Site icon swarb.co.uk

Martin v Nadel: CA 17 May 1906

A garnishee order was sought in England against the London branch of a German bank to attach a balance owed to the judgment debtor by the Berlin branch of the bank.
Held: A garnishee order is of the nature of an execution, and is governed by the lex fori; and by international law an execution which has been carried into effect in a foreign country under foreign law, and has taken away part of a man’s property, is not recognised as binding. Under the rules of international law the Bank could not set up, in an action in Berlin, the execution levied in this country in respect to this debt. If we consider the converse case it is clear that we should take that view of a similar transaction occurring abroad. An absolute order was refused because the garnishee bank was at risk of having to pay twice and the making of an order in such circumstances was ‘inequitable’ and ‘contrary to natural justice’. ‘On the facts of this case the debt of the bank to Nadel would be properly recoverable in Germany. That being so, it must be taken that the order of this Court would not protect the bank from being called on to pay the debt a second time.’

Judges:

Stirling LJ, Vaughan Williams LJ

Citations:

[1906] 2 KB 26, [1906] UKLawRpKQB 68

Links:

Commonloii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedEllis v M’Henry CCP 1871
A debt or liability arising in any country may be discharged by the laws of that country, and such a discharge, if it extinguishes the debt or liability, and does not merely interfere with the remedies or course of procedure to enforce it, will be . .

Cited by:

CitedSociete Eram Shipping Company Limited and others v Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Compagnie Internationale de Navigation HL 12-Jun-2003
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 . .
DistinguishedSwiss Bank Corporation v Boehmische Industrial Bank CA 1923
A debt to be garnisheed was situated in England.
Held: ‘If the debt is situate, or in other words if it is properly recoverable, in this country, then it would be discharged by payment under an order of our Courts and the garnishee need have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Banking, Jurisdiction

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.183540

Exit mobile version