(Isle of Man (Staff of Government Division)) The Board considered the possibility of extra-territorial jurisdiction over property.
Held: It should generally be expected that an order having the effect of transferring a real right of ownership will apply only in relation to property situated in the territory of the state where the order is made. Lord Mance said: ‘Their Lordships also note the existence of a more general principle. The actual transfer or disposition of property is, in principle, a matter for the legislature and courts of the jurisdiction where the property is situate (state A), and will be recognised accordingly by courts in any other state (state B) . . It follows from it, conversely, that in the unlikely event that the courts of state A were to purport actually to transfer or dispose of property in state B, the purported transfer or disposal should not be recognised as effective in courts outside state A.’
Judges:
Lord BinghamLord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, Lord Mance
Citations:
[2006] UKPC 51, [2007] 2 AC 85
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Perry and Others v Serious Organised Crime Agency SC 25-Jul-2012
The first appellant had been convicted of substantial frauds in Israel. He appealed against world wide asset freezing (PFO) and disclosure (DO) orders made against him. Neither the appellant, nor his offences were connected with the UK. A bank . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.247458