The court considered the rule of double actionability. The court laid down the test for whether a tort committed abroad was actionable in this jurisdiction: ‘As a general rule, in order to found a suit in England for a wrong alleged to have been committed abroad, two conditions must be fulfilled. First, the wrong must be of such a character that it would have been actionable if committed in England . . Secondly, the act must not have been justifiable by the law of the place where it was done.’ Hoeever: ‘the law is clear that, if the foreign law touches only the remedy or procedure for enforcing the obligation . . such law is no bar to an action in this country.’
Willes J
(1870) LR 6 QB 1 28, (1870) 40 LJQB 28, 22 LT 869, 10 B and S 1004, [1870] JMSCPCSteph 5
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Huber v Steiner 1835
An action was brought in 1835 on a French promissory note made in 1813 and payable in 1817. The defendant pleaded that by French law an action upon the note was prescribed.
Held: On its true construction, French law did not extinguish the debt . .
Cited by:
Cited – Ellis 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 – Harding v Wealands CA 17-Dec-2004
The claimant sought damages here for a road traffic accident which had occurred in Australia. The defendant was working in England. The defendant argued that the law of New South Wales applied.
Held: The general rule in section 11 was not to . .
Cited – Harding v Wealands HL 5-Jul-2006
Claim in UK for Accident in Australia
The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
Held: . .
Cited – Bancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.183535