 171
I Congreso del Partido; HL 1983 - [1983] 1 AC 244
Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co [1984] AC 50; [1983] 2 All ER 884; [1983] 2 Lloyds Rep 365; [1983] 3 WLR 241
1983
HL
Lord Diplock, Lord Wilberforce
Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction
A claimant must show good reason why service on a foreign defendant should be permitted. This head of jurisdiction was an exorbitant jurisdiction, one which, under general English conflict rules, an English court would not recognise as possessed by any foreign court in the absence of some treaty providing for such recognition. Comity dictated that the judicial discretion to grant leave should be exercised with circumspection in cases where there existed an alternative forum, that is, the courts of the foreign country where the proposed defendant carried on business and whose jurisdiction would be recognised under English conflict rules. In exercising its discretion, it is not normally appropriate for the court to compare the quality of justice obtainable in a foreign forum which adopts a different procedural system (such as that of the civil law) with that obtainable in a similar case conducted in an English court.
Arbitration agreements are not covered by the Rome Convention, and their proper law is decided according to common law principles which require selection of the law of a country as the proper law governing the agreement.
Lord Wilberforce said: "It is not appropriate . . to embark upon a comparison of the procedures, or methods, or reputation or standing of the courts of one country as compared with those of another".
1 Cites
1 Citers
Sengupta v Republic of India [1983] ICR 221
1983
Justice Browne-Wilkinson
Jurisdiction, Employment, International
India did not appear at court to take a point on jurisdiction under the 1978 Act. The Court asked for the appointment of an amicus to assist it. Held: The court has a duty under statute to give the effect to the immunity conferred, even though the state does not appear to claim it. As to the issue of state immunity: "If we have asked ourselves the right questions, then in our judgment the necessary result must be that there is no jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's claim. It is true that any private individual can employ another, i.e. can enter into a contract of employment. Therefore in that sense the entry into a contract of employment is a private act. But when one looks to see what is involved int he performance of the applicant's contract, it is clear that the performance of the contract is part of the discharge by the foreign state of its sovereign functions in which the applicant himself, at however lowly a level, is under the terms of his contract of employment necessarily engaged. One of the classic forms of sovereign acts by a foreign state is the representation of that state in a receiving state. From the doctrine of sovereign immunity were derived the concepts that the embassy premises were part of the soil of the foreign sovereign state, and that diplomatic staff are personally immune from local jurisdiction. A contract to work at a diplomatic mission in the work of that mission is a contract to participate in the public acts of the foreign sovereign. The dismissal of the applicant was an act done in pursuance of that public function, i.e. the running of the mission. As a consequence, the fairness of any dismissal from such employment is very likely to involve an investigation by the industrial tribunal into the internal management of the diplomatic representation in the United Kingdom of the Republic of India, an investigation wholly inconsistent with the dignity of the foreign state and an interference with its sovereign functions." The tribunal could not hear the claim even though the employment had been at a low grade.
State Immunity Act 1978 1(2)
1 Citers
Martin Peters Bauunternehmung Gmbh v Zuid Nederlandse Aannemers Vereniging [1983] ECR 987; [1983] EUECJ R-34/82; [1984] 2 CMLR 605
22 Mar 1983
ECJ
Jurisdiction
1. The concept of matters relating to a contract in article 5(1) of the convention of 27 september 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters should not be interpreted simply as referring to the national law of one or other of the member states concerned, but should be regarded as an independent concept which, for the purposes of the application of the convention, must be interpreted by reference chiefly to the system and objectives of the convention, in order to ensure that it is fully effective.
2. Obligations in regard to the payment of a sum of money which have their basis in the relationship existing between an association and its members by virtue of membership are 'matters relating to a contract' within the meaning of article 5(1) of the convention, whether the obligations in question arise simply from the act of becoming a member or from that act in conjunction with one or more decisions made by organs of the association.
[ Bailii ]
The Abidin Daver; HL 1984 - [1984] AC 398; [1984] 1 All ER 470; [1984] 1 Lloyds Rep 339; [1984] 2 WLR 196
British Airways Board v Laker Airways Limited; 1984 - [1984] QB 142
Cordoba Shipping Co Ltd v National State Bank, Elizabeth, New Jersey (The Albaforth); CA 1984 - [1984] 2 Lloyd's LR 91
Siegfried Zelger v Sebastiano Salinitri C-129/83; R-129/83; [1984] EUECJ R-129/83; [1984] ECR 2397
7 Jun 1984
ECJ
Jurisdiction
Article 21 of the Convention of 28 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that the court "first seised" is the one before which the requirements for proceedings to become definitively pending are first fulfilled, such requirements to be determined in accordance with the national law of each of the courts concerned: "the Court 'first seised' is the one before which the requirements for proceedings to become definitively pending are first fulfilled, such requirements to be determined in accordance with the national law of each of the courts concerned."
Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Partenreederei Ms Tilly Russ and Ernest Russ v NV Haven- and Vervoerbedrijf Nova and NV Goeminne Hout C-71/83; R-71/83; [1984] EUECJ R-71/83; [1984] ECR 2417
19 Jun 1984
ECJ
European, Transport, Jurisdiction
Europa Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments - jurisdiction agreement - jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading - validity - conditions (convention of 27 September 1968, art. 17)
a jurisdiction clause contained in the printed conditions on a bill of lading satisfies the conditions laid down by article 17 of the convention : if the agreement of both parties to the conditions containing that clause has been expressed in writing; or if the jurisdiction clause has been the subject-matter of a prior oral agreement between the parties expressly relating to that clause, in which case the bill of lading, signed by the carrier, must be regarded as confirmation in writing of the oral agreement; or if the bill of lading comes within the framework of a continuing business relationship between the parties, in so far as it is thereby established that the relationship is governed by general conditions containing the jurisdiction clause. As regards the relationship between the carrier and a third party holding the bill of lading, the conditions laid down by article 17 of the convention are satisfied if the jurisdiction clause has been adjudged valid as between the carrier and the shipper and if, by virtue of the relevant national law, the third party, upon acquiring the bill of lading, succeeded to the shipper ' s rights and obligations.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
