SCF Finance Co Ltd v Masri (No 3): 1987

The court accepted that in a case where the garnishee was not indebted within the jurisdiction that might be relevant to the exercise of the court’s discretion. Since, in this case, the debt in question was an English debt, the court’s jurisdiction in relation to foreign debts did not fall for decision. The legislation has from the beginning stipulated that the third party or garnishee should be within the jurisdiction but not that the debt to be attached should be within the jurisdiction.


Slade and Ralph Gibson LJJ and Sir John Megaw


[1987] QB 1028


DistinguishedRichardson v Richardson KBD 1927
A bank owed debts to a judgment debtor customer on accounts held both in London and in Africa. It was accepted that the former were subject to a garnishee order. The dispute concerned the latter.
Held: The bank is no doubt indebted to the . .

Cited by:

ApprovedInterpool Ltd v Galani CA 1988
The debtor appealed against an order to answer questions and disclose documents relating to any debts owed to him or other property or means belonging to him outside the jurisdiction. The court looked at the examination of a judgment debtor under . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183543