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: 1993 To: 1993

This page lists 13 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
British Aerospace v Dee Howard [1993] 1 Lloyds Rep 368
1993

Waller J
Jurisdiction, Contract
Where a contract contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause providing for a case to be tried in the UK, it was relevant that the circumstances which might now suggest a trial elsewhere were perfectly foreseeable at the time of the contract. The new circumstances had to point to some factor which could not have been foreseen on which they can rely for displacing the bargain which they made, ie that they would not object to the jurisdiction of the English court. In those circumstances, inconvenience for witnesses, location of documents, the timing of a trial, and all similar matters were aspects which they were precluded from raising.
The proper approach was to consider the proceedings as equivalent to proceedings commenced as of right, and therefore it was right to consider only the matters which would not have been foreseeable when the bargain was struck.
1 Citers


 
Chiron Corporation v Organon Teknika (No 2) [1993] FSR 567
1993
CA

Intellectual Property, Contract, Jurisdiction
Section 44 could be used in a patent contract dispute even though the patent at issue was governed by the law of a foreign state which would not itself have applied that section.
Patents Act 1977 44
1 Citers



 
 Polly Peck International Plc v Nadir and Others; CA 17-Mar-1993 - Independent, 31 March 1993; Unreported, 17 March 1993
 
Stevens v Head [1993] HCA 19; (1993) 112 ALR 7; [1993] Aust Torts Reports 81-203; (1993) 17 MVR 1; (1993) 67 ALJR 343; [1993] 176 CLR 433
18 Mar 1993

Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gudron, McHugh JJ
Commonwealth, Jurisdiction
(High Court of Australia) The court considered a claim for damages arising out of a motor accident in New South Wales, where the claim had been brought in the courts of Queensland. The questions arose as to whether or not a provision in the Motor Accidents Act 1988 of New South Wales which limited the amount of damages which could be recovered in respect of non-economic loss was a substantive rule to be applied as part of the lex causae. Held: In relation to questions of the quantification of damage, anything beyond the ascertainment of the heads of liability is a procedural question, and thus referring to a New South Wales statute: "section 79 is plainly a provision which affects the measure of damages but does not touch the heads of liability in respect of which damages might be awarded. It is simply a law relating to the quantification of damages and that, as we have seen, is a matter governed solely by the lex fori."
Mason CJ: "The law relating to damages is partly procedural and partly substantive. According to the traditional application of the substance-procedure distinction, the question whether legislative provisions dealing with awards of damages are substantive or procedural has been approached by asking whether the provisions affect the character of the wrong actionable or go only to the measure of compensation. This approach is consistent with the equation traditionally drawn between matters of procedure and matters relating to remedies."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
AMCHEM Products Incorporated v British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board) [1993] 1 SCR 897; (1993) 102 DLR (4th) 96; [1993] 3 WWR 441; 77 BCLR (2d) 62; 150 NR 321; 23 BCAC 1; [1993] CarswellBC 47; JE 93-674
24 Mar 1993

La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin JJ
Commonwealth, Jurisdiction, Contract, International
Supreme Court of Canada - Courts - Appropriate forum - Action commenced in U.S. courts - Plaintiffs largely resident in Canada - Most of corporate defendants with some connection with state where action brought - Anti-suit injunction sought in Canadian courts to prevent action in U.S. courts - Principles governing the determination of appropriate forum and governing comity between courts - Whether or not an injunction appropriate.
Prerogative writs - Injunctions - Appropriate forum for bringing action - Action commenced in U.S. courts - Plaintiffs largely resident in Canada - Most of corporate defendants with some connection with state where action brought - Anti-suit injunction sought in Canadian courts to prevent action in U.S. courts - Whether or not an injunction appropriate.
Conflict of laws - Courts - Action commenced in U.S. courts - Plaintiffs largely resident in Canada - Most of corporate defendants with some connection with state where action brought - Anti-suit injunction sought in Canadian courts to prevent action in U.S. courts - Principles governing the determination of appropriate forum and governing comity between courts - Whether or not an injunction appropriate.
Sopinka J discussed the importance of comity considerations in anti-suit injunction applications and held: "the domestic court as a matter of comity must take cognisance of the fact that the foreign court has assumed jurisdiction. If, applying the principles relating to forum non conveniens . . the foreign court could reasonably have concluded that there was no alternative forum that was clearly More appropriate, the domestic court should respect that decision and the application [for an anti-suit injunction] should be dismissed."
1 Citers

[ Canlii ]

 
 Republic of India and Others v India Steamship Co Ltd ('The Indian Endurance and The Indian Grace') (No 1); HL 29-Mar-1993 - Gazette, 07 April 1993; Ind Summary, 29 March 1993; [1993] 2 WLR 461; [1993] AC 410; [1993] 1 All ER 998
 
Sonntag v Waidmann, Waidmann and Waidmann Ind Summary, 24 May 1993; C-172/91; [1993] EUECJ C-172/91; [1993] ECR 1-1963
21 Apr 1993
ECJ

European, Jurisdiction
Europa 1. A claim for compensation for loss to an individual resulting from a criminal offence, even though made in the context of criminal proceedings, is civil in nature unless the person against whom it is made is to be regarded as a public authority which acted in the exercise of its powers. That is not the case where the activity called in question is the supervision by a state-school teacher of his pupils during a school trip. It follows that "civil matters" within the meaning of the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters covers a claim for damages brought before a criminal court against a state-school teacher who, during a school trip, occasioned loss to a pupil as a result of a culpable and unlawful breach of his duties of supervision, even where there is coverage by a scheme of social insurance under public law. 2. The second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention must be interpreted as precluding any appeal by interested third parties against the judgment given on an appeal against authorization to enforce a judgment given in another Contracting State, even where the domestic law of the State in which enforcement is sought confers on such third parties a right of appeal. 3. Since non-recognition of a judgment given in another Contracting State for the reasons set out in Article 27(2) of the Convention is possible only where the defendant was in default of appearance in the original proceedings, that provision may not be relied upon where the defendant appeared. A defendant is deemed to have appeared for the purposes of Article 27(2) of the Convention where, in connection with a claim for damages made in the context of the criminal proceedings pending before the criminal court, the defendant, through defence counsel of his own choice, answered the criminal charges at the trial but did not express a view on the civil claim, on which oral argument was also submitted in the presence of his counsel.
A claim was made by the parents and brother of a pupil who suffered a fatal accident during a school trip. One of the questions referred to the ECJ was whether an action for damages against a teacher in a state school was a "civil" matter within the meaning of the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of the Brussels Convention. Held. "It follows from the judgments in the LTU and Rüffer cases cited above that such an action falls outside the scope of the Convention only when the author of the damage against whom it is brought must be regarded as a public authority which acted in the exercise of public powers." A teacher in a school is not exercising public powers. The substantive duties on a teacher were, so far as concerned the standards of care in relation to the pupils, identical to those owed by all individuals, state employees or not, to those in their care. It followed that the action was a civil matter within the meaning of the Convention.
Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
International Credit and Investment Company (Overseas) Ltd and Others v Adham Ind Summary, 26 April 1993
26 Apr 1993
Chd

Company, Jurisdiction
England is the correct forum to discuss a company registered in England.

 
Re Seagull Manufacturing Co Ltd Ind Summary, 03 May 1993
3 May 1993
ChD

Company, Jurisdiction
A company director who was resident overseas may be subject to disqualification proceedings.
Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 6
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc and Others (No 3) [1995] 1 WLR 978; [1995] 3 All ER 747
1 Jul 1993
ChD
Millett J
Jurisdiction, International
Millett J described the case of Norris -v- Chambres: "A suit in equity was instituted between two parties resident in England to enforce an equitable lien to land situate abroad. The court declined to entertain the suit. It held that, although a purchaser to whom land out of the jurisdiction of the court had been agreed to be sold by a person within the jurisdiction may obtain an order for specific performance against the vendor . . he cannot obtain an order against a third party to whom the vendor has conveyed the property even though such person took with notice of the contract and is within the jurisdiction. The case was treated as one of jurisdiction, but it would today more properly be regarded as one of choice of law; whether the claim be brought against the vendor himself or against his transferee, the plaintiff would be invoking the in personam jurisdiction of the court against a defendant who was amenable to that jurisdiction. The difference between the two cases is that in the second case there is no equity or privity between the parties which the court can enforce except such equity, if any, as may arise from the transferee's notice; while the sufficiency of such notice to affect the transferee's title is a matter for the lex situs. If, by that law, the transfer to the defendant extinguished the plaintiff's interest notwithstanding the defendant's notice, the plaintiff no longer has any proprietary interest upon which he can base his suit in England."
Millett J said: "In order to ascertain the applicable law under English conflict of laws, it is not sufficient to characterise the nature of the claim: it is necessary to identify the question at issue . . Any claim, whether it be a claim that can be characterised as restitutionary or otherwise, may involve a number of issues which may have to be decided according to different issues of law. Thus it is necessary for the court to look at each issue and to decide the appropriate law to apply to the resolution of that dispute." and
"The determination of a question of priority between competing claims to property is based on considerations of domestic legal policy, since it involves striking a balance between two competing desiderata, the security of title and the security of a purchase. A decision by an English court, based on English principles of conflict of laws, that the question should be determined by the application of the rules of a foreign law is also based on considerations of legal policy, albeit at a higher level of abstraction. It involves a policy decision, at the higher level, that the policy which has been adopted, at the lower level, by English law should not be applied because the considerations which led to its adoption in the domestic law are not relevant in the particular circumstances of the case; and to a policy decision, at a higher level, that the policy which has been adopted, at the lower level, by the foreign law should be applied in its stead. In my judgment there is or ought to be no scope for the doctrine of renvoi in determining a question of priority between competing claims to shares, and in the absence of authority which compels me to do so – and there is none – I am not willing to extend it to such a question".
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
H (a Minor) (Foreign Custody Order: Enforcement) Times, 19 November 1993; Ind Summary, 22 November 1993; [1994] 2 WLR 269
19 Nov 1993
CA

Children, Jurisdiction
After a divorce, the Belgian Court had granted the father a contact order, for him to receive her at home at holidays. The mother moved to England, breaching the order. The father had the order registered here, then sought to enforce it. The court had found the girl to have a genuine fear of the father, but thought that he had no discretion. Held: The High court did indeed have a discretion. The phrase 'recognition and enforcement' were to be read disjunctively, and enforcement would not follow automatically from registration. A foreign court order need not be enforced here if it was clearly no longer in the child's best interests.
European Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions etc 10(1) - Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 16 S2-A10(1)(b)

 
Continental Bank Na v Aeakos Compania Naviera Sa and Others Ind Summary, 13 December 1993; Times, 26 November 1993; [1994] 1 WLR 588
26 Nov 1993
CA
Steyn LJ
Litigation Practice, Banking, Jurisdiction
The Bank was entitled to an injunction in the UK, by virtue of the jurisdiction given in their agreement, even though it was not the UK court which was first seised of the matter. Steyn LJ said: ". . a claim for damages for breach of contract would be a relatively ineffective remedy. An injunction is the only effective remedy for the appellants' breach of contract. If the injunction is set aside, the appellants will persist in their breach of contract, and the bank's legal rights as enshrined in the jurisdiction agreements will prove to be valueless. Given the total absence of special countervailing factors, this is the paradigm case for the grant of an injunction . ."
Brussels Convention 1968 Art 17
1 Citers



 
 Abdullah Ali Almunajem Sons Co and Others v Recourse Shipping Co Ltd; QBD 3-Dec-1993 - Times, 03 December 1993
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.