Although the court had previously decided to hear a multi-party case here, rather than in South Africa, the failure to disclose an impending group action was sufficient to transform the case leaving South Africa as clearly the most appropriate forum for the case, and to stay the actions commenced here. The House upheld the general principle that an available forum must be one in which the plaintiff can sue as of right, but treated an undertaking to submit to the alternative jurisdiction (in that case, an undertaking by the English holding company to submit to the jurisdiction of the South African court) as sufficient to show that the forum is available even though given after the application for a stay.
Citations:
Times 03-Dec-1999, Gazette 17-Dec-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 2107
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See also – Lubbe and Others v Cape Plc CA 30-Jul-1998
. .
Appealed to – Lubbe (Suing As Administrator Of The Estate Of Rachel Jacoba Lubbe) and 4 Others v Cape plc and Related Appeals HL 22-Jun-2000
South African asbestosis victims suing in England submitted that to stay their proceedings in favour of the South African forum would violate their article 6 rights. A stay was refused on the non-Convention ground that, because of the lack of . .
Cited by:
See also – Lubbe and Others v Cape Plc CA 30-Jul-1998
. .
Appeal from – Lubbe (Suing As Administrator Of The Estate Of Rachel Jacoba Lubbe) and 4 Others v Cape plc and Related Appeals HL 22-Jun-2000
South African asbestosis victims suing in England submitted that to stay their proceedings in favour of the South African forum would violate their article 6 rights. A stay was refused on the non-Convention ground that, because of the lack of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, International
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147022