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: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 32 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Definitely Maybe (Touring) Ltd v Marek Lieberberg Konzertagentur GmbH [2001] All ER 283; [2001] 1 WLR 1745
2001
ComC
Morison J
Jurisdiction, Contract
The claimant supplied the services of the pop group Oasis to the defendant concert organisers for a concert in Germany. They sued for payment here, but the respondent said that proceedings should have been commenced in Germany. Held: The contract was made in Germany for services to be provided in Germany. The proper forum to hear the case was Germany.
Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations 1980 4(5)
1 Citers


 
Societe Eram Shipping Company Ltd. v Compagnie Internationale De Navigation and others [2001] EWHC 495 (Comm)
23 Jan 2001
ComC
Tomlinson J
Jurisdiction

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 4
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Alfred Dunhill Ltd v Diffusion Internationale De Maroquinerie De Prestige Sarl [2001] EWHC 2002 (QB); [2001] CLC 949; [2002] ILPr 1; [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 950
1 Feb 2001
QBD
Rokison QC J
Jurisdiction
The words of Article 5(3) are to be given an autonomous meaning and are not to be interpreted by reference to the definition of a cause of action under the particular national law concerned.
Brussels Convention 1968
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Casio Computer Co Ltd v Sayo and Others Times, 06 February 2001; Gazette, 08 February 2001
8 Feb 2001
CA

Jurisdiction, Equity, Banking
In a case alleging knowing assistance in the fraudulent transfer of funds through the banking system, acts forming part of the events had occurred within the jurisdiction. It was proper to join a defendant to the action here, even though he was resident in Spain. Under the Convention the defendants could be sued either in the jurisdiction of their residence or where any of the events giving rise to the tort occurred.
Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968
1 Citers



 
 Raffelsen Zentralbank Osterreich Ag v Five Star General Trading Llc and Others; CA 1-Mar-2001 - Times, 21 February 2001; Gazette, 01 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 68; [2001] CLC 84; [2001] 3 All ER 257; [2001] Lloyds Rep IR 460; [2001] 1 LLR 597; [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 597; [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 961; [2001] 2 WLR 1344; [2001] 1 QB 825
 
Caledonia Subsea Limited v Micoperi SRL Times, 06 September 2002; [2001] ScotCS 56
9 Mar 2001
SCS
The Lord President (Lord Cullen), Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and Lord Marnoch
Scotland, Jurisdiction, Contract
The parties disputed which court should have jurisdiction to hear their contract dispute. Held: There has been an ongoing difference in the interpretation of the Rome Convention as to the relative weight to be given to the place of business of the parties, and the place of performance of the contract. Should article 2 be displaced by article 5 where the place of performance differed from the normal place of business as allowed under article 5. The article 2 presumption should prevail unless the article 5 comparison which, unlike paragraph 2, might involve difficulty and uncertainty, demonstrated a clear balance in favour of another country.
Rome Convention applicable to the Law of Contractual Obligations 1980 2 4 5
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
United Film Distribution Limited; United Pictures (India) Exports Private Limited v Chhabria; Chhabria; Spark Entertainments Limited; Spark Media Limited; Fairdeal Exports Private Limited and Mathilda International SA Times, 05 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 416
28 Mar 2001
CA

Civil Procedure Rules, Jurisdiction
The court rules, which dealt with the grant of permission to serve documents out of the jurisdiction under rule 6.20(2), were no less wide than the power in the court with regard to the substitution, or addition, of parties under Rule 19.1(2). The change from the old court rules had not either narrowed the power.
Civil Procedure Rules
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Petroleo Brasilero Sa v Mellitus Shipping Inc; CA 29-Mar-2001 - Times, 05 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 418

 
 Dexter Ltd (In Administrative Receivership) v Harley; ChD 2-Apr-2001 - Times, 02 April 2001
 
Societe Eram Shipping Co Ltd v Compagnie Internationale De Navigation and others [2001] EWCA Civ 568
6 Apr 2001
CA

Jurisdiction

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Banca Carige Spa Cassa Di Risparmio Di Genova E Imperia v Banco Nacional De Cuba and Another [2001] EWHC 562 (Ch); [2001] 2 Lloyd's Rep 147; [2001] 2 BCLC 407; [2001] BPIR 407; [2001] Lloyd's Rep Bank 203; [2001] 1 WLR 2039; [2001] 3 All ER 923
11 Apr 2001
ChD
Lightman J
Insolvency, Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice
Application to discharge order declaring that leave was not needed for service of proceedings on the defendant out of the jurisdiction.
[ Bailii ]
 
Casio Computer Co Ltd v Sayo and others [2001] EWCA Civ 661
11 Apr 2001
CA
Pill LJ, Tuckey LJ, Arden LJ
Jurisdiction, Torts - Other
The court was asked whether a constructive trust claim based on dishonest assistance is a matter "relating to tort, delict or quasi delict" for the purpose of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention? Held: A constructive trust claim based upon dishonest assistance is within the scope of Article 5(3). The loss took place where the money was lost to the claimant in the banking system. The appeal failed. The judge's conclusion that Article 6(1) gives this Court jurisdiction over the claim against Kaiser in these proceedings was right.
Convention On Jurisdiction And The Enforcement Of Judgments 5
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
C Inc Plc v L and Another Times, 04 May 2001; [2001] 2 Lloyds Law Reports 459; [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 446
4 May 2001
QBD
Aikens J
Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice
The plaintiff had obtained judgment against L, only then to find that she claimed that all only apparent assets were held by her on trust for or as agent for her husband who was overseas. The plaintiff therefore now set out to add him, and to claim an asset freezing injunction against him. Held: The court had power to order the assets of that third party to be frozen, even though they were not a party to the action, and no judgment existed against them. The court also has power to order him to be joined as a party, rather than for proceedings to be issued against him. Even though judgment had been obtained, the parties remained in dispute as to the means of payment, and that dispute remained part of the original proceedings. The word 'proceedings' in rule 19(2) should be interpreted widely and extend to circumstances where judgment had been obtained but not yet satisfied. The rule did not require that the disputed issue should be as between the existing parties. The court had the power to join the third party. The purpose of an asset freezing order "remains the protection of assets so as to provide a fund to meet a judgment obtained by the claimant in the English Courts".
The court considered the effect of the decision in Cardile: "It seems to me that the High Court of Australia has stated that, in Australia, the assets of a third party can be frozen in aid of enforcing a pending or actual judgment, even where those assets are not beneficially owned by the actual or potential judgment debtor. The necessary precondition for power to make a freezing order over the third party's assets is that the actual or potential judgment creditor should have some legal right to get at the third party's funds. However, on my reading of the judgments, particularly pars. 57 and 121, the High Court of Australia is stating that there must be some casual link between the fact that the claimant has obtained a judgment against the principal defendant and thus has a legal right, as a consequence of the liability giving rise to the judgment, to go against the assets of the third party. I will delay deciding whether English law permits the exercise of the freezing order jurisdiction where there is such a casual link until I have considered the remaining two factors I have identified. "
and "If there is a claim for substantive relief by A against B (whether or not in the English Court), or A has obtained a judgment against B (in the English Court), then the English Court can grant a freezing order against the assets of C. But, generally, it must be arguable that those assets, even if in C's name, are, in fact, beneficially owned by B.
The crucial question is whether the Court can go one stage further. Does it have the power to grant a freezing order against the assets of C when: (i) A has a substantive right against B (e.g. in the form of a judgment); (ii) the assets of C are not, even arguably, beneficially owned by B. The answer, to my mind, depends on how one interprets the phrases 'ancillary' and 'incidental to and dependent upon' used by Lords Browne-Wilkinson and Mustill in the Channel Tunnel case. In the Cardile case the High Court of Australia has, effectively, given those phrases a broad interpretation. But, critically, the High Court of Australia held that the right of A to a freezing order against C is dependent upon A having a right against B and that right itself giving rise to a right that B can exercise against C and its assets. Therefore the freezing order sought by A against C is 'incidental to' A's substantive right against B and it is also 'dependent upon' that right."
Civil Procedure Rules 19.4(2)(a), 6.30(2), 6.20(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
National Westminster Bank v Utrecht-America Finance Company [2001] EWCA Civ 658; [2001] 3 All ER 733
10 May 2001
CA
Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Clarke, And Lord Justice Laws
Banking, Jurisdiction, Contract
An agreement between the parties for assignment or novation of a credit agreement, contained a 'take out' agreement ('TOA'). The defendant began proceedings in California to rescind the agreement, and the claimants obtained summary judgement under the TOA and an injunction to prevent the defendants proceeding in California. The defendants appealed. There were allegations of the withholding of information which would be treated differently in the two courts. Held: If the agent had no obligation to disclose anything, his failure to do so could not be characterised as fraudulent or negligent, whatever his motives may have been. The agreement gave explicit preference to English law. The clause specifying what was to be disclosed was neither unfair nor unreasonable. The injunction was correctly granted.
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 2(2) - Misrepresentation Act 1967 3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
L G Caltex Gas Co Ltd v National Petroleum Corporation and Another [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 97; [2001] EWCA Civ 788; [2001] CLC 1392; [2001] BLR 325; [2001] 4 All ER 875; (2001) 3 TCLR 22; [2001] 1 WLR 1892
15 May 2001
CA
Lord Phillips MR, Pill, Keene LJJ
Jurisdiction, Arbitration
Section 67(1)(a) applies both when a tribunal finds that it has jurisdiction and also when it declines jurisdiction. The respondent said that an informal agreement with the claiant to allow jurisdiction was limited to certain issues only. While an arbitral tribunal is entitled to determine whether it has jurisdiction, its decision on that issue is not binding on the parties.
Arbitration Act 1996 67 73
[ Bailii ]
 
Maimann v Maimann [2001] EWCA Civ 1132
27 Jun 2001
CA
Kennedy, Chadwick LJJ
Jurisdiction

Lugano Convention 17
[ Bailii ]
 
Kenburn Waste Management Ltd v Bergmann Times, 09 July 2001
9 Jul 2001
ChD

Jurisdiction
By a contract, a party accepted an obligation not to contact persons in a certain country. When a breach was alleged, the question arose as to in which jurisdiction the breach had occurred. It was held that the obligation was a negative obligation and although it appeared to fall upon the person who agreed to it, in fact any breach would occur in the country where the person contacted was situated. The result of this was that although the defendant lived in Germany, the place of effective or characteristic performance was in the UK, and it was under the convention more closely lined to the UK and could be tried here. The proviso in the later subsection applied.
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 - Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 Art 4(2) 4(5)


 
 Phillips and Another v Robin James Symes and Robin Symes Ltd; ChD 9-Jul-2001 - Gazette, 06 September 2001; Times, 02 October 2001; [2001] EWHC Ch 395
 
Bay Hotel and Resort Limited and Zurich Indemnity Company of Canada v Cavalier Construction Co Ltd and Cavalier Construction Co Ltd [2001] UKPC 34; Appeal No 32 0f 2000
16 Jul 2001
PC
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett
Arbitration, Construction, Contract, Jurisdiction, Commonwealth
(Turks and Caicos Islands) A dispute after a construction contract was under standard terms according to the laws of Turks and Caicos islands. Two issues were appealed. What was a 'reasoned award' within the scheme, and whether the arbitrator could himself add a party to the arbitration. The substantive rather than procedural law of the country where the arbitration was carried out need not be that of the contract. The dispute properly fell to be arbitrated under the standard AAA terms, which provided that both the procedural and jurisdictional law to be applied would be that of the Islands. Though the award was insufficiently detailed to constitute a reasoned decision in English law, the evidence was that it would satisfy the requirements of the law under which it was issued. The clause regarding joinder was one restricting a power which must be derived elsewhere. There was no such power in this case, and the arbitrator was unable to join the other company without the consent of the other parties to the dispute.
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]

 
 Aeolian Shipping SA v ISS Machinery Services Ltd; CA 20-Jul-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1162

 
 Aoot Kalmneft v Glencore International Ag and Another; ComC 27-Jul-2001 - [2001] EWHC 464 (Comm)

 
 Societe Eram Shipping Company Ltd v Compagnie International De Navigation and Others; CA 7-Aug-2001 - Gazette, 20 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1317; [2001] All ER (Comm) 721; [2001] 2 Lloyd's Rep 627; [2002] CLC 60; [2001] 2 LLR 627; [2001] CP Rep 112
 
IFR Ltd v Federal Trade Spa [2001] EWHC 519 (Comm)
19 Sep 2001
ComC
Colman J
Jurisdiction

[ Bailii ]

 
 Knauf UK GmbH v British Gypsum Ltd and Another; CA 24-Oct-2001 - Times, 15 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1570; [2002] 1 WLR 907
 
Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin [2001] EWHC 512 (Comm)
21 Nov 2001
ComC
Moore-Bick J
Financial Services, Jurisdiction

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Union Discount Company Ltd v Robert Zoller and Others, Union Cal Ltd Times, 10 December 2001; Gazette, 17 January 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1755; [2002] 1 WLR 1517; [2002] CLC 314; [2002] 1 All ER 693
21 Nov 2001
CA
Lord Phillips MR, Lord Justice Schiemann, And, Lord Justice May
Jurisdiction, Costs, Damages
The claimant had incurred costs in defending an action brought by the respondents in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. They appealed a judgement against them. Held: The claim for the costs must succeed. The jurisdiction in which the claim had been brought was one which did not award costs save exceptionally. That rule did not apply in the jurisdiction agreed for, and the claim would put the claimant in the position he would have been in had the other followed the contract.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Black v Sumitomo Corporation [2003] 3 All ER 643; [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 693; [2002] CPLR 148; [2002] 1 LLR 693; Times, 25 January 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1819; [2002] 1 WLR 1562
3 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice May, And, Lord Justice Rix
Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimants proposed pre-action discovery which was resisted. Held: A purpose of pre-action disclosure is to assist those who need disclosure as a vital step in deciding whether to litigate at all or to provide a vital ingredient in the pleading of their case. The rules required first that disclosure would be desirable in the interest of justice, and second that such an order would be fair to the parties if litigation was commenced, or would assist the parties to avoid litigation, or to save costs in any event. It was necessary not to confuse the jurisdictional and the discretionary aspects. There were two stages which may be hard to differentiate fully, but that may not be entirely necessary if they were satisfied. Rix LJ said: "In appropriate circumstances, where the jurisdictional thresholds have been crossed, the court might be entitled to take the view that transparency would be what the interests of justice and proportionality most required".
Civil Procedure Rules 31.16(3)(d)
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Donohue v Armco Inc and others; HL 13-Dec-2001 - [2001] UKHL 64; [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 425; [2002] CLC 440; [2002] 1 All ER 749; [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 97
 
BFC Aircraft Sales and Leasing Ltd v Ages Group Plc Unreported, 14 December 2001
14 Dec 2001

Morison J
Jurisdiction
The court will assume that by expressly choosing English law in a contract, the parties were indicating at least a preference to litigate in England: "The choice of the applicable law is, clearly, not so strong a feature as a choice of jurisdiction clause, but it may be, and in this case is, I think a strong indication of an expectation that England will be the forum for the trial of the parties' disputes …"
1 Citers


 
Brotherton and others v Aseguradora Colseguros Sa and Another [2001] EWHC 498 (Comm)
18 Dec 2001
ComC

Jurisdiction, Insurance

[ Bailii ]
 
Konamaneni v Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Limited Times, 31 January 2002; [2001] EWHC Ch 470; [2002] 1 WLR 1269
20 Dec 2001
ChD
Justice Lawrence Collins
Jurisdiction, Company, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimants founded their action on the assertion that the defendants had been corrupt in obtaining contracts in India. The defendants argued that the English courts had no jurisdiction. The claimants held various small shareholdings in a company used as a vehicle for paying bribes, and sought return of the money paid. It was a derivative action. Held: The company should normally be claimant in such an action. Such claims need not be restricted to English companies, and the English courts were the appropriate lex fori for this claim, but only if there was no other appropriate forum. The parties could offer to submit to Indian jurisdiction, and the defendant had done so. The courts of the place of incorporation will almost invariably be the appropriate forum for issues which relate to the existence of the right of shareholders to sue on behalf of the company. Most of the witnesses would be in India. The Indian connections of this case were overwhelming.
Civil Procedure Rules 19.9 6.21 2(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Land Rover Exports Limited v Samcrete Egypt Engineers and Contractors S A E [2001] EWCA Civ 2019
21 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe, And, Lord Justice Potter
Jurisdiction
The defendant appealed an order refusing a stay of the proceedings on the grounds of forum non conveniens. The contract of guarantee contained no choice of law clause, but the contract under which it was made set English law as the jurisdiction. The clause had been deleted from the guarantee contract, and the subject mater of the contract was in Egypt. Held: the convention should be read in a purposive not literal way. The presumption under the convention can be most easily rebutted where the place of performance differs from the location of the party whose performance is characteristic of the contract. Article 3 did not choose jurisdiction in the case, and the judge had given too much weight to the main contract. Nevertheless there remained a sufficient preponderance of connection to refuse the stay of action in England.
Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 4.2 - Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 Sch 1
1 Cites

1 Citers

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