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: 2003 To: 2003
This page lists 39 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Network Telecom (Europe) Ltd v Telephone Systems International Inc [2003] EWHC 2890 (QB)
2003
QBD
Burton J
Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice
Burton J said: "Inasmuch as the application is made ex parte, full and fair disclosure is necessary, as in all ex parte applications, and the failure to make such full and fair disclosure shall justify the court in discharging the order, even though the party might afterwards be in a position to make another application." It made no difference that the Master took the view that he had not been materially misled.
1 Citers
Import Export Metro Ltd and Another v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores S A [2003] EWHC 11 (Comm); [2003] 1 Lloyds Rep 405
23 Jan 2003
ComC
Jurisdiction, Contract
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Insured Financial Structures Ltd v Elektrocleplownia Tychy SA Times, 31 January 2003
28 Jan 2003
CA
Woolf LCJ, Hale, Latham LJJ
Jurisdiction, Contract
The parties to a contract had agreed that Poland should have non-exclusive jurisdiction over disputes. Poland was not a party to the Lugano Convention, but both parties were domiciled in contracting states. Held: The agreement had extended exclusive jurisdiction to the Polish courts through article 17 of the Convention. The agreement must first be interpreted against English law as against the Convention, following Kurtz
Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 17(1)
1 Cites
Anton Durbeck GmbH v Den Norske Bank ASA Times, 06 February 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 147
3 Feb 2003
CA
Phillips of Worth Matravers, MR, Broke, Laws, LJJ
Jurisdiction
Claimant cargo owners sought to have decided in England, their dispute with the respondent. The respondent was domiciled in a country signatory to the Convention, and had offices here. Held: To establish jurisdiction for the English courts, the claimant had to show that there was a sufficient connection to say properly that the loss arose from operations at the branch office in England, but that was short of requiring it to be shown that the branch activities had led directly to the events the subject of the dispute. The words of article 5 should be given their natural meaning.
Lugano Covention 1988 5(5)
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Wermuth v Wermuth Times, 07 February 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 50; [2003] 1 WLR 942
4 Feb 2003
CA
Thorpe, Latham, LJJ, Lawrence Collins J
Family, Jurisdiction, European
The husband had commenced proceedings for divorce in Germany. The husband was German, and the wife became German upon the marriage, but they had lived in London. The wife was second to issue, beginning proceedings in London. The district judge recorded the parties' agreement that the German court should be seized, save of article 12 matters. The wife obtained an ancillary relief maintenance order, which the husband now appealed. Held: The maintenance order was an unwarranted invasion of the jurisdiction of the German court. It was not protective, and nor was the case urgent. Brussels II has no direct application to ancillary relief claims. It was wrong for an English court to seek to usurp the Convention. Substantial sums had been spent on legal costs unnecessarily in London.
Council Regulation No 1347/2000/EC (OJ 2000 L160/19) 12
[ Bailii ]
Brac Rent-A-Car International Inc Times, 24 February 2003; [2003] EWHC 114 (Ch); Gazette, 01 April 2003; [2003] 2 All ER 201
7 Feb 2003
ChD
The Hon Mr Justice Lloyd
Insolvency, Jurisdiction, Company, European
The company was incorporated in Delaware. Its main centre of business was within the UK. The company resisted an attempt to wind the company up here. Held: The English courts had jurisdiction. The company's contracts were subject to English law, their employees were here, and their contracts also were under UK law. Whilst article 3 did not expressly extend its ambit to companies incorporated outside the EU, it should be read to do so, because its scope was defined primarily by reference to the area of operations of the company, and such an application was not excluded.
Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 3 - Insolvency Act 1986 8(7)
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
King v Crown Energy Trading AG and another Times, 14 March 2003; [2003] EWHC 163 (Comm)
11 Feb 2003
ComC
Chambers QC
Company, Jurisdiction
The defendant, a company incorporated in Russia, sought to set aside proceedings served on it. The contract made the agreement subject to the laws of England and Wales, but the Convention made the jurisdiction clause unenforceable. Evidence conflicted as to the location of the principal place of business of the defendant. Held: A simple listing of those with important responsibilities within the company may be sufficient to identify its principal place of business within the Convention. Reiwa remained an important tool in establishing this. Here, the chairman, chief executive, chief financial officer, chief operating officer, and head of the risk department were in London, and the main committees met in London. The principal place of business was in London.
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 60 - Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 817
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Douglas, Zeta-Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Limited, Hola SA, Junco, The Marquesa De Varela, Neneta Overseas Limited, Ramey; CA 12-Feb-2003 - [2003] EWCA Civ 139; [2003] EMLR 585
Miles Platt Ltd v Townroe Ltd and Another [2003] EWCA Civ 145
13 Feb 2003
CA
Jurisdiction
Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968
[ Bailii ]
American Motorists Insurance Co (Amico) v Cellstar Corporation and another Gazette, 09 May 2003
4 Mar 2003
CA
Lords Justice Kennedy, Mantell and Mance
Insurance, Jurisdiction
The claimant, incorporated in Texas, took global transportation insurance with the first defendant, a Texan company, to cover its businesses in Europe. Proceedings began in England to avoid the global transportation insurance policy issued in Texas. The judge set aside service on one defendant and stayed the proceedings against the other, saying the contract was not governed by English law. The claimant contended on appeal that the contract covered risks in several countries and was severable so as to be governed by the law of each country where a company was situated. Held: Appeal dismissed The contract had significant composite elements and could not be regarded as severable into a series of contracts applying to individual companies in the group in order to invoke the law of the country where each was incorporated as the governing law of the contract; that where a contract failed to express its governing law, the 1982 and 1990 Acts provided alternative schemes, but each required an English court to act on the implied intention of the contracting parties as to the applicable law; both parties intended the insurance contract to be under Texan law.
Insurance Companies Act 1982 - Contract (Applicable Law) Act 1990
1 Cites
SMAY Investments Limited, Ajitabh Bachchan v Yogendra Sachdev, RMSP (Uk) Limited, Reliance Silicones (India) Private Limited, Manasvi Investments Private Limited Times, 01 April 2003; Gazette, 15 May 2003
14 Mar 2003
ChD
The Honourable Mr Justice Patten
Jurisdiction
The defendants sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the English courts. The claimants said that the fact they had appeared in Mareva proceedings, and applied to set aside leave to serve proceedings abroad, and checked the box indicating an intention to defend, had amounted to a waiver of their right to challenge jurisdiction. Held: To amount to such a waiver, conduct had to be unequivocal. None of the acts were such, and indeed the parties had specifically reserved their rights to challenge jurisdiction. The right had not been waived, and the correct forum was India, not England.
Staines v Walsh, Howard [2003] EWHC 458 (Ch)
14 Mar 2003
ChD
The Hon Mr Justice Goldring
Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules, Contract
The claimant sought an account from the defendant share broker for the proceeds of share transactions. The defendant said the matter should be tried in Hong Kong. Held: The claimant must show a good arguable case. Here there was evidence to support the claimant's assertion of the use of an address in England, and a case was therefore shown. There were clear English connections, and the contract was asserted to have been made in England. England was the forum conveniens.
Civil Procedure Rules 6.20 - Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 - Rome Convention 3
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
SMAY Investments Ltd and Another v Sachdev and others [2003] EWHC 474 (Ch); [2003] 1 WLR 1973
14 Mar 2003
ChD
Company, Contract, Jurisdiction
If conduct on the part of a defendant is to amount to a submission to jurisdiction that conduct must be unequivocal in nature.
[ Bailii ]
Dollfus Mieg et Cie v CWD International Ltd; LBJ Regents Ltd and another v Dolifus Mieg et Cie Times, 19 April 2003
17 Mar 2003
QBD
Havelock-Allan J
Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules, European
The applicant was a Part 20 defendant in a cross action brought between two other parties. It sought to have its own claim against the original claimant heard as a counterclaim. Held: Article 6 should not be construed so widely as to allow a cross claim by someone other than the original defendant to the counterclaim. The normal domicile rule could not support such a derogation.
Civil Procedure Rules 20 - Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 6(3)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Barnette v Government of the United States of America; United States Government v Montgomery (No 2) [2003] EWCA Civ 392; Times, 28 March 2003; Gazette, 05 June 2003; [2003] 1 WLR 1916
24 Mar 2003
CA
Lord Justice Scott Baker Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales Lord Justice Kennedy
Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Jurisdiction, International
The appellant sought to resist the registration here of a confiscation order made in the US. She argued it would be contrary to the interests of justice to register it, that the US procedure would be unlawful here under the Convention, the appeal having been held in her absence. Held: It could not be said that the registration here of the order would lead to a breach of the applicant's human rights. Any breach of the applicant's human rights in the US was not flagrant. English law itself allowed such a hearing in limited circumstances. The US proceedings were seen as civil. In the interests of comity, the order should be registered.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 97 - European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Lakah Group and Another v al-Jazeera Satellite Channel and Another Times, 18 April 2003
26 Mar 2003
QBD
Gray J
Jurisdiction, Defamation
The defendant sought an order that the defamation proceedings had been invalidly served. Held: The Rule introduced an additional code and alternative method of service, but not a comprehensive code. Establishing a place of business under section 695 connoted a greater degree of permanence than was required under the rules. However the rules still required that the respondent had a 'place of business' and service at a place with which the company had no more than a transient connection was insufficient. The claimant had not established that service had been effective.
Companies Act 1985 695 - Civil Procedure Rules 6
1 Citers
Regina (Majead) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Secretary of State for the Home Department Interested Party Times, 24 April 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 615; Gazette, 12 June 2003
1 Apr 2003
CA
Brooke, Hale, Wilson LJJ
Scotland, Jurisdiction, Immigration, Constitutional
The applicant had arrived in England to apply for asylum but had then been moved to Scotland. A decision of the adjudication officer in Scotland had been heard by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal sitting in London. The claimant sought a High Court review of that decision in London. Held: The review could only be conducted by the Court of Session. The considerations were not those of a private action as to forum conveniens, but had constitutional implications. Though some residual jurisdiction lay in London, this was not an exceptional case and was to be heard in Scotland. Parliament had made clear that the courts of Scotland should have ultimate responsibility in relation to appeals to the IAT from adjudicators in Scotland. Without deciding the point Brooke LJ noted that in a 'real emergency' the High Court might exercise jurisdiction over IAT decisions relating to appeals from adjudicators in Scotland but that would have to be a 'very exceptional case'.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Gantner Electronic GmbH v Basch Exploitatie Maatschappij BV; ECJ 8-May-2003 - C-111/01; Times, 14 May 2003; [2003] EUECJ C-111/01; [2003] ECR 1-4207
Ian Wight Michael Pilling Michael W Mackey v Eckhardt Marine GmbH [2003] UKPC 37; Times, 06 June 2003; [2004] 1 AC 147
14 May 2003
PC
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Nolan, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Scott of Foscote Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Commonwealth, Banking, Jurisdiction, Insolvency
(Cayman Islands) An international bank went into liquidation in the Cayman Islands, with liabilities in Bangladesh. A new bank was created in Bangladesh, and the applicants sought to make the new bank liable, and through them the liquidators. Held: The insolvency discharged the debts and the claimants had no case. The intention had been to isolate and preserve the Bangladeshi debts against the liquidation. The winding up order had had no effect on the respondent's debt, its situs or its proper law. It had been provable even though the lex situs and proper law were both in Bangladesh.
Lord Hoffmann said: "The winding up leaves the debts of the creditors untouched. It only effects the way in which they can be enforced. When the order is made, ordinary proceedings against the company are stayed . . The creditors are confined to a collective enforcement procedure that results in pari passu distribution of the company's assets. The winding up does not either create new substantive rights in the creditors or destroy the old ones. Their debts, if they are owing, remain debts throughout. They are discharged by the winding up only to the extent that they are paid out of dividends. But when the process of distribution is complete, there are no further assets against which they can be enforced. There is no equivalent of the discharge of a personal bankrupt which extinguishes his debt."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
Siboti K/S v Bp France S A [2003] EWHC 1278 (Comm)
11 Jun 2003
ComC
Jurisdiction, Transport
[ Bailii ]
Societe Eram Shipping Company Limited and others v Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Compagnie Internationale de Navigation Times, 13 June 2003; [2003] UKHL 30; Gazette, 17 July 2003; [2003] 3 WLR 21; [2003] 3 All ER 465; [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 405; [2003] ILPr 36; [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 65; [2004] 1 AC 260; [2003] 1 CLC 1163; [2003] 2 LLR 405
12 Jun 2003
HL
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett
Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules
The appeal concerned a final third party debt order (formerly a garnishee order). A judgment in France was registered here for enforcement. That jurisdiction was now challenged. Held: A third party debt order is a proprietary remedy operating by attachment against the property of the judgment debtor. The property so attached is the chose in action represented by the debt of the third party to the judgment debtor. On the making of the interim order that chose in action is bound, frozen, attached or charged in the hands of the third party. Subject to any monetary limit which may be specified in the order, the third party is not entitled to deal with that chose in action by making payment to the judgment debtor or any other party at his request. When a final or absolute order is made the third party is obliged (subject to any specified monetary limit) to make payment to the judgment creditor and not to the judgment debtor, but the debt of the third party to the judgment debtor is discharged pro tanto. That discharge is central to the jurisdiction, and an order cannot be made where a discharge is not obtained.
Lord Hoffmann said: "it is a general principle of international law that one sovereign state should not trespass upon the authority of another, by attempting to seize assets situated within the jurisdiction of the foreign state or compelling its citizens to do acts within its boundaries."
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 - Civil Procedure Rules 72
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others (No 2) [2003] EWCA Civ 752; Times, 19 June 2003; Gazette, 28 August 2003; [2004] 1 WLR 113
12 Jun 2003
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Potter And Lord Justice Tuckey
Jurisdiction, Contempt of Court
World-wide freezing orders had been made under the 1982 Act. The defendants were members of a Turkish family with substantial business interests in the telecommunications industry. In breach of orders made in the US some defendants had sought to hide their assets. They had failed to respond as required to orders to disclose their assest, and failed to attend for cross examination. Anti-suit orders had been made in Turkey. The question now arose as to whether they should be heard on appeal if they remained in contempt. Held: The court will hear a person in contempt when his application challenges the basis of the order of which he is in contempt. The original orders here bordered on the creative, and the challenge should be allowed. As to the validity of the orders, there was no fraud of the severity of Duvalier, and no question of comity arose. The judge's exercise of his discretion was to be revisited. Appeals allowed in part.
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 25 - Supreme Court Act 1981 37(1)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK and others v UBS AG, Qabazard [2003] UKHL 31; Times, 13 June 2003; Gazette, 17 July 2003; [2003] 3 All ER 501; [2004] 1 AC 300; [2003] ILPr 45; [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 101; [2003] 1 CLC 1206; [2003] 3 WLR 14
12 Jun 2003
HL
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett
Jurisdiction, Banking
Mr Qabazard conspired with others to defraud the Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK and Sitka Shipping Inc of large sums of money. On 16 November 1998 Moore-Bick J gave judgment against him for over US$130m. Historically sums had been placed with the defendant, and garnishee orders were sought. Held: It is not correct to characterise the garnishee or third party debt order as a claim in personam made against the third party in England. It is enforcement of the judgment in rem against the debt, which in this case was situated in Switzerland. The garnishee order was discharged.
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 3A
1 Cites
[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
AIC Limited v The Federal Government of Nigeria, the Attorney General of the Federation of Nigeria [2003] EWHC 1357 (QB)
13 Jun 2003
QBD
Stanley Burnton J
Jurisdiction, Banking, International
AIC had used the 1920 Act to register a judgment obtained in Nigeria against the Nigerian Government. The underlying matter was a commercial transaction. Nigeria applied to set the registration aside, saying that registration was an adjudicative act and that Nigeria was protected by state immunity by reason of section 1 of the 1978 Act. AIC argued that their application to register the judgment was a "proceeding relating to a commercial transaction" within section 3(1)(a). Held: The submissions was rejected: "In my judgment, the proceedings resulting from an application to register a judgment under the 1920 Act relate not to the transaction or transactions underlying the original judgment but to that judgment. The issues in such proceedings are concerned essentially with the question whether the original judgment was regular or not."
Section 9 of the 1978 Act excludes immunity "as respects proceedings . . which relate to [an] arbitration" where the state has entered into a written arbitration agreement. Since most arbitrations relate to commercial transactions, section 9 would be unnecessary if a claim in respect of an arbitration constituted a "proceeding relating to the commercial transaction" to which the arbitration related, for that would fall within 3(1)(a). It would also be illogical to exempt from immunity the enforcement of a judgment in relation to a commercial transaction, but not the enforcement of a judgment in relation to any of the other matters in respect of which the 1978 Act provided exceptions to immunity under sections 3 to 11 of the Act.
It was unsurprising that the defendants were immune from proceedings for the registration of the Nigerian judgment: "the underlying principle of the State Immunity Act is that a state is not immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom if it enters into commercial transactions or undertakes certain activities having some connection with this jurisdiction. Purely domestic activities of a foreign state are not the subject of any exception to immunity. Sections 3(1)(b), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 all contain territorial qualifications to the exceptions to immunity to which they relate. Section 3(1)(a) does not include any such qualification, but even there the claimant wishing to bring proceedings must establish a basis for jurisdiction under CPR Part 6.20, normally under paragraphs (5) or (6), relating to contractual claims."
Lord Denning MR when advancing the restrictive doctrine of state immunity in Rahimtoola v Nizam of Hyderabad [1958] AC 379, 422, in Thai-Europe Tapioca Service Ltd v Government of Pakistan, Directorate of Agricultural Supplies [1975] 1 WLR 1485, 1491 and in Trendtex Trading v Bank of Nigeria [1977] 1 QB 529, 558 had emphasised the significance not merely of the fact that the proceedings related to a commercial transaction, but that the transaction was connected with the United Kingdom.
Administration of Justice Act 1920 9
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
AIC Ltd v Federal Government of Nigeria [2003] EWHC 1357 (QB)
13 Jun 2003
QBD
Stanley Burnton J
Banking, Jurisdiction
The court was asked: "i. whether a judgment against a State may be registered under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1920 and enforced in this country; and
ii. whether moneys in a bank account of a central bank that is a separate legal entity, belonging beneficially to the government of its state, are liable to execution if those moneys are used or intended for use for commercial purposes." Held: Stanley Burnton J noted after referring to Alcom, that evidence of recent use of an account wholly for commercial purposes over a significant period of time may lead to the conclusion that the account is used or intended for use wholly for commercial purposes; but the older the use in evidence, the weaker the inference that may be drawn as to the use or intended use of the account. The focus is throughout on actual use. There was evidence that the relevant bank account had been dormant and said that, if an account was dormant for at least 18 months, it cannot be said to be presently used for any relevant purpose, and that the previous use was weak evidence of a present intention as to its use. The evidence was insufficient to disprove the statement in the Certificate.
Administration of Justice Act 1920 9
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Welex A G v Rosa Maritime Limited A3/02/2230; A3/02/2231; [2003] EWCA Civ 938
3 Jul 2003
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice May Lord Justice Tuckey
Transport, Jurisdiction
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Navigators Insurance Company and others v Atlantic Methanol Production Company Llc [2003] EWHC 1706 (Comm)
14 Jul 2003
ComC
Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice
[ Bailii ]
BAS Capital Funding Corporation, Deutsche Bank Ag London, Paine Webber Capital Inc, PW Exe Lp, Pw Partners 1999 Lp v Medfinco Limited, Abacus Holdings Limited, Andreas W Gerdes, HTC Inc, etc [2003] EWHC 1798 (Ch); [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep 652
25 Jul 2003
ChD
Lawrence Collins J
Jurisdiction, Company
The claimants wanted to bring actions in respect of various matters under shareholders agreements in complex international joint ventures. Leave was given to serve English proceedings in Malta, and the claim form and particulars of claim were faxed and emailed and delivered by hand at the registered offices of the company and at the private address of the owner and a director of the company. All these methods were ineffective as service under English law or Maltese law. The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the English court, referring to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. Proceedings had been begun in Malta. The respondents denied that serious and grave matters had been alleged so as to bring into play section 402. Held: The court set aside the order granting permission to serve the defendants out of the jurisdiction, except in relation to the alleged breach by the Company of the funding limits, and refused to grant the injunctions either in the wide form originally sought, or in the modified form suggested in correspondence.
Companies Act 1985 402
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Peer International Corporation Southern Music Publishing Company Inc Peermusic (Uk) Limited v Termidor Music Publishers Limited Termidor Musikverlag Gmbh and Co Kg -And-Editoria Musical De Cuba; CA 30-Jul-2003 - [2003] EWCA Civ 1156; Times, 11 September 2003; Gazette, 02 October 2003; [2004] 2 WLR 849; [2004] Ch 212
Man Nutzfahrzeuge Aktiengesellschaft and others v Freightliner Ltd and others [2003] EWHC 2245 (Comm)
7 Oct 2003
ComC
Torts - Other, Jurisdiction
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Heath Lambert Ltd v Sociedad De Corretaje De Seguros and Another [2003] EWHC 2269 (Comm)
14 Oct 2003
ComC
Insurance, Jurisdiction
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Limit (No 3) Ltd and others v PDV Insurance Company Ltd [2003] EWHC 2632 (Comm)
7 Nov 2003
QBD
The Hon Mr Justice Moore-Bick
Jurisdiction
When considering allowing proceedings here, the court must consider the the effect on related proceedings in another jurisdiction.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Mukta Gokaldas Hindocha (widow of C S Gheewala) and Others v Mahesh Shamjibhal Juthabhai Gheewala and Others [2003] UKHL 77
20 Nov 2003
PC
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Sir William Aldous
Commonwealth, Jurisdiction, Wills and Probate
PC (Jersey) The defendant sought a stay of the action, arguing it should be heard in another jurisdiction. He wanted the estate to be administered in Kenya, a jurisdiction which would apply Hindu laws of coparceny, but the substantial asset was in Jersey. Held: The Royal Court was right in its view that Kenya is clearly a more appropriate forum than Jersey for the trial of Mahesh's action, and that no compelling reason has been made out for rejecting Kenya on the ground that Mahesh (or any other party) cannot expect to obtain justice there.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
In re A (a Child) (Foreign contact order: Jurisdiction) Times, 10 December 2003; Gazette, 22 January 2004
2 Dec 2003
FD
Sumner J
Children, Jurisdiction
A Spanish court had given the mother permission to remove the child to England and for contact. That order had been made final in Spain. The father now sought here to amend it, and to enforce the contact element. Held: The Spanish proceedings had been concluded by the rejection of the father's appeal in Spain. The convention allowed that further proceddings might be appropriate where children are concerned. However the father could still apply to enforce the order here or to apply within the UK's own jurisdiction.
Harada Limited (T/A Chequepoint) v Turner [2003] EWCA Civ 1695
2 Dec 2003
CA
Lord Justice Mance, Lord Justice Mummerym Lord Justice Simon Brown
Employment, Jurisdiction
Applications for leave to appeal. The claimant had alleged unfair dismissal. The respondent denied jurisdiction.
Employment Rights Act 1996 196(2)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
BP International Limited v Energy Infrastructure Group Limited [2003] EWHC 2924 [COMM]
5 Dec 2003
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Morison
Jurisdiction
[ Bailii ]
Erich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl; ECJ 9-Dec-2003 - C-116/02; Times, 12 December 2003; [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep 222; [2003] EUECJ C-116/02; [2005] 1 QB 1; [2003] ECR I-14693; [2003] ECR 14; [2004] 3 WLR 1070; [2004] ILPr 7; [2005] All ER (EC) 517; [2005] 1 All ER (Comm) 538
Morin v Bonhams and Brooks Limited Bonhams and Brooks S A M [2003] EWCA Civ 1802; [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 880; [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep 702; [2004] ILPr 24
18 Dec 2003
CA
Lord Justice Keene Lord Justice Mance
Contract, Jurisdiction
The claimant had bought a vintage Ferrari motor car through the defendant auctioneers in Monaco but sought rescission after it appeared that the odometer had been altered. The auction conditions purported to exclude any description of the car. He appealed against refusal of a request for leave to serve the defendant outside the jurisdiction.
Mance LJ said: "As to English law, the judge also concluded, obiter, that Mr Morin had a reasonable prospect of showing that [B&B Monaco] owed him and were in breach of a duty of care, despite cll 3 and 27 of the conditions of sale. He distinguished statements of Morison J in De Balkany v Christie Manson & Woods Ltd (1997) 16 Tr LR 163 as obiter and as concerned with differently worded conditions. The present conditions are at pains to exclude any warranty or guarantee, and to refer to catalogue statements as matters of 'opinion'. But cl 3 is prefaced by the words 'Whilst every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of the description of each Lot in any Catalogue' and cl 27 says that the description and information in the catalogue 'are given for guidance'. It is a usual implication in relation to any expression of opinion by a professional person that due diligence has been exercised in preparing and expressing the opinion, and the opening words of cl 3 are entirely consistent with this".
Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
MRG (Japan) Ltd v Engelhard Metals Japan Ltd [2003] EWHC 3418 (Comm)
18 Dec 2003
ComC
Toulson J
Jurisdiction
Application to set aside leave to serve out of jurisdiction.There must a 'good arguable case' to justify such service.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]