Re International Tin Council: ChD 1987

An order for the winding up of a foreign company operates universally, applies to all the foreign company’s assets and brings into play the full panoply of powers and duties under the Insolvency Act 1986 like any other winding up order. Millett J said: ‘The statutory trusts extend to [foreign] assets, and so does the statutory obligation to collect and realise them and to deal with their proceeds in accordance with the statutory scheme.’
The court said that it was to ask the question, ‘Could Parliament reasonably have intended that the International Tin Council should be subject to the winding-up process of the UK insolvency legislation?’
Millet J said of the nature of corporate insolvency: ‘Although a winding up in the country of incorporation will normally be given extra-territorial effect, a winding up elsewhere has only local operation. In the case of a foreign company, therefore, the fact that other countries, in accordance with their own rules of private international law, may not recognise our winding up order or the title of a liquidator appointed by our courts, necessarily imposes practical limitations on the consequences of the order. But in theory the effect of the order is world-wide. The statutory trusts which it brings into operation are imposed on all the company’s assets wherever situate, within and beyond the jurisdiction. Where the company is simultaneously being wound up in the country of its incorporation, the English court will naturally seek to avoid unnecessary conflict, and so far as possible to ensure that the English winding up is conducted as ancillary to the principal liquidation. In a proper case, it may authorise the liquidator to refrain from seeking to recover assets situate beyond the jurisdiction, thereby protecting him from any complaint that he has been derelict in his duty. But the statutory trusts extend to such assets, and so does the statutory obligation to collect and realise them and to deal with their proceeds in accordance with the statutory scheme.’

Millet J
[1987] Ch 419, [1987] 2 WLR 1229, [1987] 1 All ER 890
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoMaclaine Watson and Co Ltd v International Tin Council ChD 1987
Millett J said: ‘The ITC contend there is no jurisdiction to make such an order [an order for discovery of assets] in the absence of a Mareva injunction. It is, however, fallacious to reason from the fact that an order for discovery can be made as . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromRe International Tin Council CA 1989
Creditors sought to treat the International Tin Council as an ‘association’ for the purposes of a provision under the Companies Act 1985 allowing for unregistered companies to be wound up.
Held: The decision in Re a Company was binding. The . .
CitedHackney v Side By Side (Kids) Ltd QBD 14-Jul-2003
The defendant sought a stay of a warrant for possession. It had submitted to an order for possession by consent in return for a promise of alternative accomodation. They sought a stay under section 89, saying that the claimant had not complied with . .
CitedMcGrath and Honey v McMahon and Others, Re HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd and others CA 9-Jun-2006
The insurance company was to be wound up. It operated internationally but was registered in Australia. The Australian liquidator now sought an order for the transfer of assets held here to Australia.
Held: It was inevitable that cross border . .
CitedMcGrath and others v Riddell and others HL 9-Apr-2008
(Orse In Re HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd)
HIH, an Australian Insurance company, became insolvent. An order was sought for the collection and remission of it assets in England under a letter of request from the Australia Court.
CitedBilta (UK) Ltd and Others v Nazir and Others ChD 30-Jul-2012
The company was said to have engaged in a fraud based on false European Trading Scheme Allowances, and had been wound up by the Revenue. The liquidators, in the company name, now sought recovery from former directors and associates.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Insolvency, Jurisdiction

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.185746

Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak, Yong Joon Kim and, Lee Kui Jak (F): PC 14 May 1987

Brunei Darussalam – The Board was asked where a civil claim should be tried.
Held: The court stated some principles governing the grant of anti-suit injunctions restraining foreign proceedings. The inconvenience of a forum is of itself not a sufficient justification for the grant of injunctive relief. The mere fact that the English court refused a stay of English proceedings on the grounds of forum non conveniens did not itself justify the grant of an injunction to restrain foreign proceedings. In this case the defendant’s vexatious conduct was taken into account.
When an English court makes a restraining order, it is making an order which is addressed only to a party which is before it. The order is not directed against the foreign court. ‘An injunction will only be issued restraining a party who is amenable to the jurisdiction of the court, against whom an injunction will be an effective remedy’ The jurisdiction derives from ‘the basic principle of justice.’
Lord Goff set out the following test: ‘In the opinion of their Lordships, in a case such as the present where remedy for a particular wrong is available both in the English (or, as here, the Brunei) court and in a foreign court, the English or Brunei Court will, generally speaking, only restrain the plaintiff from pursuing proceedings in the foreign court if such pursuit would be vexatious or oppressive. This presupposes that, as a general rule, the English or Brunei Court must conclude that it provides the natural forum for the trial of the action; and further, since the Court is concerned with the ends of justice, that account must be taken not only of injustice to the defendant if the plaintiff is allowed to pursue the foreign proceedings, but also of injustice to the plaintiff if he is not allowed to do so. So the Court will not grant an injunction if, by doing so, it will deprive the plaintiff of advantages in the foreign forum of which it would be unjust to deprive him.’
Otherwise: SNI Aerospatiale v Lee

Keith of Kinkel, Griffiths, Mackay of Clashfern, Goff of Chieveley LL, Sir John Megaw
[1987] 1 AC 871, [1987] UKPC 12
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedNational Westminster Bank v Utrecht-America Finance Company CA 10-May-2001
An agreement between the parties for assignment or novation of a credit agreement, contained a ‘take out’ agreement (‘TOA’). The defendant began proceedings in California to rescind the agreement, and the claimants obtained summary judgement under . .
CitedTurner v Grovit and others HL 13-Dec-2001
The applicant was a solicitor employed by a company in Belgium. He later resigned claiming unfair dismissal, saying he had been pressed to become involved in unlawful activities. The defendants sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the English . .
CitedFort Dodge Animal Health Ltd v Akzo Nobel Nv CA 27-Oct-1997
(Patents) ‘The United Kingdom courts have jurisdiction to prevent vexation and oppression by persons subject to their jurisdiction. In particular, the courts are entitled to prevent persons domiciled in this country from being submitted to vexatious . .
CitedAirbus Industrie G I E v Patel and Others HL 18-Mar-1999
An Indian Airlines Airbus A-320 crashed at Bangalore airport after an internal Indian flight. The plaintiff passengers lived in England. Proceedings began in Bangalore against the airline and the airport authority. The natural forum was the . .
CitedAl-Bassam v Al-Bassam CA 1-Jul-2004
The claimant sought administration of her husband’s estate according to his domicile in England. The defendant claimed the estate under Islamic law, and that there had been no marriage, and that he had been domiciled in Saudi Arabia.
Held: The . .
CitedOT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corporation and others CA 13-Jun-2005
The parties to a contract had agreed that the proper law for the contract was England. One party commenced proceedings in Canada, and the courts of Canada had accepted jurisdiction as the most appropriate and convenient forum to resolve the dispute. . .
CitedHarms Offshore AHT Taurus Gmbh and Co KG v Bloom and Others CA 26-Jun-2009
The court had granted to the liquidators of a company a mandatory injunction requiring the appellant German companies to attempt to obtain the release of assets from attachment by the court in new York.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.443457

Cordoba Shipping Co Ltd v National State Bank, Elizabeth, New Jersey (The Albaforth): CA 1984

A negligent misrepresentation was made in a telex sent from the United States but received and acted upon in England. The judge had set aside leave to serve the document out of the jurisdiction.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The transmission was a tort committed within the jurisdiction within the meaning of Order 11 rule 1(1)(h).
Robert Goff LJ said: ‘If the substance of the alleged tort is committed within a certain jurisdiction, it is not easy to imagine what other fact could displace the conclusion that the courts of that jurisdiction are the natural forum’ and
”Now it follows from those decisions that, where it is held that a Court has jurisdiction on the basis that an alleged tort has been committed within the jurisdiction of the Court, the test which has been satisfied in order to reach that conclusion is one founded on the basis that the Court, so having jurisdiction, is the most appropriate Court to try the claim, where it is manifestly just and reasonable that the defendant should answer for his wrongdoing. This being so, it must usually be difficult in any particular case to resist the conclusion that a Court which has jurisdiction on that basis must also be the natural forum for the trial of the action. If the substance of an alleged tort is committed within a certain jurisdiction, it is not easy to imagine what other facts could displace the conclusion that the courts of that jurisdiction are the natural forum.’
Ackner LJ said: ‘the jurisdiction in which a tort has been committed is prima facie the natural forum for the determination of the dispute. England is thus the natural forum for the resolution of this dispute.’

Ackner LJ, Robert Goff LJ
[1984] 2 Lloyd’s LR 91
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedLewis and others v King CA 19-Oct-2004
The claimant sought damages for defamation for an article published on the Internet. The claimant Don King sued in London even though he lived in the US as did the defendants.
Held: A publication via the internet occurred when the material was . .
CitedCooley v Ramsey QBD 1-Feb-2008
The claimant sought damages after being severely injured in a road traffic accident in Australia caused by the defendant. The defendant denied that the court had jurisdiction to permit service out of the jurisdiction. The claimant said that the . .
CitedBatey v Todd Engineering (Staffs) Ltd QBNI 7-Mar-1998
. .
CitedBase Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin ComC 21-Nov-2001
. .
CitedDouglas, Zeta-Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Ltd, Hola Sa, Junco, The Marquesa De Varela, Neneta Overseas Ltd, Ramey ChD 27-Jan-2003
The claimants sought an order striking out the defendants’ defence on the grounds that, by destroying documents, the possibility of a fair trial had been prejudiced.
Held: Refusing the order, save as to certain paragraphs of the defence, the . .
CitedBase Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin ComC 22-Oct-2003
. .
CitedBase Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin CA 14-Oct-2004
The claimant sought damages from what were said to be speculative trades carried out by the defendant whilst working in Russia. The claims were in both equity and in tort. He was a director of the company which was incorporated in Guernsey.
CitedBerezovsky v Forbes Inc and Michaels; Glouchkov v Same HL 16-May-2000
Plaintiffs who lived in Russia sought damages for defamation against an American magazine with a small distribution in England. Both plaintiffs had real connections with and reputations in England. A judgment in Russia would do nothing to repair the . .
CitedVTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others SC 6-Feb-2013
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . .
CitedVTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others SC 6-Feb-2013
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.220026

Harms Offshore AHT Taurus Gmbh and Co KG v Bloom and Others: CA 26 Jun 2009

The court had granted to the liquidators of a company a mandatory injunction requiring the appellant German companies to attempt to obtain the release of assets from attachment by the court in new York.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The statutory prohibition against creditors bringing proceedings against a company being wound up by the court is not extra-territorial. The protection of the assets of a company in administration is not to be regarded by the Court as differing in substance from the protection of the assets of a company in compulsory liquidation. In both cases, the assets of the company are dealt with by an officer appointed by the Court in accordance with statutory duties.
The conduct of the Appellants and the circumstances of the attachments brought it into the exceptional category in which the grant of injunctive relief is justified, notwithstanding comity and notwithstanding the outstanding application of the Administrators in New York.

Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton and Sir John Chadwick
[2009] EWCA Civ 632, Times 10-Jul-2009, [2009] Bus LR 1663, [2010] 1 Ch 187, [2010] 2 WLR 349
Bailii
Insolvency Act 1986
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedIn Re Oriental Inland Steam Company ex parte Scinde Railway Company CA 1874
The liquidator obtained an order requiring a creditor who had attached assets in India to return them to the company in liquidation.
Sir W M James LJ said: ‘The winding-up is necessarily confined to this country. It is not immaterial to . .
CitedMitchell v Carter ChD 1997
Section 183 of the 1986 Act, which precludes a creditor who levies execution or attaches a debt after commencement of a winding up, from retaining the benefit of his execution or attachment, does not apply to executions or attachments in foreign . .
CitedRe Vocalion (Foreign) Ltd 1932
The section only applies only to proceedings pending in the UK, and not to proceedings in a foreign Court. The Court has an equitable jurisdiction in personam to restrain a respondent properly served in this country from proceeding with an action . .
CitedSociete Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak, Yong Joon Kim and, Lee Kui Jak (F) PC 14-May-1987
Brunei Darussalam – The Board was asked where a civil claim should be tried.
Held: The court stated some principles governing the grant of anti-suit injunctions restraining foreign proceedings. The inconvenience of a forum is of itself not a . .
CitedPolly Peck International Plc v The Marangos Hotel Company Ltd and Others CA 7-May-1998
Leave had been given for the insolvent plaintiff company to bring proceedings. The defendant now challenged that leave.
Held: A claim that a massively insolvent company had wrongfully occupied Turkish Cypriot property would not allow a claim . .
CitedBarclays Bank v Homan CA 1993
If the conduct of a creditor can be castigated as oppressive or vexatious the Court can and should grant relief in order to protect the performance by administrators of their functions and duties. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Insolvency

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.347220

Trillium (Nelson) Properties Ltd v Office Metro Ltd: ChD 9 May 2012

Winding-up petition in which the principal issue is whether or not Office Metro Limited can be wound up in this jurisdiction in the light of the fact that, despite its being an English registered company, its centre of main interest is in Luxembourg. The question which was to be determined was whether or not it had an ‘establishment’ in this country for the purposes of the Insolvency Regulation.
Mann J explained what amounted to economic activity within the meaning of the Regulation: ‘ However, I do not think that it amounts to economic activity within the meaning of the Regulation. By the time of the petition it seems that the only ‘activity’ (and I deliberately put it in inverted commas) was to sit there being liable on guarantees, sometimes paying out on them, and perhaps doing whatever else was necessary to keep itself alive in terms of compliance with formalities such as company filings. Mr Wetheral (or perhaps his staff) occasionally sought legal or accounting advice, but there is no evidence it was doing anything else. Being in a state of liability, with the need sometimes to pay out on that liability and take a bit of advice, is not an economic activity for the purposes of the Regulation. Neither is seeking accounting or legal assistance on other matters. Forwarding post (which is said to have happened at Chertsey) is not an economic activity carried on there. It is something which goes on so that someone can carry it on somewhere else. Utilising the guidance given in the Virgos-Schmit report, it is not conducting activities on the market.
The activities necessary for compliance (filing and so on) are not, apparently, carried out at the Chertsey office. They are therefore not carried out at the only candidate for a place of operations.
Even if I am wrong as to whether Office Metro’s residual activities are economic activity for the purposes of the Regulation, I do not consider that they are non-transitory. They are not a consistent activity. The activities involved in paying up on guarantees do not have the character of a consistent business or business-type activity. They arise as and when needed, and were all going well in the underlying group they would not arise at all. The concept of ‘establishment’ is the one chosen as the touchstone of sufficient presence to justify the opening of insolvency proceedings. There are three ingredients for these purposes: (i) a place where things happen, and (ii) sufficient things (iii) of sufficient quality happening there. The concept of non-transitoriness goes to the third of them. In my view the converse of something being transitory is not confined merely to things which are ‘fleeting’ (to use one English synonym) but is also intended to encapsulate such things as the frequency of the activity; whether it is planned or accidental or uncertain in its occurrence; the nature of the activity; and the length of time of the activity itself. When measured against all these elements I consider that the activities of procuring payment on the guarantees is transitory (or not non-transitory) for the purposes of the Regulation. This is to a large extent a value judgment in respect of which one cannot be prescriptive of the elements to be fulfilled (or not fulfilled), but in my view it is plain that if the activities were otherwise economic activities they would, for these purposes, be ‘transitory’ for the purposes of the Regulation.’

Mann J
[2012] EWHC 1191 (Ch), [2012] ILPr 30, [2012] BCC 829, [2012] BPIR 1049
Bailii
EU Regulation 1346/2000 3
Cited by:
CitedOlympic Airlines Sa Pension and Life Assurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines Sa ChD 29-May-2012
Olympic Airlines, incorporated in Greece, but with headquarters in London, went into liquidation. The pensions scheme had been run with a deficit. The trustees no sought the winding up of the company under British law.
Held: To be an . .
CitedOlympic Airlines Sa Pension and Life Insurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines Sa CA 6-Jun-2013
The court considered the the jurisdiction under EU law to commence a secondary winding-up in England of a company whose main liquidation is taking place in Greece. That depended upon whether the company, registered in Greece had a sufficient . .
CitedOlympic Airlines Sa Pension and Life Assurance Scheme, The Trustees of The v Olympic Airlines Sa SC 29-Apr-2015
The airline was incorporated in Greece but with an office in the UK. It became insolvent leaving a deficit in the UK employee pension scheme. The trustees of the fund sought a secondary insolvency within the UK, and now a reference to the European . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.457573

Pacific International Sports Clubs Ltd v Soccer Marketing International Ltd and Others: ChD 24 Jul 2009

The parties disputed ownership of shares in the football club Dynamo Kiev. Claims were to be made under Ukrainian company law and in equity. The claimant (a company registered in Mauritius) sought to proceed here. The defendants (largely companies registered in the UK) said that the Ukraine was the proper jurisdiction.
Held: The court declined jurisdiction. The question of whether a party would receive a fair trial in a particular jurisdiction is peculiarly fact sensitive. Though there were grave doubts about the consistency of the Ukrainian courts, they were not sufficient to conclude that a fair trial was not possible. The dispute had no real connection with this country. The documents would be be Ukrainian and the witnesses would all have Ukrainian as their first language: ‘ the nature of dispute, the identity of the persons whose evidence will be material, the sensitivities involved (control of Ukraine’s most celebrated football club) and the very difficult legal issues that will have to be decided point overwhelmingly to Ukraine as the appropriate and indeed only natural forum fort the trial.’
The case of Owusu might still not allow a british court to decline jurisdiction in a case against the first defendant. However, that defendant was only a minor player in the action, and the tail should not be allowed to wag the dog.

Blackburne J
[2009] EWHC 1839 (Ch)
Bailii
Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSpiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .
CitedOwusu v Jackson ECJ 1-Mar-2005
ECJ Brussels Convention – Territorial scope of the Brussels Convention – Article 2 – Jurisdiction – Accident which occurred in a non – Contracting State – Personal injury – Action brought in a Contracting State . .
CitedThe Abidin Daver HL 1984
The House considered the application of the doctrine of forum conveniens.
Held: A stay of an English action on the ground of forum non conveniens could be resisted on the ground that justice could not be obtained in the otherwise more . .
CitedCherney v Deripaska ComC 3-Jul-2008
Renewed application for leave to serve proceedings out of jurisdiction. The court considered a submission that a fair trial would not be possible in Russia: ‘An English court will approach with considerable circumspection any contention that a . .
CitedConnelly v RTZ Corporation Plc and others HL 24-Jul-1997
The availability of legal aid to a party is not part of criteria for choosing jurisdiction save in exceptional circumstances.
Lord Goff discussed the Spiliada case: ‘the burden of proof rests on the defendant to persuade the court to exercise . .
CitedOJSC Oil Company Yugraneft v Abramovich and others ComC 29-Oct-2008
The claimants sought damages alleging a massive fraud by the defendants. The court considered whether the parties could receive a fair trial of the action in Russia.
Held: They could. Christopher Clarke J said: ‘Firstly, this case is in no way . .
CitedAmin Rasheed Shipping Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co HL 1983
A claimant must show good reason why service on a foreign defendant should be permitted. This head of jurisdiction was an exorbitant jurisdiction, one which, under general English conflict rules, an English court would not recognise as possessed by . .
CitedDexter Ltd v Vlieland-Boddy CA 2003
The court discussed the significance of Johnson v Gore Wood.
Clarke LJ said: ‘The principles to be derived from the authorities, of which by far the most important is Johnson v Gore Wood and Co [2002] 2 AC 1, can be summarised as follows:
Company, Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.361471

Adams v Cape Industries plc: CA 2 Jan 1990

Proper Use of Corporate Entity to Protect Owner

The defendant was an English company and head of a group engaged in mining asbestos in South Africa. A wholly owned English subsidiary was the worldwide marketing body, which protested the jurisdiction of the United States Federal District Court in Texas in a suit by victims of asbestos. The defendant took no part in the United States proceedings and default judgments were entered. Actions on the judgment in England failed.
Held: The court declined to pierce the veil of incorporation. It was a legitimate use of the corporate form to use a subsidiary to insulate the remainder of the group from tort liability. There was no evidence to justify a finding of agency or facade.
There is an exception to the general rule, that steps which would not have been regarded by the domestic law of the foreign court as a submission to the jurisdiction ought not to be so regarded here, notwithstanding that if they had been steps taken in an English Court they might have constituted a submission to jurisdiction.
Slade LJ said: ‘Two points at least are clear. First, at common law in this country foreign judgments are enforced, if at all, not through considerations of comity but upon the basis of the principle explained thus by Parke B. in Williams v Jones
Secondly, however, in deciding whether the foreign court was one of competent jurisdiction, our courts will apply not the law of the foreign court itself but our own rules of private international law . .’ and ‘First, in determining the jurisdiction of the foreign court in such cases, our court is directing its mind to the competence or otherwise of the foreign court ‘to summon the defendant before it and to decide such matters as it has decided:’ see Pemberton v Hughes [1899] 1 Ch. 781, 790 per Lindley M.R. Secondly, in the absence of any form of submission to the foreign court, such competence depends on the physical presence of the defendant in the country concerned at the time of suit.
. . we would, on the basis of the authorities referred to above, regard the source of the territorial jurisdiction of the court of a foreign country to summon a defendant to appear before it as being his obligation for the time being to abide by its laws and accept the jurisdiction of its courts while present in its territory. So long as he remains physically present in that country, he has the benefit of its laws, and must take the rough with the smooth, by accepting his amenability to the process of its courts.’
‘[Counsel for Adams] described the theme of all these cases as being that where legal technicalities would produce injustice in cases involving members of a group of companies, such technicalities should not be allowed to prevail. We do not think that the cases relied on go nearly so far as this. As [counsel for Cape] submitted, save in cases which turn on the wording of particular statutes or contracts, the court is not free to disregard the principle of Salomon v Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 merely because it considers that justice so requires. Our law, for better or worse, recognises the creation of subsidiary companies, which though in one sense the creatures of their parent companies, will nevertheless under the general law fall to be treated as separate legal entities with all the rights and liabilities which would normally attach to separate legal entities.’

Slade, Mustill and Ralph Gibson LJJ
[1990] Ch 433, [1991] 1 All ER 929, [1990] 2 WLR 657, [1990] BCLC 479, [1990] BCC 786
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPemberton v Hughes CA 1899
Lindley MR said: ‘There is no doubt that the courts of this country will not enforce the decisions of foreign courts which have no jurisdiction in the sense explained above – i.e., over the subject matter or over the persons brought before them . . . .
CitedWilliams v Jones 22-Jan-1845
An action of debt lies upon a judgment of a county court. And the declaration need not state that the defendant resided within the jurisdiction of the county court, or was liable to be summoned to that court for the debt ; it is enough to state that . .
AppliedWoolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council HL 15-Feb-1978
The House considered the compensation payable on the compulsory purchase of land occupied by the appellant, but held under a company name.
Held: The House declined to allow the principal shareholder of a company to recover compensation for the . .
Appeal fromAdams v Cape Industries plc ChD 1990
The piercing of the veil argument was used to attempt to bring an English public company, which was the parent company of a group which included subsidiaries in the United States, within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. Where a . .

Cited by:
AppliedRakusens Ltd v Baser Ambalaj Plastik Sanayi Ticaret AS CA 11-Oct-2001
A company had sought and obtained leave to serve proceedings on a foreign based company, by serving documents on a local agent. The local agent was an independent contractor, who received and transmitted orders to the company, but who, themselves, . .
CitedMotorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others (No 2) CA 12-Jun-2003
World-wide freezing orders had been made under the 1982 Act. The defendants were members of a Turkish family with substantial business interests in the telecommunications industry. In breach of orders made in the US some defendants had sought to . .
CitedHarding 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: . .
CitedRubin and Another v Eurofinance Sa and Others SC 24-Oct-2012
The Court was asked ‘whether, and if so, in what circumstances, an order or judgment of a foreign court . . in proceedings to adjust or set aside prior transactions, eg preferences or transactions at an undervalue, will be recognised and enforced in . .
CitedRubin and Another (Joint Receivers and Managers of The Consumers Trust) v Eurofinance Sa and Others CA 30-Jul-2010
. .
CitedPrest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013
In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The . .
CitedBen Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .
CitedPublic Joint Stock Company (‘Rosgosstrakh’) v Starr Syndicate Ltd and Others ComC 17-Jun-2020
Reserved judgment on the claimant’s application for summary judgment on its claim for recognition and enforcement of three judgments obtained in its favour in the Russian courts . .
CitedFetch.AI Ltd and Another v Persons Unknown Category A and Others ComC 15-Jul-2021
Cryptocurrency Action
The claimants sought damages and other remedies saying that the unknown defendants had obtained access to the private key guarding their crypto currency assets, and then sold them at an undervalue, acquiring substantial profits for themselves in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Company

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.179853

OT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corporation and others: CA 13 Jun 2005

The parties to a contract had agreed that the proper law for the contract was England. One party commenced proceedings in Canada, and the courts of Canada had accepted jurisdiction as the most appropriate and convenient forum to resolve the dispute. Proceedings were also begun in England, and the original Canadian claimant now appealed a refusal to restrain the action.
Held: The appeal failed. Whilst it was important to avoid a clash of jurisdictions, the autonomy of the parties to make their own contract was more important than the place of business or where the location was made: ‘no English court would expect a foreign court to grant a stay by reason of any provision of English law, if an action was proceeding in that foreign court by virtue of an agreement, governed by the law of that court, that proceedings were to be brought in the courts of that country. Conversely an English court would hope that a decision to retain an action brought in England, pursuant to an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a contract governed by English law, would be respected by any foreign court.’ However: ‘In the case of exclusive jurisdiction clauses, however, comity has a smaller role. It goes without saying that any court should pay respect to another (foreign) court but, if the parties have actually agreed that a foreign court is to have sole jurisdiction over any dispute, the true role of comity is to ensure that the parties’ agreement is respected.’

Laws, Rix and Longmore LJJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 710, Times 21-Jun-2005, [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 32, [2005] 2 LLR 170, [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 170, [2005] 1 CLC 923
Bailii
Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDonohue v Armco Inc and others HL 13-Dec-2001
The appellant had sought injunctions against the respondent US companies to restrain their commencing proceedings in the US against him. The parties had negotiated for the purchase of the run-off liabilities of a defunct insurance company. . .
CitedThe Eleftheria 1970
In general, and all other things being equal, it is more satisfactory (from the point of view of ensuring that justice is done) for the law of a foreign country to be decided by the courts of that country.
Brandon J said: ‘I further regard, . .
CitedThe El Amria 1981
The court set out the principles to be applied where a party seeks to enforce or act in breach of a choice of jurisdiction contract. If a party seek to sue here in breach of such a clause, the court has a discretion to stay, but a stay should be . .
CitedVita Food Products Inc v Unus Shipping Co Ltd PC 30-Jan-1939
(Nova Scotia) Goods were shipped from Newfoundland under a bill of lading which contained an exemption for loss caused by the servants of the carrier. This exemption was void by the law of Newfoundland, whose legislature had enacted the Hague Rules, . .
CitedAdams v National Bank of Greece HL 1961
Questions of interpretation and enforcement of contracts are resolved by reference to the proper law. Although debt under a contract whose proper law is the law of another jurisdiction may, for the purposes of Scots law, be discharged by insolvency . .
CitedAirbus Industrie G I E v Patel and Others HL 18-Mar-1999
An Indian Airlines Airbus A-320 crashed at Bangalore airport after an internal Indian flight. The plaintiff passengers lived in England. Proceedings began in Bangalore against the airline and the airport authority. The natural forum was the . .
CitedAMCHEM Products Incorporated v British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) 24-Mar-1993
Supreme Court of Canada – Courts – Appropriate forum – Action commenced in U.S. courts – Plaintiffs largely resident in Canada – Most of corporate defendants with some connection with state where action brought – Anti-suit injunction sought in . .
CitedErich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl ECJ 9-Dec-2003
The claimant Austrian company had for many years sold goods to the defendant an Italian company. Eventually it presented a claim before the court in Italy. Having obtained judgement, it later sought to enforce the order through the Austrian court . .
CitedSabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Another CA 14-Nov-2002
An order was sought to restrain proceedings in Pakistan.
Held: The agreement provided that it should be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of England. The national state was also party to the agreement, and had waived sovereign immunity. It . .
CitedAggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA – The Angelic Grace CA 1995
On the charterers’ orders the Angelic Grace was required to tie up alongside another vessel which they owned. Whilst unloading the weather turned and the vessels collided. Each blamed the other and the owners claimed a salvage. The court considered . .
CitedContinental Bank Na v Aeakos Compania Naviera Sa and Others CA 26-Nov-1993
The Bank was entitled to an injunction in the UK, by virtue of the jurisdiction given in their agreement, even though it was not the UK court which was first seised of the matter. Steyn LJ said: ‘. . a claim for damages for breach of contract would . .
CitedSociete Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak, Yong Joon Kim and, Lee Kui Jak (F) PC 14-May-1987
Brunei Darussalam – The Board was asked where a civil claim should be tried.
Held: The court stated some principles governing the grant of anti-suit injunctions restraining foreign proceedings. The inconvenience of a forum is of itself not a . .
CitedThe Fehmarn 1957
Willmer J said: ‘Clearly it requires a strong case to satisfy the court that the agreement [an express agreement to submit to a foreign tribunal] should be overridden.’ . .
CitedThe Fehmarn 1958
The effect of an agreement prorogating a foreign jurisdiction is to confer on the English court a discretion to stay the English proceedings. . .
CitedTurner v Grovit and others HL 13-Dec-2001
The applicant was a solicitor employed by a company in Belgium. He later resigned claiming unfair dismissal, saying he had been pressed to become involved in unlawful activities. The defendants sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the English . .
CitedTurner v Grovit ECJ 27-Apr-2004
The claimant had been employed as a solicitor by the respondent at locations across Europe, and came to claim in England that they had wrongly implicated him in unlawful activity. The company sought to issue proceedings in Spain.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Contract

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.226156

Mardas v New York Times Company and Another: QBD 17 Dec 2008

The claimant sought damages in defamation. The US publisher defendants denied that there had been any sufficient publication in the UK and that the court did not have jurisdiction. The claimant appealed the strike out of the claims.
Held: The master had made assessments on a summary hearing of facts which were in dispute. The judgment in default was set aside. ‘Although the Claimant is now resident in Greece (within the European Union), he is well known in this jurisdiction and lived here, I understand, from 1963 to 1996. Also, he has two children who live here and have British nationality. There is no artificiality about seeking to protect his reputation within this country’ and ‘what matters is whether there has been a real and substantial tort within the jurisdiction (or arguably so). This cannot depend upon a numbers game, with the court fixing an arbitrary minimum according to the facts of the case.’

Eady J
[2008] EWHC 3135 (QB), [2009] EMLR 8
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
CitedKroch v Rossell CA 1937
The plaintiff brought libel proceedings against the publishers of French and Belgian newspapers. He obtained permission to serve each defendant out of the jurisdiction on the ground that a small number of copies of each newspaper had been published . .
CitedAldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group Plc and others CA 28-Nov-2007
Aldi appealed against an order striking out as an abuse of process its claims against the defendant on a construction dispute. The defendant said the claims should have been brought as part of earlier proceedings.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .
CitedDingle v Associated Newspapers HL 1964
The plaintiff complained of an article written in the Daily Mail which included the reporting of a report of a Parliamentary select committee. The reporting of the select committee’s report was privileged under the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. At . .
CitedPfeifer v Austria ECHR 15-Nov-2007
The right to protect one’s honour and reputation is to be treated as falling within the protection of Article 8: ‘a person’s reputation, even if that person is criticised in the context of a public debate, forms part of his or her personal identity . .
CitedSteinberg v Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another CA 3-Mar-2005
The defendant appealed dismissal of his defence to an action in defamation.
Held: The court proceeded in his absence, discerning two grounds of appeal from the papers. He had suggested that he awaited pro bono representation but was by . .
CitedShevill and Others v Presse Alliance SA HL 26-Jul-1996
A libel case against a French paper was rightly brought in UK despite the small (250 copies nationally and 5 in the plaintiff’s local area (Yorkshire)) circulation here. The Brussels Convention allows a claim for defamation in UK though the main . .
CitedPolanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd HL 10-Feb-2005
The claimant wished to pursue his claim for defamation against the defendant, but was reluctant to return to the UK to give evidence, fearing arrest and extradition to the US. He appealed refusal of permission to be interviewed on video tape. Held . .
CitedAffaire Radio France et autres v France ECHR 30-Mar-2004
A person’s right to protect his/her reputation is among the rights guaranteed by ECHR Article 8 as an element of the right to respect for private life. . .
CitedLoutchansky v The Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (Nos 2 to 5) CA 5-Dec-2001
Two actions for defamation were brought by the claimant against the defendant. The publication reported in detail allegations made against the claimant of criminal activities including money-laundering on a vast scale. They admitted the defamatory . .
CitedSchellenberg v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 2000
The claimant had settled defamation actions against the Guardian and the Sunday Times on disadvantageous terms, when it seemed likely that he was about to lose. He then pressed on with this almost identical action against the BBC.
Held: A . .
CitedBerezovsky v Forbes Inc and Michaels; Glouchkov v Same HL 16-May-2000
Plaintiffs who lived in Russia sought damages for defamation against an American magazine with a small distribution in England. Both plaintiffs had real connections with and reputations in England. A judgment in Russia would do nothing to repair the . .
CitedGutnick v Dow Jones 28-Aug-2001
(High Court of Victoria) Callinan J said: ‘A publisher, particularly one carrying on the business of publishing, does not act to put matter on the Internet in order for it to reach a small target. It is its ubiquity which is one of the main . .

Cited by:
CitedHaji-Ioannou v Dixon, Regus Group Plc and Another QBD 6-Feb-2009
The defendants sought to strike out the defamation claim on the basis that it was an abuse of process. It was brought by the founder of Easyjet against senior officers of a company in a new venture. The claimant had alleged misuse of confidential . .
CitedDhir v Saddler QBD 6-Dec-2017
Slander damages reduced for conduct
Claim in slander. The defendant was said, at a church meeting to have accused the client of threatening to slit her throat. The defendant argued that the audience of 80 was not large enough.
Held: ‘the authorities demonstrate that it is the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.278860

Leventis and Vafias v Malcon Navigation Co Ltd and another: ECJ 28 Jun 2017

Third Party not bound by jurisdiction clause

ECJ (Judicial Cooperation In Civil Matters Area of Freedom, Security and Justice : Judgment) Language of the case: Greek. for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001- Article 23 – Jurisdiction clause – Jurisdiction clause in a contract between two companies – Action for damages – Joint and several liability of representatives of one of those companies for tortious acts – Ability of the representatives to rely upon that clause

A Prechal P
ECLI:EU:C:2017:497, [2017] WLR(D) 428, [2017] EUECJ C-436/16
WLRD, Bailii
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 23
European

Jurisdiction, Contract, Company

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.588732

Youell and others v La Reunion Aerienne and others: CA 11 Mar 2009

The parties disputed whether the court had jurisdiction. The defendant insurer argued that parallel issues had been referred to arbitration in France.
Held: the claim was outside the range of the arbitration agreement, and a stay, which would have been the appropriate remedy was not granted.

Lord Justice Rix, Lord Justice Jacob and Lord Justice Lawrence Collins
[2009] EWCA Civ 175
Bailii, Times
Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, the Brussels I Convention
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromYouell and others v La Reunion Aerienne and others ComC 22-Oct-2008
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, European

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.317958

Elefanten Schuh Gmbh v Pierre Jacqmain: ECJ 24 Jun 1981

ECJ 1. Article 18 of the convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters applies even where the parties have by agreement designated a court which is to have jurisdiction within the meaning of article 17 of that convention.
2. Article 18 of the Convention of 27 september 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that the rule on jurisdiction which that provision lays down does not apply where the defendant not only contests the court’s jurisdiction but also makes submissions on the substance of the action, provided that if the challenge to jurisdiction is not preliminary to any defence as to the substance it does not occur after the making of the submissions which under national procedural law are considered to be the first defence addressed to the court seised.
3. Since the aim of article 17 of the Convention is to lay down the formal requirements which agreements conferring jurisdiction must meet, contracting states are not free to lay down formal requirements other than those contained in the Convention. When those rules are applied to provisions concerning the language to be used in an agreement conferring jurisdiction they imply that the legislation of a contracting state may not allow the validity of such an agreement to be called in question solely on the ground that the language used is not that prescribed by that legislation.

[1982] 3 CMLR 1, R-150/80, [1981] EUECJ R-150/80, [1981] ECR 1671
Bailii
Cited by:
CitedWinkler and Another v Shamoon and Others ChD 15-Feb-2016
The claimants sought a declaration as against the residuary beneficiaries (wife and daughter) under the will, saying that the claimants had a beneficial interest in company shares within the estate. The defendants fild acknowledgments of service but . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.214991

Trafigura Beheer Bv v Kookmin Bank Co: ComC 5 Aug 2005

Entitlement to anti-suit injunction.
Cooke J
[2005] EWHC 2350 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoTrafigura Beheer Bv v Kookmin Bank Co ComC 16-Jun-2006
The defendant bank had given the claimant a letter of credit, but when the goods under transport were discharged without the bills of lading,and the buyers became insolvent, the bank refused to pay. There had been proceedings in Korea, but the . .
See AlsoTrafigura Beheer Bv v Kookmin Bank Co ComC 27-Jul-2006
Application for a post-trial anti-suit injunction restraining proceedings brought by the defendant (‘Kookmin’) in Seoul Central District Court. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.245919

Regina v Commissioner for the Special Purposes of the Income Tax Acts, Ex parte R W Forsyth Ltd: 1897

The Scottish taxpayer had agreed that this appeal againat an assessment to corporation tax issued in Scotland was better heard in England. He sought judicial review of a refusal to suspend an order for repayment pending his appeal.
Held: While the court had jurisdiction to make such an order, the proper forum was Scotland.
Macpherson J
[1987] 1 All ER 1035
Scotland
Cited by:
CitedTehrani v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 18-Oct-2006
The House was asked whether an asylum applicant whose original application was determined in Scotland, but his application for leave to appeal rejected in London, should apply to challenge those decisions in London or in Scotland.
Held: Such . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.245385

Compagnie Commercial Andre S A v Artibell Shipping Company Limited and the Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland: SCS 7 Jan 1999

The pursuers employed the defenders to carry sugar across Iraq. The voyage had been abandoned. The defenders challenged the proceedings as to jurisdiction and otherwise.
Lord MacFadyen
[1999] ScotCS 2
Bailii
Scotland
Cited by:
See alsoCompangnie Commerciale Andre S A v Artibell Shipping Co Ltd and the Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland SCS 21-Feb-2001
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.163434

AB Bank Ltd, Off-Shore Banking Unit (Obu) v Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Pjsc: ComC 12 Aug 2016

Application to set aside Norwich Pharmacal Order: ‘The application raises the question whether the court has jurisdiction to permit service out of the jurisdiction of an application for the grant of a Norwich Pharmacal Order.’
Held: An order for the disclosure of information from a third party mixed up in another’s wrongdoings was not an interim order in the sense identified in para.3.1(5) of the Part 6B Practice Direction and was, in fact, final relief sought by the claimant against the respondent to such an application. On that basis, para.3.1(5) did not apply.
A Norwich Pharmacal application is one for final relief, not an interim remedy.
Teare J
[2016] EWHC 2082 (Comm), [2016] CP Rep 47, [2016] 2 CLC 372, [2017] 1 WLR 810, [2016] WLR(D) 490
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedNorwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 2-Jan-1972
The plaintiffs sought discovery of the names of patent infringers from the defendant third party, submitting that by analogy with trade mark and passing-off cases, the Customs could be ordered to give discovery of the names.
Held: Buckley LJ . .

Cited by:
CitedIon Science v Persons Unknown 21-Dec-2020
Butcher J said that the ‘. . lex situs of a cryptoasset is the place where the person or company who owns it is domiciled. . . There is apparently no decided case in relation to the lex situs for a cryptoasset. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that . .
CitedFetch.AI Ltd and Another v Persons Unknown Category A and Others ComC 15-Jul-2021
Cryptocurrency Action
The claimants sought damages and other remedies saying that the unknown defendants had obtained access to the private key guarding their crypto currency assets, and then sold them at an undervalue, acquiring substantial profits for themselves in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 August 2021; Ref: scu.568020

Reunion Europeenne Sa and Others v Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor Bv and Another: ECJ 27 Oct 1998

French consignees of a shipment of peaches sued in France the Australian issuers of the bill of laiding under which the goods were carried (a contract claim) and the Dutch carriers and master of the ship in which they were carried (tort claims).
Held: There was no jurisdiction under Article 6(1) because none of the defendants were domiciled in France. After referring to Kalfelis: ‘It follows that two claims in one action for compensation directed against different defendants and based in one instance on contractual liability and in the other on liability in tort or delict cannot be regarded as connected.’
Europa An action by which the consignee of goods found to be damaged on completion of a transport operation by sea and then by land, or by which his insurer who has been subrogated to his rights after compensating him, seeks redress for the damage suffered, relying on the bill of lading covering the maritime transport, not against the person who issued that document on his headed paper but against the person whom the plaintiff considers to be the actual maritime carrier, does not fall within the scope of matters relating to a contract within the meaning of Article 5, point 1, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, since the bill of lading in question does not disclose any contractual relationship freely entered into between the consignee and the defendant. Such an action is, however, a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5, point 3, of that Convention, since that concept covers all actions which seek to establish the liability of a defendant and are not related to matters of contract within the meaning of Article 5, point 1. As regards determining the `place where the harmful event occurred’ within the meaning of Article 5, point 3, the place where the consignee, on completion of a transport operation by sea and then by land, merely discovered the existence of the damage to the goods delivered to him cannot serve to determine that place. Whilst it is true that the abovementioned concept may cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it, the place where the damage arose can, in the circumstances described, only be the place where the maritime carrier was to deliver the goods. Article 6, point 1, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that a defendant domiciled in a Contracting State cannot, on the basis of that provision, be sued in another Contracting State before a court seised of an action against a co-defendant not domiciled in a Contracting State on the ground that the dispute is indivisible rather than merely displaying a connection. The objective of legal certainty pursued by the Convention would not be attained if the fact that a court in a Contracting State had accepted jurisdiction as regards one of the defendants not domiciled in a Contracting State made it possible to bring another defendant, domiciled in a Contracting State, before that same court in cases other than those envisaged by the Convention, thereby depriving him of the benefit of the protective rules laid down by it.
Times 16-Nov-1998, C-51/97, [1998] ECR I-6511, [1998] EUECJ C-51/97
Bailii
Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968
European
Cited by:
CitedMazur Media Limited and Another v Mazur Media Gmbh in Others ChD 8-Jul-2004
Proceedings were brought in England. The respondents sought a stay, saying the company was subject to insolvency proceedings in Germany.
Held: Our domestic insolvency law was not applicable to foreign proceedings, and so could not be used to . .
CitedShahar v Tsitsekkos and others ChD 17-Nov-2004
The defendant wished to make a claim against another party outside the jurisdiction and was granted permission to serve documents which were headed ‘defence and counterclaim’. The proposed defendant argued that such a document could be served in . .
CitedCasio Computer Co Ltd v Sayo and others CA 11-Apr-2001
The court was asked whether a constructive trust claim based on dishonest assistance is a matter ‘relating to tort, delict or quasi delict’ for the purpose of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention?
Held: A constructive trust claim based upon . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.88750

Republic of India and Another v India Steamship Co Ltd (Indian Endurance and Indian Grace) (No 2): HL 23 Oct 1997

When a action in rem against a ship was in fact parallel to an action in personam begun in India and awaiting a decision; an action was not to be allowed here.
Lord Steyn: ‘It is settled that an estoppel by convention may arise where parties to a transaction act on an assumed state of facts or law, the assumption being shared by them both or made by one and acquiesced in by the other . . It is not enough that each of the parties acts on an assumption not communicated to the other. But it was rightly accepted by counsel for both parties that a concluded agreement is not a requirement for an estoppel by convention.’
Lord Steyn
Gazette 12-Nov-1997, Times 23-Oct-1997, [1997] UKHL 40, [1997] 4 All ER 380, [1997] 3 WLR 818, [1998] AC 878
House of Lords, Bailii
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRepublic of India v India Steamship Co Ltd (Indian Endurance and Grace (No 2) CA 1-May-1996
An action against ship in rem prevents a personal action against the owner; there would be a risk of double jeopardy. . .

Cited by:
CitedAce Insurance Sa-Nv v Surendranath Seechurn CA 6-Feb-2002
The claimant sought payment under an insurance policy for his permanent disability. The judge had found that the defendant insurers had indicated a readiness to continue negotiations beyond the limitation period, and that they would apply for a stay . .
CitedSmithkline Beecham Plc and others v Apotex Europe Ltd and others PatC 26-Jul-2005
Application was made to join in further parties to support a cross undertaking on being made subject to interim injunctions.
Held: On orders other than asset freezing orders it was not open to the court to impose cross-undertakings against . .
CitedSmithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2) CA 23-May-2006
The parties to the action had given cross undertakings to support the grant of an interim injunction. A third party subsequently applied to be joined, and now sought to take advantage of the cross undertakings to claim the losses incurred through . .
CitedScottish and Newcastle Plc v Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Ltd CA 5-Jul-2007
The parties each had a charge over a property, and now disputed which had priority. The brewery appealed an order for rectification of the registers to reverse priority on the basis of an estoppel. The charge in their favour had been registered . .
CitedJones and Another v Lydon and Others ChD 23-Aug-2021
No Estoppels Established to Override Majority
The parties were former members of a band, the Sex Pistols. They disputed the continued duty to accept the decision of the majority of its members as set out in a Band Membership Agreement. Mr Lydon asserted that over the years the obligation had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.88739

Sirdar Gurdyal Singh v The Rajah of Faridkote: PC 28 Jul 1894

(Punjab) THe Rajah of Faridkote had obtained in the Civil Court of Faridkote (a native state) ex parte judgments against Singh (his former treasurer), which he sought to enforce in Lahore, in British India. Singh was not then resident in Faridkote and did not appear in the actions or otherwise submit to the jurisdiction. It was argued, for the Rajah, that the Faridkote court had jurisdiction over Singh because, ‘[b]y becoming state treasurer, [he] submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Faridkote Court, for where a man takes office in a state he must be deemed to have agreed to be bound by the jurisdiction of that state as accounting for money due from him to that state in respect of that office. In any case, where an office is accepted in that way, and the whole cause of action arises in that state, there is jurisdiction which is obligatory on the acceptor’Held: The Board rejected the argument.
Lord Selborne LC, speaking for the Privy Council, said of an agreement or consent to the jurisdiction of a foreign court being implied or inferred, that ‘such obligation, unless expressed, could not be implied’
Lord Selborne LC
[1894] UKPC 44, [1894] AC 670
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSchibsby v Westenholz CA 1980
The parties were both Danish, the plaintiffs resident in France and the defendants in London. The plaintiffs now sought to enforce a judgment obtained against the defendangt in France in default of their appearance. The defendants had no property in . .

Cited by:
CitedVizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and Another PC 3-Feb-2016
No Contractual Obligation to Try Case in New York
(Gibraltar) The appellant had invested in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff. They were repaid sums before the fund collapsed, and the trustees now sought repayment by way of enforcement of an order obtained in New York.
Held: The . .
CitedEmanuel v Symon CA 1908
Kennedy LJ confirmedtaht the Faridkote case had decided of a suggested obligation to submit to a foreign jurisdiction that it: ‘was not to be implied from the mere fact of entering into a contract in a foreign country’. . .
CitedMattar and Saba v Public Trustee 1952
Alberta Appellate Division – The court denied enforcement of a Quebec judgment on promissory notes, and held that an agreement to submit to the jurisdiction of a foreign court is not to be implied from the fact that the defendant has entered into a . .
CitedAdams v Cape Industries plc ChD 1990
The piercing of the veil argument was used to attempt to bring an English public company, which was the parent company of a group which included subsidiaries in the United States, within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. Where a . .
CitedVizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and Another PC 3-Feb-2016
No Contractual Obligation to Try Case in New York
(Gibraltar) The appellant had invested in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff. They were repaid sums before the fund collapsed, and the trustees now sought repayment by way of enforcement of an order obtained in New York.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.417560

In re Grosvenor Hotel, London (No 2): CA 1964

Lord Denning MR said that the Rules Committee ‘can make rules for regulating and prescribing the procedure and practice of the Court, but cannot alter the rules of evidence.’ Public policy protects against disclosure any documents which relate to the framing of government policy at a high level.
The Rules of the Supreme Court cannot change the substantive law unless expressly permitted so to do by statute.
Lord Denning MR, Salmon LJ
[1965] Ch 1210, [1964] 3 All ER 354
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedKelly, Regina (on the Application of) v Warley Magistrates Court and The Law Society Admn 31-Jul-2007
. .
CitedMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside . .
CitedDunhill v Burgin SC 12-Mar-2014
Lack of Capacity – Effect on Proceedings
The Court was asked ‘First, what is the test for deciding whether a person lacks the mental capacity to conduct legal proceedings on her own behalf (in which case the Civil Procedure Rules require that she has a litigation friend to conduct the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2021; Ref: scu.372591

Estasis Salotti Di Colzani Aimo Et Gianmario Colzani v Ruewa Polstereimaschinen Gmbh: ECJ 14 Dec 1976

ECJ The way in which article 17 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 is to be applied must be interpreted in the light of the effect of the conferment of jurisdiction by consent, which is to exclude both the jurisdiction determined by the general principle laid down in article 2 and the special jurisdictions provided for in articles 5 and 6 of that convention. In view of the consequences that such an option may have on the position of the parties to the action, the requirements set out in article 17 governing the validity of clauses conferring jurisdiction must be strictly construed.
By making the validity of clauses conferring jurisdiction subject to the existence of an ‘ agreement ‘ between the parties, article 17 imposes on the court before which the matter is brought the duty of examining, first, whether the clause conferring jurisdiction upon it was in fact the subject of a consensus between the parties, which must be clearly and precisely demonstrated, for the purpose of the formal requirements imposed by article 17 is to ensure that the consensus between the parties is in fact established.
In the case of a clause conferring jurisdiction, which is included among the general conditions of sale of one of the parties, printed on the back of the contract, the requirement of a writing under the first paragraph of article 17 of the convention of 27 september 1968 is only fulfilled if the contract signed by the two parties includes an express reference to those general conditions.
In the case of a contract concluded by reference to earlier offers, which were themselves made with reference to the general conditions of one of the parties including a clause conferring jurisdiction, the requirement of a writing under the first paragraph of article 17 of the convention of 27 september 1968 is satisfied only if the reference is express and can therefore be checked by a party exercising reasonable care.
C-24/76, R-24/76, [1976] EUECJ R-24/76, [1976] ECR 1831
Bailii
Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
European
Cited by:
CitedBols Distilleries VB (T/A As Bols Royal Distilleries) and Another v Superior Yacht Services Ltd PC 11-Oct-2006
(Gilbraltar) The parties disputed the management contract for a racing yacht, and also the juridiction of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar to hear the case. Bols said that under regulation 2(1) Gibraltar had no jurisdiction.
Held: The English . .
CitedGoldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA SC 4-Jul-2018
A banking facility was provided under a contract applying English law and jurisdiction. The parties now disputed whether on an assignment the dispute was to be resolved under Portuguese law.
Held: Recognition in the United Kingdom of measures . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.214510

Connelly v RTZ Corporation Plc: CA 29 Sep 1995

Availability of legal aid to a party is not a relevant consideration to rules of forum non conveniens.
Independent 29-Sep-1995, Times 20-Oct-1995
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromConnelly v RTZ Corporation Plc and others HL 24-Jul-1997
The availability of legal aid to a party is not part of criteria for choosing jurisdiction save in exceptional circumstances.
Lord Goff discussed the Spiliada case: ‘the burden of proof rests on the defendant to persuade the court to exercise . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2021; Ref: scu.79443

HM Revenue and Customs v Begum and Others: ChD 15 Jul 2010

The Commissioners claim was founded in an alleged conspiracy from a ‘missing trader intra-community fraud’ amounting to andpound;96 million.
Held: Section 423 had extra territorial effect.
David Richards J
[2010] EWHC 1799 (Ch), [2011] BPIR 59
Bailii
Insolvency Act 1986 423
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegalway Care Ltd v Shillingford and others ChD 25-Feb-2005
Applications to vary freezing order. Blackburne J set out a description of the workings of missing trader intra-community VAT carousel frauds. . .

Cited by:
CitedBilta (UK) Ltd and Others v Nazir and Others ChD 30-Jul-2012
The company was said to have engaged in a fraud based on false European Trading Scheme Allowances, and had been wound up by the Revenue. The liquidators, in the company name, now sought recovery from former directors and associates.
Held: The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2021; Ref: scu.420810

Smyth v Behbehani, Behbehani and Philip Ross and Company (a Firm): CA 11 Mar 1999

The defendant appealed against a refusal of an order declining jurisdiction for forum non conveniens.
Held: Though a court should be very careful to make any order in a matter which was being litigated in a foreign jurisdiction for fear of being party to procedural manipulation, it could do so where the making of the order would assist both parties.
Times 09-Apr-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 954
England and Wales

Updated: 19 May 2021; Ref: scu.89354

VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others: ChD 29 Nov 2011

The appellant bank had granted very substantial lending facilities to the defendant companies, and now alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. The defendants now sought to have the service set aside. The claimants also sought permission to amend the pleadings to set aside the veil of incorporation to add three further defendants.
Held: Leave was set aside. The application to amend was refused. The evidence did not establish a real risk of dissipation of assets by the fourth defendant and the original order was tainted by material non-disclosure by the claimant to the court.
Arnold J
[2011] EWHC 3107 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
At First InstanceVTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others SC 6-Feb-2013
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . .
Appeal fromVTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others CA 20-Jun-2012
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . .
CitedPrest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013
In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2021; Ref: scu.449025

Milor SRL and Others v British Airways Plc: CA 15 Feb 1996

The Warsaw Convention allows ‘forum shopping’, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies. Article 28(1) specifies the jurisdictions in which claims under the Convention may be brought. If the English Court is one of those jurisdictions, then our procedural rules which permit an action to be stayed in favour of another jurisdiction on grounds of convenience should not be applied in favour of another competent jurisdiction.
Phillips LJ said: ‘by way of example, if the procedural law of the chosen forum imposed a 12 month limitation period, it does not seem to me that this could displace the two year period of limitation laid down by article 29 of the Convention’.
Phillips LJ
Times 15-Feb-1996, [1996] QB 702
Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedGKN Westland Helicopters Ltd and Another v Korean Air Lines Co Ltd; Press Tech Controls Ltd v Same ComC 19-May-2003
The sum accepted as a payment in, in an air carriage case was capable of being the ‘amount of damages’ awarded under the convention. That it exceeded the amount offered in settlement negotiations meant that the rights to costs under article 22.4 . .
CitedLaroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd CA 21-Jan-2009
Hot Air balloon was an aircraft: damages limited
The claimant was injured flying in the defendant’s hot air balloon. The defendant said that the journey was covered by the 1967 Regulations and the damages limited accordingly. The claimant appealed against a decision that the balloon was an . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2021; Ref: scu.83735

Balkanbank v Taher and Others (No 3): CA 1 Dec 1994

The court will allow a counterclaim on an undertaking after the action had ceased in other Jurisdiction, and the court had power to award damages arising from a Mareva injunction obtained in Ireland.
Times 01-Dec-1994, Gazette 05-Jan-1995
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoBalkanbank v Taher and Others 19-Feb-1994
Disclosure of legal advice. . .
See AlsoBalkanbank v Taher and Others (No 2) CA 18-Nov-1994
The plaintiffs had sued in Ireland and obtained a Mareva injunction. That injunction was then first extended to a worldwide injunction, before being set aside. The court could itself to enquire as to damages without deciding whether to enforce the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2021; Ref: scu.78115

H (a Minor) (Foreign Custody Order: Enforcement): CA 19 Nov 1993

After a divorce, the Belgian Court had granted the father a contact order, for him to receive her at home at holidays. The mother moved to England, breaching the order. The father had the order registered here, then sought to enforce it. The court had found the girl to have a genuine fear of the father, but thought that he had no discretion.
Held: The High court did indeed have a discretion. The phrase ‘recognition and enforcement’ were to be read disjunctively, and enforcement would not follow automatically from registration. A foreign court order need not be enforced here if it was clearly no longer in the child’s best interests.
Times 19-Nov-1993, Ind Summary 22-Nov-1993, [1994] 2 WLR 269
European Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions etc 10(1), Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 16 S2-A10(1)(b)
England and Wales

Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.81917

Continental Bank Na v Aeakos Compania Naviera Sa and Others: CA 26 Nov 1993

The Bank was entitled to an injunction in the UK, by virtue of the jurisdiction given in their agreement, even though it was not the UK court which was first seised of the matter. Steyn LJ said: ‘. . a claim for damages for breach of contract would be a relatively ineffective remedy. An injunction is the only effective remedy for the appellants’ breach of contract. If the injunction is set aside, the appellants will persist in their breach of contract, and the bank’s legal rights as enshrined in the jurisdiction agreements will prove to be valueless. Given the total absence of special countervailing factors, this is the paradigm case for the grant of an injunction . .’
Steyn LJ
Ind Summary 13-Dec-1993, Times 26-Nov-1993, [1994] 1 WLR 588
Brussels Convention 1968 Art 17
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedNational Westminster Bank v Utrecht-America Finance Company CA 10-May-2001
An agreement between the parties for assignment or novation of a credit agreement, contained a ‘take out’ agreement (‘TOA’). The defendant began proceedings in California to rescind the agreement, and the claimants obtained summary judgement under . .
CitedOT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corporation and others CA 13-Jun-2005
The parties to a contract had agreed that the proper law for the contract was England. One party commenced proceedings in Canada, and the courts of Canada had accepted jurisdiction as the most appropriate and convenient forum to resolve the dispute. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.79470

Sarrio Sa v Kuwait Investment Authority: HL 17 Nov 1997

The parties were spanish companies. They were involved in proceedings against each other in Spain. The respondent had begun an action here for negligent misrepresentation against the appellant. The appellant argued that given the Spanish proceedings, the English court did not have jurisdiction because of article 22.
Held: If the actions were related then the Spanish courts were first seised and had exclusive jurisdiction. The decision as to whether actions are related to each other, is based upon broad common sense, and not on any distinction between essential and non-essential issues.
Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Saville
Times 17-Nov-1997, [1997] UKHL 49, [1999] AC 32, [1997] 4 All ER 929, [1997] 3 WLR 1143, [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 129, [1998] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 57, [1997] CLC 1640, [1998] ILPr 319, Independent 19-Nov-1997
House of Lords, Bailii
Brussels Convention 1968 Art 22, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act of 1982 22
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromSarrio SA v Kuwait Investment Authority CA 14-Nov-1996
. .
Appeal fromSarrio SA v Kuwait Investment Authority CA 12-Aug-1996
. .
CitedThe owners of the cargo lately laden on board the ship ‘Tatry’ v The owners of the ship ‘Maciej Rataj’ ECJ 6-Dec-1994
ECJ On a proper construction, Article 57 of the Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments as amended means that, where a Contracting State is also a contracting party to another . .
At First InstanceSarrio SA v Kuwait Investment Authority ComC 12-Oct-1995
cw Conflict of laws – Brussels Convention – articles 21-22 – right to invoke – independent of domicile – forum conveniens – defendant domiciled in non-Contracting State – exclusion of common law rules – same . .

Cited by:
See AlsoSarrio SA v Kuwait Investment Authority CA 14-Nov-1996
. .
CitedCasio Computer Co Ltd v Sayo and others CA 11-Apr-2001
The court was asked whether a constructive trust claim based on dishonest assistance is a matter ‘relating to tort, delict or quasi delict’ for the purpose of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention?
Held: A constructive trust claim based upon . .
CitedIn re The Alexandros T SC 6-Nov-2013
The parties had disputed insurance claims after the foundering of the Alexandros T. After allegations of misbehaviour by the underwriters, the parties had settled the claims in a Tomlin Order. Five years later, however, the shipowners began . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 April 2021; Ref: scu.89014

Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and others: ComC 25 May 2007

Application for an order to prevent some defendants pursuing action in other jurisdictions.
Mackie QC J
[2007] EWHC 1510 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd ComC 17-May-2005
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd CA 24-Oct-2005
The defendants who were resident in Greece appealed a decision that the English court had jurisdiction over them, by virtue of a close connection of the matter with earlier proceedings heard here.
Held: The fact that the defendants were all . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 28-Jul-2006
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 14-Mar-2007
Judgment on quantum. . .

Cited by:
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 11-Jul-2007
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 23-May-2008
Application for interpretation of a receivership order. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another (No 3) CA 6-Jun-2008
The court was asked whether the English court has jurisdiction following judgment to grant an anti-suit injunction against foreign judgment debtors (one of whom has a domicile in a Brussels I Regulation State) restraining them from pursuing . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and others CA 28-Jul-2008
The judgment creditor appealed an order refusing to oblige the defendant company to attend court and provide information about its means. . .
Appeal fromMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 4-Apr-2008
The court was asked whether the Commercial Court had international jurisdiction to make an order for the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution, and a freezing order, in relation to the judgment debtors’ interest in the concession . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 20-Dec-2007
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and Another ComC 17-Jun-2008
Application for further order of payment of costs of action on account. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 21-Oct-2008
The court heard matters relating to the recovery by the claimant of $63,000,000. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company Sal CA 6-Feb-2009
Appeal from order with regard to management of receivership. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and others CA 13-Nov-2008
The creditors sought leave to appeal against orders made in the course of proceedings to recover a very substantial debt from a foreign resident company. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others ComC 6-Oct-2010
The third respondent sought to strike out an application for his committal for failure to comply with orders made in support of proceedings to enforce a substantial judgment. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal ComC 21-Oct-2010
The court held a case management conference with regard to an intended application for committal for contempt of one of the defendants. . .
See AlsoConsolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 21-Jan-2011
. .
See AlsoConsolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 3-Feb-2011
. .
See AlsoMasri and Another v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others ComC 3-Mar-2011
On notice hearing with regard to without notice receivership order. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others ComC 5-May-2011
The applicant, and judgment creditor sought orders for committal for contempt by the defendant companies and officers after failing to comply with court orders. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 March 2021; Ref: scu.254464

Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd: ComC 17 May 2005

Cresswell J
[2005] EWHC 944 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd CA 24-Oct-2005
The defendants who were resident in Greece appealed a decision that the English court had jurisdiction over them, by virtue of a close connection of the matter with earlier proceedings heard here.
Held: The fact that the defendants were all . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 28-Jul-2006
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and others ComC 25-May-2007
Application for an order to prevent some defendants pursuing action in other jurisdictions. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 11-Jul-2007
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 4-Apr-2008
The court was asked whether the Commercial Court had international jurisdiction to make an order for the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution, and a freezing order, in relation to the judgment debtors’ interest in the concession . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 23-May-2008
Application for interpretation of a receivership order. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another (No 3) CA 6-Jun-2008
The court was asked whether the English court has jurisdiction following judgment to grant an anti-suit injunction against foreign judgment debtors (one of whom has a domicile in a Brussels I Regulation State) restraining them from pursuing . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and others CA 28-Jul-2008
The judgment creditor appealed an order refusing to oblige the defendant company to attend court and provide information about its means. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 14-Mar-2007
Judgment on quantum. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 20-Dec-2007
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and Another ComC 17-Jun-2008
Application for further order of payment of costs of action on account. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 21-Oct-2008
The court heard matters relating to the recovery by the claimant of $63,000,000. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and others CA 13-Nov-2008
The creditors sought leave to appeal against orders made in the course of proceedings to recover a very substantial debt from a foreign resident company. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company Sal CA 6-Feb-2009
Appeal from order with regard to management of receivership. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others ComC 6-Oct-2010
The third respondent sought to strike out an application for his committal for failure to comply with orders made in support of proceedings to enforce a substantial judgment. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others ComC 5-May-2011
The applicant, and judgment creditor sought orders for committal for contempt by the defendant companies and officers after failing to comply with court orders. . .
See AlsoMasri and Another v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others ComC 3-Mar-2011
On notice hearing with regard to without notice receivership order. . .
See AlsoConsolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 3-Feb-2011
. .
See AlsoConsolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 21-Jan-2011
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal ComC 21-Oct-2010
The court held a case management conference with regard to an intended application for committal for contempt of one of the defendants. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 March 2021; Ref: scu.226287

Taurus Petroleum Ltd v State Oilmarketing Company: ComC 18 Nov 2013

The parties referred their contract disputes to an arbitration in London which was to apply Iraqi law. As to enforcement of the award, the defendant denied that they were situated in London.
Held: The debts were situated in London rather than New York and that SOMO was a separate entity from the state of Iraq and did not contract as its agent. As a result, if the debts under the letters of credit had been owed to SOMO alone, they would not have been immune from execution. However, each letter of credit contained a single joint promise in favour of SOMO and CBI and thus a joint debt in respect of which the court could not make a third party debt order.
The debts, being the property of CBI as the Central Bank, were in any event immune from execution under sections 13(2) and 14(4) of the State Immunity Act 1978. He therefore set aside the interim third party debt orders and the receivership orders. He also granted permission to appeal and ordered a stay of execution.
Field J
[2013] EWHC 4495 (Comm), [2014] 1 Lloyds Rep 432, [2014] 1 All ER (Comm) 942
Bailii
State Immunity Act 1978
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoTaurus Petroleum Led v State Oil Marketing Company of The Ministry of Oil, Republic of Iraq ComC 18-Nov-2013
. .
Appeal fromTaurus Petroleum Ltd v State Oil Company of The Ministry of Oil, Republic of Iraq CA 28-Jul-2015
The parties had contractual disputes as to letters of credit governed by Iraqi law. The arbitration was in London applying Iraqi law. They now disputed whether the Enforcement of arbitration award was as an award made in London. Each appealed . .
At ComC (1)Taurus Petroleum Limited v State Oil Marketing Company of The Ministry of Oil, Republic of Iraq SC 25-Oct-2017
The parties disputed their contract arrangements. It was referred to an arbitration in London, but applying Iraqi law. The respondent failed to meet the award made against it, and the claimant sought to enforce the award here by means of third party . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 March 2021; Ref: scu.575329

Reyes v Al-Malki and Another: SC 18 Oct 2017

The claimant alleged that she had been discrimated against in her work for the appellant, a member of the diplomatic staff at the Saudi Embassy in London. She now appealed against a decision that the respondent had diplomatic immunity.
Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘the question whether the exception in article 31(1)(c) would have applied to Mr Al-Malki had he still been in post does not strictly speaking arise. If he had still been in post, I would have held that he was immune, because the employment and treatment of Ms Reyes did not amount to carrying on or participating in carrying on a professional or commercial activity. Her employment, although it continued for about two months, was plainly not an alternative occupation of Mr Al-Malki’s. Nothing that was done by him or his wife was done by way of business. A person who supplies goods or services by way of business might be said to exercise a commercial activity. But Mr and Mrs Al-Malki are not said to have done that. They are merely said to have used Ms Reyes’ services in a harsh and in some respects unlawful way. There is no sense which can reasonably be given to article 31(1)(c) which would make the consumption of goods and services the exercise a commercial activity.’
Lord Sumption (with Neuberger L) said: ‘ the employment of a domestic servant to provide purely personal services is not a ‘professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent’. It is therefore not within the only relevant exception to the immunities. The fact that the employment of Ms Reyes may have come about as a result of human trafficking makes no difference to this. But the appeal should be allowed on a different and narrower ground. On 29 August 2014, Mr Al-Malki’s posting in London came to an end and he left the United Kingdom. Article 31 confers immunity only while he is in post. A diplomatic agent who is no longer in post and who has left the country is entitled to immunity only on the narrower basis authorised by article 39(2). That immunity applies only so far as the relevant acts were performed while he was in post in the exercise of his diplomatic functions. The employment and maltreatment of Ms Reyes were not acts performed by Mr Al-Malki in the exercise of his diplomatic functions.’
Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption
[2018] 1 All ER 629, [2017] UKSC 61, [2017] ICR 1417, [2018] IRLR 267, [2017] 3 WLR 923, [2017] WLR(D) 692, [2019] AC 735, UKSC 2016/0023
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC Video 20170515 am, SC Video 20170515 pm, SC Video 20170516 am, SC Video 20170516 pm, SC Video 20170517 am, SC Video 20170517 pm
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961
England and Wales
Citing:
At EATAl-Malki and Another v Reyes and Another (Jurisdictional Points) EAT 4-Oct-2013
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Two domestic workers, employed one after the other by the First Respondent, a diplomat, and Second Respondent, his wife, (the appellants in this appeal) asserted they had been . .
At CAReyes and Another v Al-Malki and Another CA 5-Feb-2015
The claimants wished to make employment law claims alleging, inter alia, that they had suffered racial discrimination and harassment, and had been paid less than the national minimum wage aganst the respondents. They had been assessed as having been . .
CitedDemocratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium – Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 ICJ 14-Feb-2002
(French Text) Diplomatic immunity is not an immunity from liability. It is a procedural immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of the receiving state. The receiving state cannot at one and the same time receive a diplomatic agent of a foreign . .
CitedZoernsch v Waldock CA 1964
A claim was lodged against a former president as well as the current secretary of the European Commission of Human Rights. The former president, Sir Humphrey Waldock, was under the 1960 Order entitled to ‘the like immunity from legal process as is . .
CitedFothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd HL 10-Jul-1980
The plaintiff, on arriving at the airport found that his luggage had been lost. The defendant denied liability saying he had not notified his claim within the requisite period.
Held: Elementary justice requires that the rules by which the . .
CitedJones v Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimants said that they had been tortured by Saudi police when arrested on false charges. They sought damages, and appealed against an order denying jurisdiction over the defendants. They said that the allegation of torture allowed an exception . .
CitedWokuri v Kassam ChD 30-Jan-2012
. .
CitedAbusabib and Another v Taddese EAT 20-Dec-2012
EAT Jurisdictional Points : State Immunity – Diplomatic Immunity
The First Respondent, who had been found liable together with the Second Respondent for acts of discrimination against the Claimant in a . .
CitedRegina v Central Criminal Court Ex Parte Propend Finance Pty Ltd and Others QBD 17-Mar-1994
A Home Secretary requesting warrants must be specific on the type he required. It was his duty, and not that of the police to state the method of seizure of documents for use in a foreign jurisdiction. A judge making an order should give reasons for . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Adan, Same, ex parte Aitsegeur HL 20-Dec-2000
The Convention gave protection to an asylum seeker fearing persecution by non-state agents in his country of origin where that government was unable or unwilling to provide protection. France and Germany did not recognise this right, and therefore . .
CitedBaccus SRL v Servicio Nacional Del Trigo CA 1956
The defendant organisation carried on business from Spain and was sued in England for damages for breach of a commercial contract. An appearance was entered by their solicitors in London and a consent order made for security for the organisation’s . .
CitedTabion v Mufti 1996
(4th Circuit – United States) The appellant worked for two years as a domestic servant in the home of the respondent diplomats. The appellant brought proceedings claiming damages for breach of the terms of her contract of employment. In response to . .
CitedCA Empson v Smith CA 1965
Proceedings were begun against Mr Smith, a member of the administrative staff of the Canadian High Commission in London, claiming damages under a private tenancy agreement. As the proceedings were commenced, he enjoyed the same immunity under the . .
CitedConsequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South-West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) ICJ 21-Jun-1971
The International Court of Justice referred to the maintenance of an apartheid regime as being a flagrant violation of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter,
Article 22(1) of the Covenant of the League of Nations provided for the grant . .
CitedShaw v Shaw 1979
The wife filed a petition for a dissolution of her marriage to a diplomat attached to the United States embassy. At the time, he was immune, but the petition was allowed to proceed once the husband’s posting came to an end and he left the United . .
CitedIslamic Republic of Iran v United States of America – Oil Platforms – Judgment of 6 November 2003 ICJ 6-Nov-2003
. .
CitedDownes Manor Properties Ltd v Bank of Namibia and An CA 18-Mar-1999
The choice of a lawyer outside the UK to provide services as part of litigation did not excuse the failure to comply with an unless order made by the court. Such orders are intended to be punitive. The use of lawyers outside the UK was not . .
CitedPlaya Larga (Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board) v I Congresso del Partido (Owners) HL 1983
The concept of absolute immunity for a Sovereign adopts a theory of restrictive immunity in so far as it concerns the activities of a State engaging in trade: (Lord Wilberforce) ‘It was argued by the [appellants] that even if the Republic of Cuba . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 March 2021; Ref: scu.597260

Berezovsky v Forbes Inc and Michaels; Glouchkov v Same: HL 16 May 2000

Plaintiffs who lived in Russia sought damages for defamation against an American magazine with a small distribution in England. Both plaintiffs had real connections with and reputations in England. A judgment in Russia would do nothing to repair the reputations in England, and accordingly the proper place to sue was in England. Under English law the publication of a defamatory article carries with it a presumption that the person defamed by it has suffered damage, without the need to prove that anyone knowing that person has read the article.
Lord Steyn referred to the case law and said: ‘Counsel accepted that he could not object to a proposition that the place where in substance the tort arises is a weighty factor pointing to that jurisdiction being the appropriate one. This illustrates the weakness of the argument. The distinction between a prima facie position and treating the same factor as a weighty circumstance pointing in the same direction is a rather fine one. For my part the Albaforth line of authority is well established, tried and tested, and unobjectionable in principle. I would hold that Hirst LJ correctly relied on these decisions.’
Lord Hope said: ‘In a defamation case the judge is not required to disregard evidence that publication has taken place elsewhere as well as in England. On the contrary, this feature of the case, if present, will always be a relevant factor. The weight to be given to it will vary from case to case, having regard to the plaintiff’s connection with this country in which he wishes to raise his action. The rule which applies to these cases is that the plaintiff must limit his claim to the effects of the publication in England: Diamond v. Sutton (1866) L.R. 1 Ex. 130; Schapira v. Ahronson [1999] E.M.L.R. 735; see also Eyre v. Nationwide News Pty. Ltd. [1967] N.Z.L.R. 851. Common sense suggests that the more tenuous the connection with this country the harder it will be for the claim to survive the application of this rule’.
Lord Steyn, Lord Nolan, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough
Times 16-May-2000, Gazette 31-May-2000, [2000] 1 WLR 1004, [2000] UKHL 25, [2000] 2 All ER 986
House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromBerezovsky and Another v Forbes Inc and Another CA 27-Nov-1998
Where a defamatory article was published in many jurisdictions, there is no rule preventing a plaintiff recovering in those jurisdictions where a remedy is given. Not confined by restriction to most appropriate jurisdiction. . .
See AlsoBerezovsky and Glouchkov v Forbes Inc and Michaels CA 31-Jul-2001
The claimant sought damages from the defendant for a magazine article claiming that he was involved in organised crime in Russia. The defendants appealed against the striking out of elements of the defence suggesting lesser meanings. Was meaning a . .
CitedSpiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .
CitedLadd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .
CitedDuke of Brunswick v Harmer QBD 2-Nov-1849
brunswick_harmerQBD1849
On 19 September 1830 an article was published in the Weekly Dispatch. The limitation period for libel was six years. The article defamed the Duke of Brunswick. Seventeen years after its publication an agent of the Duke purchased a back number . .
CitedDiamond v Sutton 1866
A plaintiff who seeks leave to serve out of the jurisdiction in respect of publication within the jurisdiction is guilty of an abuse if he seeks to include in the same action matters occurring elsewhere. . .
CitedRatcliffe v Evans 1892
The plaintiff was an engineer and boiler-maker. He alleged that a statement in the local newspaper that he had ceased business had caused him loss. The evidence that was given at trial consisted of general evidence of a downturn in trade; but the . .
CitedShevill and Others v Presse Alliance SA HL 26-Jul-1996
A libel case against a French paper was rightly brought in UK despite the small (250 copies nationally and 5 in the plaintiff’s local area (Yorkshire)) circulation here. The Brussels Convention allows a claim for defamation in UK though the main . .
CitedShevill, Ixora Trading Inc., Chequepoint SARL and Chequepoint International Ltd v Presse Alliance SA ECJ 7-Mar-1995
On a proper construction of the expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters as amended by the Convention . .
CitedLee v Wilson and Mackinnon 19-Dec-1934
(High Court of Australia) More than one person can be identified in a defamatory piece.
In determining the meaning in fact conveyed by the publication, the intention of the publisher is irrelevant, and it does not matter not whether the . .
CitedKroch v Rossell CA 1937
The plaintiff brought libel proceedings against the publishers of French and Belgian newspapers. He obtained permission to serve each defendant out of the jurisdiction on the ground that a small number of copies of each newspaper had been published . .
CitedCordoba Shipping Co Ltd v National State Bank, Elizabeth, New Jersey (The Albaforth) CA 1984
cordoba_albaforthCA1984
A negligent misrepresentation was made in a telex sent from the United States but received and acted upon in England. The judge had set aside leave to serve the document out of the jurisdiction.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The transmission was . .

Cited by:
CitedLewis and others v King CA 19-Oct-2004
The claimant sought damages for defamation for an article published on the Internet. The claimant Don King sued in London even though he lived in the US as did the defendants.
Held: A publication via the internet occurred when the material was . .
CitedDow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
See AlsoBerezovsky and Glouchkov v Forbes Inc and Michaels CA 31-Jul-2001
The claimant sought damages from the defendant for a magazine article claiming that he was involved in organised crime in Russia. The defendants appealed against the striking out of elements of the defence suggesting lesser meanings. Was meaning a . .
CitedMardas v New York Times Company and Another QBD 17-Dec-2008
The claimant sought damages in defamation. The US publisher defendants denied that there had been any sufficient publication in the UK and that the court did not have jurisdiction. The claimant appealed the strike out of the claims.
Held: The . .
CitedMetropolitan International Schools Ltd. (T/A Skillstrain And/Or Train2Game) v Designtechnica Corp (T/A Digital Trends) and Others QBD 16-Jul-2009
The claimant complained that the defendant had published on its internet forums comments by posters which were defamatory of it, and which were then made available by the second defendant search engine. The court was asked what responsibility a . .
CitedFlood v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 2-Oct-2009
The defendant had published a story in its newspaper. At that time it attracted Reynolds qualified privilege. After the circumstances changed, the paper offered an updating item. That offer was rejected as inadequate.
Held: The qualified . .
CitedVTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others SC 6-Feb-2013
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . .
CitedAhuja v Politika Novine I Magazini Doo and Others QBD 23-Nov-2015
Action for misuse of private information and libel. Application to have set aside leave to serve out of the jurisdiction. The defendant published a newspaper in Serbian, in print in Serbia and online. Though in Serbian, the claimant said that online . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 March 2021; Ref: scu.78349

Empresa Exportadora de Azucar v Industria Azucarera Nacional S.A, The Playa Larga: CA 1983

There had been a theft by Cuban sellers of one cargo of sugar, property in which had already passed to the buyers, and non-delivery of a second combined with trickery whereby the intended buyers were nonetheless induced to pay its price. The first cargo was on a vessel which was discharging at its Chilean discharge port, when the vessel was withdrawn by the sellers. The second cargo was on the high seas en route to Chile when withdrawn.
Held: The effect of disregarding a provision of foreign law as manifestly contrary to public policy may be to render enforceable in England a contract which is not enforceable by its proper law. The court considered the measure of damages in relation to the non-delivery of goods sold by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that the damages recoverable should be related to the highest price prevailing at any time between the date of the breach and the date of the arbitration award. This contention was rejected.
Ackner LJ said: ‘Mr. Rix, in his cross-appeal, argued that the damages recoverable by Iansa in contract should be related to the highest price prevailing at any time between the date of the breach and date of the award. Mr. Justice Mustill rejected this submission and has set out his reasons most fully, which we are happy to adopt. We would, however, venture to suggest that the matter can be put more simply. Iansa, as complainants, must establish what damage they have suffered. Mr. Rix had to accept: (a) That after the date when Iansa could have bought in to cover their loss there was no evidence at all that the fluctuations in the sugar market made the slightest financial difference to them. There was no evidence that they could have sold at the highest price. On the contrary, the reasonable inference was that the goods would have been resold for domestic or other consumption in Chile, (b) Although theoretically Cubazucar was capable of selling the sugar at the highest price, there is no evidence that it did so.
Accordingly, to the plaintiffs’ contention that Cubazucar should not profit from its own wrong comes the simple reply: they have not shown that Cubazucar have done so. We cannot, therefore, see any basis upon which Iansa can seek to achieve a windfall in the form of an extra $1,200 per tonne over and above the price which was prevailing when they should have bought in the market.’
The Court rejected any defence of foreign act of state, primarily because there was no such plea and no proof that the acts were acts of the Chilean government, but secondarily also because, if they were, there ‘seems no compelling reason for judicial restraint or abstention’ in a case ‘where it is clear that the acts relied on were carried out outside the sovereign’s own territory’.
Ackner LJ, Stephenson LJ, Sir Segab Shaw
[1983] 2 Lloyds Rep 171
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromPlaya Larga (Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board) v I Congreso del Partido (Owners) QBD 1978
The trading or commercial activities of states are not protected by state immunity. The basic principle of international law is that all states are equal, the rule is ‘par in parem non habet imperium’. . .

Cited by:
CitedFiona Trust and Holding Corporation and others v Privalov and others CA 24-Jan-2007
The court was asked whether when contracts have been induced by bribery and have been rescinded on discovery of the bribery, that constitutes a dispute which can be determined by arbitration in the context of a common form of arbitration clause.
FollowedAggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA The Angelic Grace QBD 1994
The court considered whether a claim for a collision between two ships was governed by an arbitration clause which read ‘all disputes from time to time arising out of this contract shall . . be referred to the arbitrament of two arbitrators carrying . .
FollowedThe Ermoupolis 1990
A claim for the tort of conversion fell within the phrase ‘any dispute arising in any way whatsoever out of this bill of lading’. . .
CitedAspect Contracts (Asbetos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc SC 17-Jun-2015
Aspect had claimed the return of funds paid by it to the appellant Higgins under an adjudication award in a construction contract disute. The claimant had been asked to prpare asbestos surveys and reports on maisonettes which Higgins was to acquire . .
CitedBelhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
Appeal fromPlaya Larga (Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board) v I Congresso del Partido (Owners) HL 1983
The concept of absolute immunity for a Sovereign adopts a theory of restrictive immunity in so far as it concerns the activities of a State engaging in trade: (Lord Wilberforce) ‘It was argued by the [appellants] that even if the Republic of Cuba . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 March 2021; Ref: scu.248210

UCP Plc v Nectrus Ltd: ComC 21 Feb 2018

Application for stay pending proceedings in Isle of Man
Mrs Justice Cockerill
[2018] EWHC 380 (Comm), [2018] WLR(D) 139
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoUCP Plc v Nectrus Ltd ComC 5-Jul-2019
. .
See AlsoUCP Plc v Nectrus Ltd ComC 29-Nov-2019
Damages assessment . .
See alsoNectrus Ltd v UCP Plc CA 21-Jan-2021
Application for reconsideration of refusal of leave to appeal. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 March 2021; Ref: scu.606420

Aguirre Zarraga: ECJ 22 Dec 2010

ECJ (Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice) Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility – Parental responsibility – Custody – Child Abduction – Article 42 – Execution a certified decision ordering the return of a child issued by a competent court (Spanish) – Jurisdiction of the court required (German) to refuse enforcement of that decision in case of serious violation of child rights.
C-491/10, [2010] EUECJ C-491/10
Bailii
European

Updated: 03 March 2021; Ref: scu.427661

SK Slavia Praha-Fotbal As v Debt Collect London Ltd and Another: CA 4 Nov 2010

SSPF disputed the court’s jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s case for a debt said to be due, appealing against a finding that the court in Prague was not first seised of the dispute.
Mummery, Lloyd, Stanley Burnton LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 1250, [2011] Bus LR 412, [2011] CP Rep 10, [2011] 1 All ER (Comm) 699, [2010] 2 CLC 852, [2011] 1 WLR 866
Bailii
ouncil Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition of Judgments in Civil and Commercial matters in the European Union
England and Wales

Updated: 01 March 2021; Ref: scu.425803

JSC BTA Bank v Granton Trade Ltd and Others: ComC 19 Oct 2010

Christopher Clarke J
[2010] EWHC 2577 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoJSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and Others (Rev 1) ComC 24-Aug-2010
Application for an ‘unless’ order debarring the respondents from defending and entitling the claimant to enter judgment unless certain information and documents were provided. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 February 2021; Ref: scu.425346

UBS Ag, London Branch and Another v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig Gmbh: ComC 15 Oct 2010

The defendant asked the court to decline jurisdiction.
Held: Gloster J stated: ‘In the present case the relevant requirement is to be found in CPR 7.5. That provides that a claim form which is to be served within the jurisdiction must be served within four months of the date of issue; and one which is to be served outside the jurisdiction must be served within six months of the date of issue. There is no additional requirement upon the claimant to serve ‘forthwith’ or ‘as soon as practicable’. Nor is there any obligation upon a claimant to choose the quickest method of service, for example personal service rather than service by contractually-agreed method. Under CPR 7.6, a claimant who seeks to extend the time for compliance with CPR 7.5, must explain how he has taken all reasonable steps to comply with rule 7.5 (i.e. served within the requisite four- or six-month period), not how he has acted with all reasonable speed since issue of the claim form.’
‘However, in any event, it does not seem to me that my conclusion as to the reasonableness of UBS’ behaviour is of any relevance. It cannot be appropriate that, under Article 30, the relevant court has to conduct an enquiry as to whether, applying some wholly uncertain subjective criteria, it regards the issuing party as having inappropriately delayed the service of process. That would introduce the very uncertainty that Article 30 was apparently designed to avoid. The only criterion has to be that the issuing party has subsequently ‘failed to take the steps he was required to take to have service effected on the defendant’.’
Gloster DBE J
[2010] EWHC 2566 (Comm), [2012] Bus LR D15, [2010] 2 CLC 499
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedThum v Thum FC 21-Oct-2016
No abuse of process in service error
The husband claimed that the W was guilty of abuse of process by issuing the divorce petion, but then not serving it for many months in an attempt to gain a tactical jurisdictional advantage under Brussels II.
Held: H’s application was . .
CitedMiller and Dos Santos v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and Others QBD 13-Nov-2016
Article 50 Notice Requires Parliament’s Authority
The applicant challenged a decision by the respondent that he could use Crown prerogative powers to issue a notice under section 50 TUE to initiate the United Kingdom leaving the EU following the referendum under the 2015 Act.
Held: Once the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 February 2021; Ref: scu.425314

Byers and Others (Liquidators of Madoff Securities International Ltd) v Yacht Bull Corporation and Another: ChD 1 Feb 2010

The claimants asked the court to exercise jurisdiction over a yacht purchased by the defendant company incorporated and domiciled in France with money from the insolvent company.
Held: The court did not have jurisdiction. Article 2 of the regulation applied so as to require the matter to go before the courts in France. The exception in article 1(2)(b) did not apply so as to exclude application of the regulation.
Sir Andrew Morritt, Chancellor
[2010] BCC 368, [2010] ILPr 24, [2010] EWHC 133 (Ch), Times 15-Feb-2010, [2010] WLR (D) 18
Bailii, WLRD
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of December 22, 2000
England and Wales

Updated: 22 February 2021; Ref: scu.396744

Kinnear and Others v Falconfilms Nv and Others: QBD 27 Jan 1994

The deceased had died in an accident whilst filming in Spain for the defendants. The plaintiff personal representatives sought damages here, while the defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction under the 1968 Convention, and said that the death actually occurred as a consequence of the negligence of his medical treatment in Spain.
Phillips J
[1994] EWHC QB 1, [1996] 1 WLR 920, [1994] ILPr 731, [1994] 3 All ER 42
Bailii
Brussels Convention on Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments 1968, Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 1, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
Citing:
CitedHaqen v Zeehaqhe ECJ 1990
ECJ ‘Article 6(2) makes provision for a special jurisdiction, which the Plaintiff may choose because of the existence, in clearly defined situations, of a particularly close connecting factor between a dispute . .
CitedSomafer Sa v Saar-Ferngas Ag ECJ 22-Nov-1978
ECJ 1. The Convention of 27 September 1968 must be interpreted having regard both to its principles and objectives and to its relationship with the treaty. The question whether the words and concepts used in the . .
CitedKalfelis v Bankhaus Schroder, Munchmeyer, Hengst and Co and others ECJ 27-Sep-1988
kalfelisECJ1988
ECJ For Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters to apply, a connection must exist between the various actions brought . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 February 2021; Ref: scu.383805

Deutsche Bank Ag v Sebastian Holdings Inc: ComC 14 Aug 2009

Walker J
[2009] EWHC 2132 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoDeutsche Bank Ag v Sebastian Holdings Inc ComC 1-Dec-2009
. .
See AlsoDeutsche Bank Ag v Sebastian Holdings Inc ComC 28-Apr-2016
. .
See AlsoDeutsche Bank Ag v Sebastian Holdings Inc ComC 16-Dec-2016
. .
See AlsoDeutsche Bank Ag v Sebastian Holdings Inc ComC 13-Dec-2017
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 February 2021; Ref: scu.372696

Dolphin Maritime and Aviation Services Ltd v Sveriges Angartygs Assurans Forening: ComC 2 Apr 2009

The defendant sought to strike out the claim for want of jurisdiction and that it had no prospect of success.
Christopher Clarke J
[2009] EWHC 716 (Comm)
Bailii
Brussels Convention 1968
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedTrident Turboprop (Dublin) Ltd v First Flight Couriers Ltd CA 2-Apr-2009
The appellant entered into two aircraft leasing agreements but were unable to maintain payments. They appealed against rejection of their argument that the agreements were not exempt from the controls under the 1977 Act by being international supply . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 February 2021; Ref: scu.331162

Hatzl and Another v XL Insurance Company Ltd: CA 19 Mar 2009

The claimant had taken an assignment of a cause of action from an english lorry driver whose load had been stolen in Italy. The insurer now appealed against a finding that the English court had jurisdiction.
Held: The insurers appeal succeeded. The Convention was not effective to give the court jurisdiction merely because one party was domiciled here.
Lord Justice Rix, Lord Justice Jacob and Lord Justice Lawrence Collins
[2009] EWCA Civ 223, Times 16-Mar-2009, [2010] 1 WLR 470, [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 555, [2010] Bus LR 50, [2009] 3 All ER 617, [2009] 1 CLC 360
Bailii
Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 56, Carriage of Goods By Road Act 1965
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBritish American Tobacco Denmark A/S v Kazemier Bv SC 28-Oct-2015
One container loaded with cigarettes was allegedly hi-jacked in Belgium en route between Switzerland and The Netherlands in September 2011, while another allegedly lost 756 of its original 1386 cartons while parked overnight contrary to express . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 February 2021; Ref: scu.323704

Football Dataco Ltd and Others v Sportradar Gmbh and Another: CA 29 Mar 2011

Matter referred to ECJ. The claimants sougt to restraiin alleged breach of database rights by the defendants in lists of Football League fixtures.
[2011] EWCA Civ 330
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromFootball Dataco Ltd and Others v Sportradar Gmbh and Another ChD 17-Nov-2010
The claimants complained of alleged breach of database rights claimed by the claimants in their lists of football match schedules. . .

Cited by:
At CAFootball Dataco Ltd and Others v Sportradar Gmbh and Another ChD 8-May-2012
. .
ReferenceFootball Dataco Ltd and Others v Sportradar Gmbh and Another ECJ 21-Jun-2012
ECJ (Opinion) Directive 96/9/EC – Legal protection of databases – Concepts of extraction and re-utilisation – Location of the act of re-utilisation . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 February 2021; Ref: scu.431246

Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott: ComC 6 Nov 2008

Challenge to jurisdiction of arbitration proceedings.
Teare J
[2008] EWHC 2684 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoEmmott v Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd CA 12-Mar-2008
The court considered the implication of the obligation of confidentiality in banking contracts or in arbitration agreements. It is ‘really a rule of substantive law masquerading as an implied term’. . .

Cited by:
See AlsoEmmott v Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd ComC 12-Jan-2009
The claimant, a party to an arbitration, sought first an order requiring the defendant to comply with an order made by the arbitrator for the transfer of certain shares, and second an asset freezing order.
Held: The conditions for a peremptory . .
See AlsoMichael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott ComC 8-Jun-2011
The claimant challenged an arbitration award made concerning the agreement under which the defendant had been admitted to partnership. MWP contended that the Tribunal were guilty of a large number of serious irregularities in their conduct of the . .
See AlsoMichael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others ComC 21-Sep-2012
The claimant company alleged that the defendants had variously received assests (shares and cash) acquired by a former partner in the claimant company and held on his behalf, in breach of his obligations to the caimant partnership. The defendants . .
See AlsoMichael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others CA 16-Jan-2013
Application to stay order for costs. . .
See AlsoMichael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others CA 23-Jul-2015
. .
See AlsoMichael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott CA 14-Oct-2015
Appeal against a finding that payments made by the appellant were made in the ordinary course of business and not in breach of a freezing injunction. . .
See AlsoMichael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott CA 11-Dec-2015
The court considered a residual jurisdiction to set aside an arbitrator’s award after a first appeal. . .
See AlsoEmmott v Michael Wilson and Partners ComC 24-Nov-2016
Application for an anti-suit injunction against the defendant to restrain it from taking any further steps in ongoing proceedings in New South Wales and from commencing or pursuing any other substantive claims against the claimant on the ground that . .
See AlsoMichael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Another CA 13-Jan-2017
The appellant company sought to recover assets which, it said, had been acquired by a former partner in breach of his obligations under the partnership agreement, but which had been taken in the names of some of the respondents. There had been an . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 February 2021; Ref: scu.277570

Youell and others v La Reunion Aerienne and others: ComC 22 Oct 2008

[2008] EWHC 2493 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromYouell and others v La Reunion Aerienne and others CA 11-Mar-2009
The parties disputed whether the court had jurisdiction. The defendant insurer argued that parallel issues had been referred to arbitration in France.
Held: the claim was outside the range of the arbitration agreement, and a stay, which would . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 February 2021; Ref: scu.277340

Dexter Ltd (In Administrative Receivership) v Harley: ChD 2 Apr 2001

Money was transferred wrongfully out of the company, and then on again into the hands of the respondent. She received the money, and knew of its fraudulent provenance, but all her acts were committed outside the jurisdiction.
Held: It was not sufficient that the original act in breach of trust occurred within the jurisdiction, the claimant had to show that some act of the defendant had occurred here, if she was to be sued here.
Times 02-Apr-2001
Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1968) (Cmnd 7395)
England and Wales

Updated: 11 February 2021; Ref: scu.79951

Glencore International Ag v Exter Shipping Ltd and others: CA 18 Apr 2002

The court was asked whether there is jurisdiction in the English court to impose an anti-suit injunction against four foreign shipowners in respect of their complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The shipowners have participated in complex multi-party litigation in England, known as the Metro litigation, but they submit that, partly because their participation was always limited and partly because over time that participation has been still further eroded by settlement and discontinuance, the English court lacks jurisdiction to make the order complained of.
Rix LJ
[2002] EWCA Civ 528, [2002] CLC 1090, [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 1
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 04 February 2021; Ref: scu.258651

AWB (Geneva) SA and Another v North America Steamships Ltd and Another: CA 18 Jul 2007

A swap agreement provided that pursuant to the ISDA Master Agreement, the agreement was governed by English law and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. The trustee of one of the parties brought statutory avoidance proceedings in Canada. The Court of Appeal refused to grant an anti-suit injunction, because the choice of law and choice of jurisdiction agreement did not apply to the insolvency proceedings. The proceedings in Canada did not relate to a dispute under the contract. They were part of insolvency proceedings. It was a matter for the Canadian Court to decide on the relief that it is prepared to grant within the scope of those proceedings as it is concerned with issues of insolvency and not with issues which relate to the contractual obligations under the agreement.
Chadwick LJ, Latham LJ, Thomas LJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 739, [2007] 2 Lloyds Rep 315
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromAWB Geneva Sa and Another v North America Steamships Ltd ComC 17-May-2007
Whether a party to a contract governed by English law and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English High Court can found on these provisions to restrain the counterparty’s foreign trustee in bankruptcy from seeking an order in foreign . .

Cited by:
CitedVizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and Another PC 3-Feb-2016
No Contractual Obligation to Try Case in New York
(Gibraltar) The appellant had invested in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff. They were repaid sums before the fund collapsed, and the trustees now sought repayment by way of enforcement of an order obtained in New York.
Held: The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 February 2021; Ref: scu.254599

AWB Geneva Sa and Another v North America Steamships Ltd: ComC 17 May 2007

Whether a party to a contract governed by English law and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English High Court can found on these provisions to restrain the counterparty’s foreign trustee in bankruptcy from seeking an order in foreign insolvency proceedings that certain conditions precedent to liability under the contract should cease to apply.
Field J
[2007] EWHC 1167 (Comm)
Bailii
Cited by:
Appeal fromAWB (Geneva) SA and Another v North America Steamships Ltd and Another CA 18-Jul-2007
A swap agreement provided that pursuant to the ISDA Master Agreement, the agreement was governed by English law and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. The trustee of one of the parties brought statutory avoidance . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 February 2021; Ref: scu.252439

Benatti v WPP Holdings Italy Srl and others: CA 28 Mar 2007

The parties had each begun proceedings in different jurisdictions within the European Union. They disputed which court was first seised.
Held: The issue was decided by looking at when, in each case, the document instituting the proceedings was first lodged at court. Different jurisdictions within the Union had different procedures, but article 30 of the Judgments Order applied to the UK. There was no injustice in applying that rule.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR explained at that WPP’s case was that the writ lodged with the relevant Italian body with a request for service on 1 February 2006 was never validly served on it both because the letter purporting to serve it was addressed to a different entity (WPP Group plc) and also because the addressee was entitled to refuse to accept it without a translation. The time for refusal was unspecified and it was submitted that it therefore remained open to the defendant (unless there had been a prior positive act of acceptance) to intimate its refusal as long as it remained open to it to contest the court’s jurisdiction under CPR 11. These technical nit-picking arguments were dismissed; Mr Benatti was not blameworthy and the errors were excused.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Buxton LJ, Toulson LJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 263, Times 16-Apr-2007
Bailii
Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (OJ 2001 L12/1) 30(1) 30(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromWpp Holdings Italy Srl and others v Benatti ComC 18-Jul-2006
. .

Cited by:
CitedThum v Thum FC 21-Oct-2016
No abuse of process in service error
The husband claimed that the W was guilty of abuse of process by issuing the divorce petion, but then not serving it for many months in an attempt to gain a tactical jurisdictional advantage under Brussels II.
Held: H’s application was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 February 2021; Ref: scu.250577

Sandisk Corporation v Koninklijke Philips Electronics Nv and others: ChD 27 Feb 2007

The claimant sought damages for an alleged abuse of dominant market position by the defendants in its patent licensing. The defendant denied that the court had jurisdiction.
Held: An English court would have jurisdiction in such a case ony if the originating acts occurred here, of the damages substantially happened here.
Pumfrey J
[2007] EWHC 332 (Ch), Times 27-Feb-2007
Bailii
EC Treaty 81 82
England and Wales

Updated: 01 February 2021; Ref: scu.249239

Ravennavi Spa v New Century Shipbuilding Company Ltd: CA 7 Feb 2007

Moore Bick LJ considered the interpretation of poorly drafted contracts and said: ‘Unless the dispute concerns a detailed document of a complex nature that can properly be assumed to have been carefully drafted to ensure that its provisions dovetail neatly, detailed linguistic analysis is unlikely to yield a reliable answer. It is far preferable, in my view, to read the words in question fairly as a whole in the context of the document as a whole and in the light of the commercial and factual background known to both parties in order to ascertain what they were intending to achieve.’
Tuckey, Jacob, Moore-Bick LLJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 58, [2007] 1 CLC 176, [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 24, [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 756
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRavennavi Spa v New Century Shipbuilding Company Ltd ComC 4-Apr-2006
. .

Cited by:
CitedMulti-Link Leisure Developments Ltd v Lanarkshire Council SC 17-Nov-2010
The parties disputed the effect of an option clause in a lease, and particularly whether, when fixing the price, potential for development was to be included. The clause required the ‘full market value’ to be paid. The tenant appealed.
Held: . .
CitedGarratt v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd CA 13-Apr-2011
garratt_mgnCA11
The claimant had been employed by the defendant. They made him redundant. He claimed and enhanced payment saying that his emloyment was covered by a collective agreement, but when he refused to sign a compromise agreement, the company paid him only . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 February 2021; Ref: scu.248385

Berezovsky and Another v Forbes Inc and Another: QBD 19 Jan 1998

A defamation action which between two parties both resident in foreign jurisdictions but based upon a publication with a circulation of 2000 in Britain was to be stayed.
Times 19-Jan-1998
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromBerezovsky and Glouchkov v Forbes Inc and Michaels CA 31-Jul-2001
The claimant sought damages from the defendant for a magazine article claiming that he was involved in organised crime in Russia. The defendants appealed against the striking out of elements of the defence suggesting lesser meanings. Was meaning a . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 January 2021; Ref: scu.78347

Vita Food Products Inc v Unus Shipping Co Ltd: PC 30 Jan 1939

(Nova Scotia) Goods were shipped from Newfoundland under a bill of lading which contained an exemption for loss caused by the servants of the carrier. This exemption was void by the law of Newfoundland, whose legislature had enacted the Hague Rules, but the action was brought in Nova Scotia where the courts had to apply the proper law of the contract contained in its bill of lading – English law – by which the exemption clause was valid. Lord Wright: ‘But whatever view a Newfoundland Court might take, whether they would hold that the contracts contained in the bills of lading must be taken to have incorporated the Hague Rules or whether they would hold them to have been illegal, the result would be the same in the present case, where the action was brought not in a Newfoundland but in a Nova Scotian Court. It may be that, if suit were brought on these bills of lading in a Newfoundland Court, and the Court held they were illegal, the Court would refuse to give effect to them, on the basis that a Court is bound to obey the laws of its own Legislature or its own common law . . But it does not follow that any other Court could properly act in the same way. If it has before it a contract good by its own law or by the proper law of the contract, it will in proper cases give effect to the contract and ignore the foreign law.’
Lord Wright said: ‘Each case has to be considered on its merits. Nor must it be forgotten that the rule by which contracts not expressly forbidden by statute or declared to be void are in proper cases nullified for disobedience to a statute is a rule of public policy only, and public policy understood in a wider sense may at times be better served by refusing to nullify a bargain save on serious and sufficient grounds.’
Lord Wright
[1939] AC 277, [1939] UKPC 7
Bailii
Cited by:
CitedOT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corporation and others CA 13-Jun-2005
The parties to a contract had agreed that the proper law for the contract was England. One party commenced proceedings in Canada, and the courts of Canada had accepted jurisdiction as the most appropriate and convenient forum to resolve the dispute. . .
CitedLes Laboratoires Servier and Another v Apotex Inc and Others SC 29-Oct-2014
Ex turpi causa explained
The parties had disputed the validity a patent and the production of infringing preparations. The english patent had failed and damages were to be awarded, but a Canadian patent remained the defendant now challenged the calculation of damages for . .
CitedVizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and Another PC 3-Feb-2016
No Contractual Obligation to Try Case in New York
(Gibraltar) The appellant had invested in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff. They were repaid sums before the fund collapsed, and the trustees now sought repayment by way of enforcement of an order obtained in New York.
Held: The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 January 2021; Ref: scu.228196

Shahar v Tsitsekkos and others: ChD 17 Nov 2004

The defendant wished to make a claim against another party outside the jurisdiction and was granted permission to serve documents which were headed ‘defence and counterclaim’. The proposed defendant argued that such a document could be served in this way.
Held: The defendant should apply to the court for leave to add the party outside the jurisdiction, and the claim allowed would be treated as a counterclaim within Rule 20.
Mann J
[2004] EWHC 2659 (Ch), Times 30-Nov-2004
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 20
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedGardner v Parker CA 25-Jun-2004
The court considered the extent to which a shareholder or creditor of a company who has suffered loss, as the result of a breach of duties owed both to him and the company by a defendant, is nonetheless debarred from recovering that loss, because . .
CitedGiles v Rhind ChD 24-Jul-2001
The company had suffered losses after an alleged breach of confidence by a director. The applicant sought to recover his losses as a shareholder, after the company became unable or unwilling itself to pursue an action to recover the losses it had . .
CitedKleinwort Benson Limited v City of Glasgow District Council HL 19-Jun-1997
Restitution when Contract Void ab initio
A claim for restitution of money paid under a contract which was void ab initio is not a claim in contract, nor tort, nor delict, it was justiciable only in the court of domicile. The Brussels Convention does not decide jurisdiction. ‘But it is . .
CitedKalfelis v Bankhaus Schroder, Munchmeyer, Hengst and Co and others ECJ 27-Sep-1988
kalfelisECJ1988
ECJ For Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters to apply, a connection must exist between the various actions brought . .
CitedReunion Europeenne Sa and Others v Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor Bv and Another ECJ 27-Oct-1998
French consignees of a shipment of peaches sued in France the Australian issuers of the bill of laiding under which the goods were carried (a contract claim) and the Dutch carriers and master of the ship in which they were carried (tort claims).
CitedIn Re Banco Nacional De Cuba ChD 7-Jun-2001
Where it was alleged that shares in a UK company had been sold at an undervalue, so as to allow a challenge in insolvency proceedings, the leave of the court was still required if the pleadings were to be served abroad. When the court considered . .
CitedHandelswerkerij GJ Bier BV v Mines de Potasse d’Alsace SA ECJ 1976
The Dutch plaintiff claimed that the water supply to its nursery had been polluted by the French defendant’s discharge of waste into the Rhine in France.
Held: The meaning of the expression: ‘Place where the harmful event occurred’ must be . .

Cited by:
CitedIslamic Republic of Pakistan v Zardari and others ComC 6-Oct-2006
The claimant alleged that the defendants had funded the purchase of various properties by secret and unlawful commissions taken by them whilst in power in Pakistan. They sought to recover the proceeds. They now sought permission to serve proceedings . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2021; Ref: scu.219548

Speed Investments Limited, Slec Holdings LImited v Formula One Holdings Limited, Bambino Holdings Limited, Luc Argand, Emmanuele Argand-Rey: CA 12 Nov 2004

The applicants, shareholders in the company, sought to stay an action in England, saying the action had first been commenced in Switzerland.
Held: The issue was one of the internal management of the company. Though it did not relate to a matter of the constitution of the company it did relate to a shareholders agreement which concerned one of the main organs of the company. The company was registered in the UK, and the action should be heard here. The stay was refused.
The Hon Mr Justice Neuberger Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Carnwath
[2004] EWCA Civ 1512, Times 18-Nov-2004
Bailii
Lugano Convention 21
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromSpeed Investments Ltd and Another v Formula One Holdings Limited and Others (No 2) ChD 20-Jul-2004
The defendants sought a stay of the action, arguing that proceedings had begun first in Switzerland.
Held: An English court became seised of an action for the purposes of the Convention at the time when the proceedings were served. Under the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2021; Ref: scu.219648

Martin Peters Bauunternehmung Gmbh v Zuid Nederlandse Aannemers Vereniging: ECJ 22 Mar 1983

1. The concept of matters relating to a contract in article 5(1) of the convention of 27 september 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters should not be interpreted simply as referring to the national law of one or other of the member states concerned, but should be regarded as an independent concept which, for the purposes of the application of the convention, must be interpreted by reference chiefly to the system and objectives of the convention, in order to ensure that it is fully effective.
2. Obligations in regard to the payment of a sum of money which have their basis in the relationship existing between an association and its members by virtue of membership are ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of article 5(1) of the convention, whether the obligations in question arise simply from the act of becoming a member or from that act in conjunction with one or more decisions made by organs of the association.
[1983] ECR 987, [1983] EUECJ R-34/82, [1984] 2 CMLR 605
Bailii
European

Updated: 19 January 2021; Ref: scu.215149

L G Caltex Gas Co Ltd v National Petroleum Corporation and Another: CA 15 May 2001

Section 67(1)(a) applies both when a tribunal finds that it has jurisdiction and also when it declines jurisdiction. The respondent said that an informal agreement with the claimant to allow jurisdiction was limited to certain issues only. While an arbitral tribunal is entitled to determine whether it has jurisdiction, its decision on that issue is not binding on the parties.
Lord Phillips MR, Pill, Keene LJJ
[2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 97, [2001] EWCA Civ 788, [2001] CLC 1392, [2001] BLR 325, [2001] 4 All ER 875, (2001) 3 TCLR 22, [2001] 1 WLR 1892
Bailii
Arbitration Act 1996 67 73
England and Wales

Updated: 14 January 2021; Ref: scu.201061

Al-Bassam v Al-Bassam: CA 1 Jul 2004

The claimant sought administration of her husband’s estate according to his domicile in England. The defendant claimed the estate under Islamic law, and that there had been no marriage, and that he had been domiciled in Saudi Arabia.
Held: The real issue was as to whether Sharia law should be applied and whether the will was executed properly. Issues to be decided by a court in Saudi would follow the decisions to be made first by the English court. Case management directions were to be made to bring before the English court the issues which that court can, and should, decide before addressing issues of Islamic law. The perpetual restraint against the defendant issuing proceedings in Riyadh was lifted, and the claimant was to be allowed to amend her pleadings.
Sir Andrew Morritt VC, Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Carnwath
[2004] EWCA Civ 857, Times 22-Jul-2004
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAirbus Industrie G I E v Patel and Others HL 18-Mar-1999
An Indian Airlines Airbus A-320 crashed at Bangalore airport after an internal Indian flight. The plaintiff passengers lived in England. Proceedings began in Bangalore against the airline and the airport authority. The natural forum was the . .
CitedWim Harry Gerard Maronier v Bryan Larmer CA 29-May-2002
The defendant had been a dentist in the Netherlands. An action for damages was begun against him, but then stayed. Judgment was later entered in the Netherlands after he had moved to the UK, and of which he was ignorant. There was no subsisting . .
CitedSociete Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak, Yong Joon Kim and, Lee Kui Jak (F) PC 14-May-1987
Brunei Darussalam – The Board was asked where a civil claim should be tried.
Held: The court stated some principles governing the grant of anti-suit injunctions restraining foreign proceedings. The inconvenience of a forum is of itself not a . .
CitedPelligrini v Italy ECHR 2002
. .
CitedLubbe (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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 January 2021; Ref: scu.198514

Tryg Baltic International (UK) Ltd v Boston Compania De Seguros Sa and others: ComC 28 May 2004

Four defendants from Argentina sought to have set aside an order for them to be served, saying the appropriate jursidiction, if there was a triable issue, would be Argentina.
Held: The agreements were to be construed according to English Law. There was an advantage in settling these issues in advance of pessification. ‘Where points of construction of English law are involved, particularly those which involve Reinsurance with conditions precedent, ‘full reinsurance’ clauses and ‘follow the settlements’ clauses, the natural expectation of the parties must be for the English Courts to resolve such matters. ‘
Cooke The Honourable Mr Justice Cooke
[2004] EWHC 1186 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedThe Zephyr 1984
Whilst it is possible to make a contract which is partly oral and partly written, that is not the practice of the marine insurance market. The policy is the formal contractual document issued to the assured and unequivocally contains the terms of . .
CitedCredit Lyonnais v New Hampshire Insurance Company CA 12-Mar-1997
. .
CitedVolvox Hollandia 1998
. .
CitedMessier-Dowty Ltd and Another v Sabena Sa and Others CA 21-Feb-2000
The defendants sought a declaration that they would not be liable in respect of their potential involvement in a pending action. The appellants asserted that such a declaration could not be granted since no proceedings were yet in issue. The court . .
CitedNew Hampshire Insurance Company and others v Phillips Electronics North America Corporation CA 16-May-1997
In the context of applications for negative declarations: ‘1. There is power to grant a negative declaration in an appropriate case, the fundamental test being whether it would be useful. 2. However, careful scrutiny will be exercised not only to . .
CitedForsikringsaktieselskapt Vesta v Butcher HL 1988
A contract of insurance and a facultative reinsurance, under which part of the original risk was reinsured, contained warranties in identical terms.
Held: The warranty in the reinsurance policy, which was governed by English law, should be . .
CitedGroupama Navigation Et Transports; Continent Sa; Mutuelles Du Mans; Zurich International France SA and Gie Generali Transports (Bodies Corporate) v V Catatumbo Seguros (a Body Corporate) CA 20-Jul-2000
. .
CitedSpiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .
CitedThe Nile Rhapsody ComC 1992
. .
CitedBaker v Black Sea and Baltic General Insurance Co Ltd HL 20-May-1998
The question agreed to be before the court was ‘Where an insurer incurs costs in investigating settling or defending claims by his insured, can the insurer recover a proportion of these costs under a quota share or other form of proportional . .
CitedThe Nile Rhapsody CA 1994
. .
CitedCGU v Szabo 2002
. .
CitedMunchener Ruckversicherungsgesellschaft (Trading As Munich Reinsurance Company) v Commonwealth Insurance Company ComC 28-Apr-2004
Challenge to leave to serve proceedings on Canadian defendant. . .
CitedThe Lincoln National Life Insurance Co v Employers Reinsurance Corporation ComC 5-Feb-2002
. .
CitedPrifti and others v Musini Sociedad Anonima De Seguros Y Reaseguros ComC 21-Nov-2003
‘It is argued that because the subject matter of the Reinsurance was a Spanish risk, the commercial context of the . . Reinsurance suggests in the absence of an express jurisdiction agreement, that the parties intended the Spanish Courts to have . .
CitedSiporex Trade SA v Comdel Commodities 1986
The court should not absolve a defaulting party from the consequences of its neglect by maintaining a Mareva injunction order in force. . .
CitedThe Giovanna 1999
Non-disclosure by applicant for interim relief . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 January 2021; Ref: scu.197932

Don King v Lennox Lewis, Lion Promotions, LLC Judd Burstein: QBD 6 Feb 2004

Eady J
[2004] EWHC 168 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromLewis and others v King CA 19-Oct-2004
The claimant sought damages for defamation for an article published on the Internet. The claimant Don King sued in London even though he lived in the US as did the defendants.
Held: A publication via the internet occurred when the material was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 January 2021; Ref: scu.192660

Tavoulareas v Tsavliris: CA 5 Feb 2004

The court held that Greek proceedings required service for the purposes of establishing seisin, and therefore priority of jurisdiction. Mance LJ said: ‘Professor Antapassis says that, as a matter of Greek domestic law, the effect of art. 221 is that proceedings may be considered pending retrospectively from the date of filing of the writ, once service has been effected . . However, it is impossible to accept that the Greek proceedings were, for the purposes of art. 21 of the Brussels Convention, definitively pending from Nov. 8, 2001 (when they were filed). Article 21 requires a simple chronological approach, which is inconsistent with retrospectivity. That is obvious in principle, and was stated in Dresser, where Lord Justice Bingham said: ‘Some tie-break rule was necessary, and that adopted by the Convention was a simple test of chronological priority.”
The Hon Mr Justice Evans-Lombe, Lord Justice Mance, Lord Justice Thorpe
[2004] EWCA Civ 48, [2004] 1 Lloyds Rep 445
Bailii
Brussels Convention 21
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoTavoulareas v Tsavliris and others ComC 21-Mar-2003
. .

Cited by:
See AlsoTavoulareas v Tsavliris and Another ComC 12-Oct-2005
. .
See AlsoTavoulareas v Alexander G Tsavliris and Sons Maritime Company ComC 24-Nov-2005
. .
See AlsoTavoulareas v Tsavliris and others ComC 9-Mar-2006
Formal recognition of judgment from Greek court. . .
CitedNussberger and Another v Phillips and Another (No 4) CA 19-May-2006
nussbergerCA2006
A claim was issued in London in December 2004, and then served in part in Switzerland in January 2005. One copy was removed from the bundle by a Swiss official, seeing that it had been marked ‘Nor for service out of the jurisdiction.’ That marking . .
CitedThum v Thum FC 21-Oct-2016
No abuse of process in service error
The husband claimed that the W was guilty of abuse of process by issuing the divorce petion, but then not serving it for many months in an attempt to gain a tactical jurisdictional advantage under Brussels II.
Held: H’s application was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 January 2021; Ref: scu.192641

Staines v Walsh, Howard: ChD 14 Mar 2003

The claimant sought an account from the defendant share broker for the proceeds of share transactions. The defendant said the matter should be tried in Hong Kong.
Held: The claimant must show a good arguable case. Here there was evidence to support the claimant’s assertion of the use of an address in England, and a case was therefore shown. There were clear English connections, and the contract was asserted to have been made in England. England was the forum conveniens.
The Hon Mr Justice Goldring
[2003] EWHC 458 (Ch)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 6.20, Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990, Rome Convention 3
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCanada Trust Company and others v Wolfgang Otto Stolzenberg and others (2) CA 29-Oct-1997
The court looked at questions relating to domicile and jurisdiction; standard of proof, date to be determined and duties before service.
Held: The court is endeavouring to find an imprecise concept which reflects that the plaintiff must . .
CitedSpiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.179918

Wermuth v Wermuth: CA 4 Feb 2003

The husband had commenced proceedings for divorce in Germany. The husband was German, and the wife became German upon the marriage, but they had lived in London. The wife was second to issue, beginning proceedings in London. The district judge recorded the parties’ agreement that the German court should be seized, save of article 12 matters. The wife obtained an ancillary relief maintenance order, which the husband now appealed.
Held: The maintenance order was an unwarranted invasion of the jurisdiction of the German court. It was not protective, and nor was the case urgent. Brussels II has no direct application to ancillary relief claims. It was wrong for an English court to seek to usurp the Convention. Substantial sums had been spent on legal costs unnecessarily in London.
Thorpe, Latham, LJJ, Lawrence Collins J
Times 07-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 50, [2003] 1 WLR 942
Bailii
Council Regulation No 1347/2000/EC (OJ 2000 L160/19) 12
England and Wales

Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.179018