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: 1999 To: 1999

This page lists 29 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Krenge v Krenge [1999] 1 FLR 969
1999


Family, Jurisdiction
The power in an English court to stay family proceedings here in favour of a foreign jurisdiction exists independently of any statute.
1 Citers


 
Credit Suisse First Boston (Europe) Ltd v Seagate Trading Co Ltd [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 784
1999

Rix J
Contract, Jurisdiction
An oral contract for the sale of Russian Notes was followed by a Trade confirmation with an English jurisdiction clause. It was said that this document was fraudulently presented by Credit Suisse as a mere perfunctory confirmation (which it was not) and that the oral contract was not with Credit Suisse Europe but with Credit Suisse US and that there was a specific agreement that the deal was to be centred in New York where Credit Suisse US had its centre of business. Held: The English jurisdiction clause could not be relied on, whether or not the allegations of fraud were, in the event, made out.
1 Citers


 
Compagnie Commercial Andre S A v Artibell Shipping Company Limited and the Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland [1999] ScotCS 2
7 Jan 1999
SCS
Lord MacFadyen
Scotland, Transport, Jurisdiction
The pursuers employed the defenders to carry sugar across Iraq. The voyage had been abandoned. The defenders challenged the proceedings as to jurisdiction and otherwise.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Gareth Pearce v Ove Arup Partnership Ltd and others Gazette, 03 March 1999; Times, 10 February 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 625; [2000] Ch D 402; [1999] 1 All ER 769
21 Jan 1999
CA

Jurisdiction, Intellectual Property
An English court does not have to refuse an application which sought to apply a foreign copyright law in a claim based on acts committed abroad on the basis that not actionable here. Such restrictions applicable to land actions only: "It is, we think, clear from an analysis of the judgments in the Moçambique case that the House of Lords treated the question whether the English courts should entertain an action for trespass to foreign land as one of justiciability. The English courts should not claim jurisdiction to adjudicate upon matters which, under generally accepted principles of private international law, were the peculiar province and competence of another state…"
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Surzur Overseas Ltd v Koros and others [1999] 2 LLR 616; [1999] EWCA Civ 863; [1999] CLC 801
25 Feb 1999
CA
Waller LJ, Hirst and Aldous LJJ
Torts - Other, Jurisdiction
A defendant to a worldwide Mareva injunction had failed to give full disclosure of all his assets in an affidavit filed with the court. False evidence as to sale of the assets in question was later manufactured and placed before the court. The plaintiffs claimed damages against the defendants and others. The claim was characterised as a conspiracy to injure the plaintiffs by a number of unlawful means, those unlawful means including the giving of false evidence before the court. Held: The strike out request was refused. The conspiracy had a broader objective and was not brought simply in respect of evidence given. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
Waller LJ referred to Lord Morris in Roy v Prior as to its conclusion in relation to witness immunity,and added: "It also seems to me that what the above demonstrates is that it is not permissible to divide allegations up as Mr Schaff sought to do into those that involve giving evidence and those which do not." and: "In my view the statement of Lord Morris is capable of two interpretations, on either of which the plaintiffs, on the pleaded facts, will not be defeated by the witness immunity rule. On the first interpretation his statement should not be read simply as saying that malicious arrest or malicious prosecution alone are exceptions to the witness immunity rule. His statement, in my view, supports a broader proposition that if the action is not brought simply in respect of evidence given or supplied but is brought in relation to some broader objective during the currency of which it may well be that evidence was given witness immunity should not apply."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Smyth v Behbehani, Behbehani and Philip Ross and Company (a Firm) Times, 09 April 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 954
11 Mar 1999
CA

Jurisdiction
The defendant appealed against a refusal of an order declining jurisdiction for forum non conveniens. Held: Though a court should be very careful to make any order in a matter which was being litigated in a foreign jurisdiction for fear of being party to procedural manipulation, it could do so where the making of the order would assist both parties.
[ Bailii ]
 
Carver (Nee Mascarenhas) v Saudi Arabian Airlines Times, 24 March 1999; Gazette, 27 June 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1002; [1999] ICR 991
17 Mar 1999
CA
Mantell LJ, Beldam LJ and Ward LJ
Employment, Jurisdiction, Discrimination
The applicant was recruited in Saudi Arabia in 1986 as a flight attendant under a contract expressed to be subject to Saudi Arabian law. After being trained in Jeddah, and then employed in India for four years, she was transferred to be based in London, from which all her tours of duty as a flight attendant thereafter commenced, and at which they ended. She complained of unfair dismissal and of sex discrimination. Held: By reference to the relevant test at the time for the jurisdiction of UK tribunals in relation to unfair dismissal, she did not ordinarily work in Great Britain. So far as concerned the sex discrimination claim, the applicant's appeal was allowed to the extent that the issue was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal to determine where the applicant wholly or mainly did her work at the relevant time. When a tribunal has to decide where an employee 'ordinarily works', the tribunal must look to the entire period of the contract, and not to some smaller, artificial, part. A contract begun and substantially worked in Jeddah was not subject to UK law. As to the term 'ordinarily': "Here the position was quite different. The Tribunal had to consider where at the time of the alleged discrimination the appellant was "wholly or mainly" working [our underlining]. See Haughton v Olau Line (UK) Ltd [1986] ICR 357 in the Court of Appeal. However, the tribunal decided jurisdiction on where the applicant was ordinarily working. That was impermissible. Insofar as the tribunal purported to make a finding of fact as to where the applicant was wholly or mainly working, it seems to me that it did so without any evidential basis. The tribunal appears to have taken the monthly, minimum, flying time, namely 72 hours, required of the applicant and set it against a notional working week of 40 hours. By such a comparison it would seem that the applicant worked most of her time within Great Britain. But neither the 72 hours minimum flying time nor the notional 40-hour week had any relevance to the question which had to be determined. Consequently I would hold the finding to be without any foundation and as such to amount to an error of law. I would be minded therefore, to remit the question of jurisdiction under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to the tribunal, differently constituted, with a direction to determine the question of jurisdiction on the basis of where the applicant wholly or mainly did her work at the relevant time."
Employment Rights Act 1996 196
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Airbus Industrie G I E v Patel and Others; HL 18-Mar-1999 - Times, 06 April 1998; Gazette, 07 May 1998; [1998] UKHL 12; [1999] 1 AC 119; [1998] 2 All ER 257; [1998] 2 WLR 686
 
Baghlaf Al Zafer Factory Company Br for Industry Limited v Pakistan National Shipping Company and Pakistan National Shipping Corporation [1999] EWCA Civ 1034
19 Mar 1999
CA

Jurisdiction

[ Bailii ]
 
Frans Maas Logistics (UK) Ltd v CDR Trucking BV [1999] 1 All ER (Comm); [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep 179
23 Mar 1999
ComC
Colman J
Jurisdiction
CMR Convention: Articles 31(2) and 36 - relating on jurisdiction. Brussels Convention: Article 57. Applicability in cases covered by the CMR convention.
Article 31.2 of CMR to be limited to proceedings brought by same claimant against the same defendant, and that, on that basis, the lis pendens provisions of articles 21 and 22 of the Brussels Convention should be applied to preclude a mirror image claim in England raising the same issues, but with the parties' positions as claimant and defendant reversed, to those raised in prior Dutch proceedings.
A claim for a negative declaration could not give rise to a "pending" action within the meaning of article 31(2), and that in any event an action for a negative declaration and an action for substantive monetary relief were not "on the same grounds".
Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 31.1
1 Citers


 
Bourns Inc v Raychem Corporation; Latham and Watkins (a Firm) Times, 12 May 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1128; [1999] 3 All ER 154
30 Mar 1999
CA
Aldous LJ
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction
Documents disclosed in support an application in a costs taxation, remained subject to implied duties of confidence, and they could not be used for any other purpose, including to support litigation abroad. Where questions of US law arose, a US court was the best place to decide those questions. Legal privilege is not lost under English law because it cannot be claimed in another country: "To suggest otherwise would mean that a court, when deciding whether to uphold a claim for privilege, would need to be informed as to whether privilege could be claimed in all the countries of the world. . . The fact that under a foreign law the document is not privileged or that the privilege that existed is deemed to have been waived is irrelevant. The crucial consideration is whether the document and its information remain confidential in the sense that it is not properly available for use. If it is, then privilege in this country can be claimed and that claim, if properly made, will be enforced."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Haji-Ioannou and Others v Frangos and Others [1999] 2 Lloyds Rep 337; [1999] EWCA Civ 1148
31 Mar 1999
CA
Brooke, Chadwick LJJ
Jurisdiction

[ Bailii ]

 
 Turner v Grovit and Others; ChD 15-Apr-1999 - Times, 15 April 1999
 
John Pfeiffer Pty Limited v Rogerson [2000] HCA 36; (2000) 203 CLR 503
16 Apr 1999
HCA

Commonwealth, Jurisdiction, Torts - Other
(High Court of Australia) The double actionability rule should be discarded with regard to claims brought in an Australian court in respect of a civil wrong arising out of acts or omissions that occurred wholly within one or more of the law areas of the Commonwealth of Australia.
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Mietz v Intership Yachting Sneek BV C-99/96; [1999] EUECJ C-99/96
27 Apr 1999
ECJ
GC Rodriguez Iglesias, P
Jurisdiction
ECJ Brussels Convention - Concept of provisional measures - Construction and delivery of a motor yacht
[ Bailii ]
 
Chadha and Osicom Technologies Inc v Dow Jones and Co Inc Times, 18 May 1999; Gazette, 09 June 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1415; [2000] 1 WLR 1004
14 May 1999
CA
Roch LJ Otton Pill LJJ
Defamation, Jurisdiction
All the parties were resident in the United States. The alleged libel consisted in an article published in an American magazine. The total sales of the edition in question were 294,346 of which 283,520 were sold in the United States, 408 were sent to subscribers in the United Kingdom and 849 were sold at news stands here. Where a libel had been published abroad, a plaintiff had a duty first to show that there was a sufficient publication here, and where both plaintiff and defendant are non-resident, he must also show a reputation here capable of being damaged, before being given leave to issue and serve out of the jurisdiction. Returning to the judgment of Popplewell J he said: 'This being a case where both plaintiff and defendant are outside the jurisdiction I am wholly unpersuaded that there is any presumption in favour of the plaintiff or that the authorities as to where a cause of action arises are of any assistance in the instant case.' In my judgment there is nothing objectionable in that way of stating the law in this particular case. Here the appellants and the respondents were and are outside the jurisdiction and consequently it was for the appellants to show that they had sufficient connections with this country and a reputation to protect in this country."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Winter Maritime Ltd v North End Oil Ltd [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 298
28 May 1999
ComC
Thomas J
Jurisdiction
ComC Brussels Convention - Belgian proceedings to arrest - provisional measures under Article 24 - whether proceedings determinative - whether proceedings in Belgium and England & Wales involved same cause of action. Ability of Owners to commence proceedings in England and Wales for the wrongful arrest of vessels in Belgium. Question of whether proceedings purely in Belgium - Articles 21 and 22 of Judgments Convention.


 
 Turner v Grovit and others; CA 28-May-1999 - Times, 16 June 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1532; [2000] 1 QB 345
 
Reichhold Norway ASA and Reichhold Chemicals Inc v Goldman Sachs International Times, 20 July 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1703; [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep 567; [2000] 2 All ER 679; [1999] 2 LLR 567; [1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 174; [2000] 1 WLR 173
28 Jun 1999
CA
Lord Bingham CJ
Arbitration, Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice, International
An application was made to stay proceedings to await the decision of a foreign court. At first instance, Moore-Bick J had held that a Court has an interest in deciding the order in which related proceedings should be tried "not only because the existence of concurrent proceedings may give rise to undesirable consequences in the form of inconsistent decisions, but also because the outcome of one set of proceedings may have an important effect on the conduct of the other" and the court may manage the order in which the proceedings are heard. Case management is appropriate even where the proceedings are taking place between different parties in different jurisdictions, but before an action which has been properly commenced here is stayed pending the outcome of proceedings between different persons in another jurisdiction is granted, the defendant must show "very strong reasons for doing so and the benefits which are likely to result from doing so clearly outweigh any disadvantage to the plaintiff" Held: The appeal failed. Counsel had accepted "that the grant of stays such as this would be a rarity, account always being taken of the legitimate interests of plaintiffs and the requirement that there should be no prejudice to plaintiffs beyond that which the interest of justice were thought to justify."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Trasporti Castelleti Spedizioni Internazionali SpA v Hugo Trumpy SpA Gazette, 30 June 1999; C-159/97
30 Jun 1999
ECJ

Jurisdiction
The conduct of parties with usage consistent with rules under the convention governing consent to jurisdiction, and where they ought to know of such rules, made such rules part of their contract. Such usage is determined by the trade practice rather than national or international law. A national court must look to such trade usage to see whether such a clause is imported.
Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1968) (Cmnd 7395) Art 17

 
SC Rolinay Sea Star SRL v Compania de Navigatie Maritimie Petromin SA (The Bumbesti) Times, 12 July 1999
12 Jul 1999
QBD

Jurisdiction
An award made by the Constanza Court of Arbitration of Romania could not be enforced in rem in the English courts against a ship here, since the award was not an agreement relating to the use of the hire of a ship within the section.
Supreme Court Act 1981 20(2)(h)

 
The Bumbesti Gazette, 14 July 1999
14 Jul 1999
QBD

Jurisdiction
An award made by the Constanza Court of Arbitration of Romania could not be enforced in rem in the English courts against a ship here, since the award was not an agreement relating to the use of the hire of a ship within the section.
Supreme Court Act 1981 20(2)(h)

 
UBS Ag v Omni Holding Ag [1999] EWHC 850 (Ch); [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 42; [2000] 1 WLR 916; [2000] BCC 593; [2000] ILPr 51; [2000] 2 BCLC 310
29 Jul 1999
ChD
Rimer J
Jurisdiction
The defendant requested a stay of the proceedings.
[ Bailii ]
 
National Justice Compania Naviera S A v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep 621
30 Jul 1999
ComC
Rix J
Jurisdiction
An application to make a non party liable for costs under section 51(1) Supreme Court Act 1981 is not a claim within Title II of the Brussels Convention, for it is an incidental part of the substantive proceedings already before the Court. It makes no difference that under the new rules CPR 48.2(1), the non-party must be added as a party for the purposes of costs only; there ought to be jurisdiction under order 11 to serve the new party out of jurisdiction.
1 Citers


 
Leathertex Divisions Sintetici Spa v Bodetex Bvba Times, 26 October 1999; C-420/97; [1999] EUECJ C-420/97
5 Oct 1999
ECJ

Jurisdiction, European
Where a court is seised of one case arising from a breach of contract arising within its own jurisdiction, it does not have power also to deal with a claim arising under the same contract but arising from a different breach occurring in a different jurisdiction. A plaintiff could bring all matters together by pursuing the defendant in that defendant's own jurisdiction of domicile.
Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 Art 5(1)
[ Bailii ]
 
Comninos v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (The Ikarian Reefer no 2) [1999] EWCA Civ 3019; [2000] 1 All ER 37; [1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 673; [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 129; [2000] 1 WLR 603; [2000] Lloyd's Rep IR 230; [2000] CLC 22; [2000] 1 Costs LR 37; [2000] CP Rep 13; [2000] ILPr 490
12 Oct 1999
CA
Simon Brown LJ, Waller LJ, Tuckey LJ
Litigation Practice, Costs, Jurisdiction
Mr Comninos challenged the jurisdiction of the court to have made an order for costs made against him.
Supreme Court Act 1981 51
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
National Justice Compania Naviera Sa v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (No 2) Gazette, 27 October 1999; Times, 15 October 1999; Gazette, 03 November 1999; [2000] 1 WLR 603; [2000] 1 All ER 37; [1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 673; [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 129; [2000] CP Rep 13; [2000] CLC 22; [2000] 1 Costs LR 37; [2000] IL Pr 490; [2000] Lloyd's Rep IR 230; (1999) 149 NLJ 1561; Independent, 20 October 1999; Independent, 22 November 1999
15 Oct 1999
CA

Jurisdiction, Costs
An English court does have power to order a non-resident non-party to contribute to the costs of a case, where that party was domiciled in a convention country. Here the third party was alleged to be the alter ego of the actual party. There was no requirement to have sued that third party first under any convention entered into by the UK.
Supreme Court Act 1981 51 - Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1968) (Cmnd 7395)
1 Cites


 
Youell v Kara Mara Shipping Company Ltd and others Times, 10 April 2000; [2000] CLC 1058; [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 102
29 Nov 1999
ComC
Longmore J
Jurisdiction, Insurance
The parties were in dispute arising from matters covered by an insurance policy which provided for the exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts in settling any such dispute. One party obtained judgment under the laws of Louisiana, and sought to enforce it here. The court refused to do so. The parties had been entitled to an anti-suit action against the action in Louisiana. The action there could only be judged after the court here had looked at jurisdiction. The exclusive jurisdiction clause precluded the validity of the judgment.
ComC Anti-Suit Injunction. Whether application to be heard pending challenge to English jurisdiction.
1 Citers


 
Raiffeisen Zentral Bank Osterreich AG v Tranos [2001] ILPr 9
7 Dec 1999
ComC
Longmore J
Jurisdiction
Brussels Convention - Tort - Misrepresentation - place where harmful event occurred - place where loss suffered - representation made and received in Greece - inducement of a contract made in England - Greece or England? Domicrest Ltd v Swiss Bank Corporation (1999) followed.

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