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: 1990 To: 1990
This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Haqen v Zeehaqhe [1990] ECR 1-1845
1990
ECJ
European, Jurisdiction
ECJ "Article 6(2) makes provision for a special jurisdiction, which the Plaintiff may choose because of the existence, in clearly defined situations, of a particularly close connecting factor between a dispute and the court which may be called upon to hear it, with a view to the efficacious conduct of the proceedings (judgment of 22 November 1978 in Case 33/78 Somafer SA v Saar-Ferngas AG [1978] ECR 2183). The Convention thus enables the entire dispute to be heard by a single court. Consequently, the related nature of the main action and the action on a warranty or guarantee suffices to found jurisdiction on the part of the court in which the action on a warranty or guarantee has been brought, irrespective of the basis on which it has jurisdiction in the original proceedings; in this respect, the jurisdiction provided for in Article 2 and that provided for in Article 5 are equivalent."
1 Citers
Metall and Rostoff v Donaldson Inc [1990] 1 QB 391
1990
CA
Jurisdiction, Torts - Other
The court looked at how to establish where a tort was committed in order then to test its jurisdiction: "As the rule now stands it is plain that jurisdiction may be assumed only where (a) the claim is founded on a tort and either (b) the damage was sustained within the jurisdiction or (c) the damage resulted from an act committed within the jurisdiction. Condition (a) poses a question which we consider below: what law is to be applied in resolving whether the claim is "founded on a tort?" Condition (b) raises the question: what damage is referred to? It was argued for A.C.L.I. that since the draftsman had used the definite article and not simply referred to "damage," it is necessary that all the damage should have been sustained within the jurisdiction. No authority was cited to support the suggestion that this is the correct construction of the Convention to which the rule gives effect and it could lead to an absurd result if there were no one place in which all the plaintiff's damage had been suffered. The judge rejected this argument and so do we. It is enough if some significant damage has been sustained in England. Condition (c) prompts the inquiry: what if damage has resulted from acts committed partly within and partly without the jurisdiction? This will often be the case where a series of acts, regarded by English law as tortious, are committed in an international context. It would not, we think, make sense to require all the acts to have been committed within the jurisdiction, because again there might be no single jurisdiction where that would be so. But it would certainly contravene the spirit, and also we think the letter, of the rule if jurisdiction were assumed on the strength of some relatively minor or insignificant act having been committed here, perhaps fortuitously. In our view condition (c) requires the court to look at the tort alleged in a common sense way and ask whether damage has resulted from substantial and efficacious acts committed within the jurisdiction (whether or not other substantial and efficacious acts have been committed elsewhere): if the answer is yes, leave may (but of course need not) be given. But the defendants are, we think, right to insist that the acts to be considered must be those of the putative defendant, because the question at issue is whether the links between him and the English forum are such as to justify his being brought here to answer the plaintiffs' claim."
1 Citers
Metall und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette Inc [1990] 1 QB 391
1990
CA
Slade LJ
Jurisdiction, Torts - Other
There was a complicated commercial dispute involving allegations of conspiracy. A claim by the plaintiffs for inducing or procuring a breach of contract would have been statute-barred in New York. Held: Slade LJ said: "The judge's approach to the limitation point was further criticised by the defendants' counsel on the grounds that, following the guidance given by Lord Goff in Spiliada relating to the treatment of a 'legitimate personal or juridical advantage' he should first have considered which was the appropriate forum without reference to the juridical advantage which M. & R. would enjoy by proceedings in England, and only if he decided that New York was prima facie the appropriate forum, should have gone on to consider whether, none the less, the limitation point rendered a trial in England necessary for the purpose of doing substantial justice between the parties. We think that the approach to this point suggested on behalf of the defendants is correct in principle and that at least on one reading of the judge's judgment, he did not follow it, but took into account the juridical advantage point in his initial search for the appropriate forum."
Slade LJ said: "Relief in tort under the principle of Grainger v Hill is not, in our judgment, available against a party who, however dishonestly, presents a false case for the purpose of advancing or sustaining his claim or defence in civil proceedings. This may well cause hardship to an injured party who cannot be sufficiently compensated by an appropriate order for costs. However, if there is a gap in the law it rests on sound considerations of public policy, as does the rule of law which gives immunity to witnesses against civil actions based on the falsity of evidence given in judicial proceedings. If the position were otherwise, honest litigants might be deterred from pursuing honest claims or defences and honest witnesses might be deterred from giving evidence."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Deutsche Schachtbauund Tiefbohrgesellschaft mbH v Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd; HL 1990 - [1990] 1 AC 295
Rosseel N V v Oriental Commercial Shipping Company (UK) Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1387
1990
Jurisdiction
The court discouraged the grant of ancillary relief where such grant would obstruct or hamper the management of the case by the primary court in another jurisdiction or give rise to a risk of conflicting, inconsistent or overlapping orders in other courts.
1 Citers
S and W Berisford plc v New Hampshire Insurance Co; 1990 - (1990) 2 QB 631; [1993] 1 Lloyds Rep. 631
Adams v Cape Industries plc; CA 2-Jan-1990 - [1990] Ch 433; [1991] 1 All ER 929; [1990] 2 WLR 657; [1990] BCLC 479; [1990] BCC 786
Dumez France SA and Tracoba SARL v Hessische Landesbank and others [1990] ECR I-49; C-220/88; R-220/88; [1990] EUECJ R-220/88
11 Jan 1990
ECJ
Jurisdiction
ECJ The expression "place where the harmful event occurred" contained in Article 5(3 ) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters may refer to the place where the damage occurred, but the latter concept can be understood only as indicating the place where the event giving rise to the damage, and causing tortious, delictual or quasi-delictual liability to be incurred, directly produced its harmful effects upon the person who is the victim of that event. Accordingly, the rule on jurisdiction laid down in that article cannot be interpreted as permitting a plaintiff pleading damage which he claims to be the consequence of the harm suffered by other persons who were direct victims of the harmful act to bring proceedings against the perpetrator of that act before the courts in the place in which he himself ascertained the damage to his assets.
ECJ Brussels Convention - Tort, delict or quasi-delict - Interpretation of Article 5 (3) - Indirect victim - Damage suffered by a parent company through financial losses sustained by a subsidiary.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Kongress Agentur Hagen GmbH v Zeehaghe BV C-365/88
15 May 1990
ECJ
European, Jurisdiction
Europa Where a defendant domiciled in a Contracting State is sued in a court of another Contracting State pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgment in civil and commercial matters, that court also has jurisdiction by virtue of Article 6(2) of the Convention to entertain an action on a warranty or guarantee brought against a person domiciled in a Contracting State other than that of the court seised of the original proceedings. To enable the entire dispute to be heard by a single court, Article 6(2) simply requires there to be a connecting factor between the main action and the action on a warranty or guarantee, irrespective of the basis on which the court has jurisdiction in the original proceedings. Article 6(2) must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the national court to accede to the request for leave to bring an action on a warranty or guarantee and that the national court may apply the procedural rules of its national law in order to determine whether that action is admissible, provided that the effectiveness of the Convention in that regard is not impaired and, in particular, that leave to bring the action on the warranty or guarantee is not refused on the ground that the third party resides or is domiciled in a Contracting State other than that of the court seised of the original proceedings.
1 Citers
