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

The actor Roy Kinnear died on being thrown from a horse while making a film in Spain. His widow sought damages from the fim company who in turn sought to issue a third party notice against those involved in Spain.
Held: A third party claim with a sufficient nexus may bring a main claim with Brussels Convention.

Judges:

Phillips J

Citations:

Times 01-Mar-1994, [1994] EWHC QB 1, [1996] 1 WLR 920, [1994] 3 All ER 42, [1994] ILPr 731

Links:

Bailii

International, Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Jurisdiction

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82801

Handelsveem Bv and Others v Coreck Maritime GmbH: ECJ 1 Dec 2000

When a court looked at a choice of the jurisdiction clause, it was not necessary that the clause should withoutmore establish the jurisdiction. A clause could be effective where the forum will be ascertainable at the time by reference to a the circumstances. In this case of the clause required a dispute under a bill of lading to be decided in the country where the carrier had his principal place of business. The requirement under the convention, that the parties should have should of ‘agreed’ the jurisdiction was satisfied where they had agreed a method of establishing it. The Brussels convention applied only if, first, at least one of the parties to the original contract was domiciled in the contracting state and, second, the parties agreed to submit any dispute before the Court of a contracting state.
‘The Court has held that, by making the validity of a jurisdiction clause subject to the existence of an ‘agreement’ between the parties, article 17 of the Convention 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 consensus between the parties, which must be clearly and precisely demonstrated, and that the purpose of the requirements as to form imposed by article 17 is to ensure that consensus between the parties is in fact established . . ‘

Citations:

Times 01-Dec-2000, C-387/98, [2000] ECR I-9337, [2000] EUECJ C-387/98

Links:

Bailii

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Transport, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81216

Michael Gayle v the Queen (Jamaica): PC 2 Jul 1996

The judicial Committee of the Privy-Council is not to be used as second court of appeal on matters of fact.

Citations:

Times 02-Jul-1996, Appeal No 40 of 1995, Appeal No 40 of 1995, [1996] UKPC 3, [1996] UKPC 18, [2012] ECHR 1636, [2012] ECHR 1635, [2012] ECHR 1637, [1990] ECHR 34, [2009] ECHR 619, [1980] ECHR 9, [1997] ECHR 205, [2014] ECHR 293, [1978] ECHR 8, [2010] ECHR 2263, [1994] ECHR 59, [2011] ECHR 2422, [1985] ECHR 14, [2016] ECHR 699, [2016] ECHR 704, [2016] ECHR 986, [2017] ECHR 32

Links:

PC, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction, Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80774

Domicrest Ltd v Swiss Bank Corporation: QBD 7 Jul 1998

An English claimant sued a Swiss bank for a negligent mis-statement made in a telephone call between England and Switzerland. The Swiss banker represented that the transmission of a copy payment order by the bank to the claimant was a guarantee that payment would be made for the amount referred. The claimant relied on the representations to release goods in Switzerland and Italy on receipt of the copy payment order from the bank rather than waiting until it had been paid. The bank refused to pay on three copy payments orders in respect of goods which had been released from store in Switzerland and Italy.
Held: The place of the damage was in Switzerland and Italy, where the goods were released without payment, rather than England, where the Swiss purchaser would have paid the price. The reasons for that finding were (a) that it was by reference to the loss of the goods that the damages were pleaded; and (b) that the essence of the complaint was that the goods were released prior to payment. Where negligent misstatement is alleged, the law governing the action is that of the country where the statement was made. The tortious act occurs when the statement is made not when and where the statement is relied upon.

Citations:

Times 16-Jul-1998, [1999] QB 548, [1998] EWHC 2001 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1988

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Negligence

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80090

D v P (Forum Conveniens): FD 7 Oct 1998

Where parties had divorced here, but had previously entered into a separation agreement abroad, it was proper to stay the ancillary relief proceedings here, and prefer the jurisdiction where the agreement had been made.

Citations:

Gazette 07-Oct-1998, [1998] 2 FLR 25

Cited by:

CitedMoore v Moore CA 20-Apr-2007
The family were wealthy, and had lived for some time in Spain. On the breakdown of the marriage, the wife returned to the UK, and sought ancillary relief here, though the divorce had been in Spain. The husband argued that this should be dealt with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Jurisdiction

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79765

C Inc Plc v L and Another: QBD 4 May 2001

The plaintiff had obtained judgment against L, only then to find that she claimed that all only apparent assets were held by her on trust for or as agent for her husband who was overseas. The plaintiff therefore now set out to add him, and to claim an asset freezing injunction against him.
Held: The court had power to order the assets of that third party to be frozen, even though they were not a party to the action, and no judgment existed against them. The court also has power to order him to be joined as a party, rather than for proceedings to be issued against him. Even though judgment had been obtained, the parties remained in dispute as to the means of payment, and that dispute remained part of the original proceedings. The word ‘proceedings’ in rule 19(2) should be interpreted widely and extend to circumstances where judgment had been obtained but not yet satisfied. The rule did not require that the disputed issue should be as between the existing parties. The court had the power to join the third party. The purpose of an asset freezing order ‘remains the protection of assets so as to provide a fund to meet a judgment obtained by the claimant in the English Courts’.
The court considered the effect of the decision in Cardile: ‘It seems to me that the High Court of Australia has stated that, in Australia, the assets of a third party can be frozen in aid of enforcing a pending or actual judgment, even where those assets are not beneficially owned by the actual or potential judgment debtor. The necessary precondition for power to make a freezing order over the third party’s assets is that the actual or potential judgment creditor should have some legal right to get at the third party’s funds. However, on my reading of the judgments, particularly pars. 57 and 121, the High Court of Australia is stating that there must be some casual link between the fact that the claimant has obtained a judgment against the principal defendant and thus has a legal right, as a consequence of the liability giving rise to the judgment, to go against the assets of the third party. I will delay deciding whether English law permits the exercise of the freezing order jurisdiction where there is such a casual link until I have considered the remaining two factors I have identified. ‘
and ‘If there is a claim for substantive relief by A against B (whether or not in the English Court), or A has obtained a judgment against B (in the English Court), then the English Court can grant a freezing order against the assets of C. But, generally, it must be arguable that those assets, even if in C’s name, are, in fact, beneficially owned by B.
The crucial question is whether the Court can go one stage further. Does it have the power to grant a freezing order against the assets of C when: (i) A has a substantive right against B (e.g. in the form of a judgment); (ii) the assets of C are not, even arguably, beneficially owned by B. The answer, to my mind, depends on how one interprets the phrases ‘ancillary’ and ‘incidental to and dependent upon’ used by Lords Browne-Wilkinson and Mustill in the Channel Tunnel case. In the Cardile case the High Court of Australia has, effectively, given those phrases a broad interpretation. But, critically, the High Court of Australia held that the right of A to a freezing order against C is dependent upon A having a right against B and that right itself giving rise to a right that B can exercise against C and its assets. Therefore the freezing order sought by A against C is ‘incidental to’ A’s substantive right against B and it is also ‘dependent upon’ that right.’

Judges:

Aikens J

Citations:

Times 04-May-2001, [2001] 2 Lloyds Law Reports 459, [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 446

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 19.4(2)(a), 6.30(2), 6.20(3)

Citing:

CitedCardile v LED Builders PTY Limited 1999
(High Court of Australia) The respondent (‘LED’) twice sought relief from Eagle Homes PTY Limited (‘Eagle’) for copyright infringement. Anticipating the proceedings the only shareholders and controllers of Eagle, the claimants arranged the . .

Cited by:

CitedSiskina (owners of Cargo lately on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA HL 1979
An injunction was sought against a Panamanian ship-owning company to restrain it from disposing of a fund, consisting of insurance proceeds, in England. The claimant for the injunction was suing the company in a Cyprus court for damages and believed . .
CitedHM Revenue and Customs v Egleton and others ChD 19-Sep-2006
The claimants had applied for the winding up of a company for very substantial sums of VAT due to it. Anticipating that hearing, it now sought restraining orders against the director defendants, alleging that there had been a carousel or missing . .
CitedTrade Credit Finance No Ltd and Another v Bilgin and others ComC 3-Nov-2004
. .
CitedMesser Griesheim Gmbh v Goyal Mg Gases Pvt Ltd ComC 7-Feb-2006
The claimant sought to have set aside its own judgment obtained by default so as to apply for a second judgment. The first would not be enforceable abroad against the defendant, because a default judgment was not enforceable in India. The second . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78800

Jamieson v Northern Electricity Supply Corp (Private) Ltd: 1970

It was argued that there had been an implied submission to the Zambian courts by an employee because the contract of employment was entered into in, and to be performed in Zambia, and assumed to be governed by Zambian law, and that a Azambian judgement on the matter should be enforced.
Held: Lord Johnston (at 116) took the view that a submission was not lightly to be implied, and could not be implied from a conjunction of those factors. Registration of the Zambian judgment was set aside because the 1933 Act did not apply to Zambia.

Judges:

Lord Johnston

Citations:

1970 SLT 113

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Jurisdiction

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.565131

SA Consortium General Textiles v Sun and Sand Agencies Ltd: CA 1978

The expression ‘agreed . . to submit to the jurisdiction’ in the 1933 Act meant ‘expressed willingness or consented to or acknowledged that he would accept the jurisdiction of the foreign court. It does not require that the judgment debtor must have bound himself contractually or in formal terms so to do’

Judges:

Goff LJ

Citations:

[1978] QB 279

Statutes:

Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 4(2)(a)(ii)

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.565133

Emanuel 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’.

Judges:

Kennedy LJ

Citations:

[1908] 1 KB 302

Citing:

CitedSirdar 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.565132

Copin v Adamson: CA 1875

The plaintiff sought to enforce here a judgment obtained in France against the defendant, who now pleaded that he was not a native of and had not lived in France. He had not been served with any process or had any involvement in or knowledge of the proceedings in France. The plaintiff said that he owned shares in a French company which made him subject to its statutes which in turn provided for French law and jurisdiction on related disputes, and that any member must elect a French domicile, or that election could be made for it. The company having become insolvent, he was now pursued for the subscription promised.
Held: The reply was effective even though he had hadno notice of the proceedings: ‘The Courts of this country consider the defendant bound . . where he has contracted to submit himself to the forum in which the judgment was obtained.’

Citations:

(1875) 1 Ex D 17, (1875) 45 LJQB 15, (1875) 33 LT 560, (1875) WR 85

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.565110

Rousillon v Rousillon: 1880

Fry J considered Copin v Adamson as authority for the view that the foreign court would have jurisdiction where the judgment debtor ‘has contracted to submit himself to the forum in which the judgment was obtained’.

Judges:

Fry J

Citations:

(1880) 14 Ch D 351

Jurisdiction

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.565128

National Bank of Greece SA v Westminster Bank Executor and Trustee Co (Channel Islands) Ltd: 1971

Judges:

Lord Hailsham LC

Citations:

[1971] AC 945

Cited by:

CitedNML Capital Ltd v Argentina SC 6-Jul-2011
The respondent had issued bonds but in 2001 had declared a moratorium on paying them. The appellant hedge fund later bought the bonds, heavily discounted. Judgment was obtained in New York, which the appellants now sought to enforce against assets . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.441569

The Bank of Australasia v Harding: 1850

The members, resident in England, of a company formed for the purpose of carrying on business in a place out of England, are bound, in respect of the transactions of that company, by the law of thc country in which the business is carried on accordingly. – A statute authorising an unincorporated company to sue and to be sued the name of its chairman, constitutes the chairman, when so suing or so sued, an agent for the members of the company in the aflairs of the company. – The members of a company formed for the purpose of carrying on business in a colony, are not discharged from liability on judgments obtained in the colony against the chairman, by reason of their having been resident in England, not being served with process, and having received no notice of the proceedings. – Where a statute subjects the property of members for the time being of an unincorporated company, to execution upon a judgment obtained against their chairman, reserving in other respects the liabilities of parties, the remedies given against the property are in cumulation, and a member may be proceeded against by action. – A judgment in a colonial court is no estoppel; nor is it pleadable in bar in an action brought in England for the same cause.

Citations:

[1850] EngR 74, (1850) 9 CB 662, (1850) 137 ER 1052

Links:

Commonlii

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Jurisdiction

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.297421

The Bank of Australasia v Nias: 1851

By an Act of the Colonial Legislature of New South Wales, it was provided tbat a banking company should sue and be sued in the name of its chairman, arid that execution on any judgment against the oompany might be issued against the property of any member for the time being, in like manner as if such judgment had been obtairied against such member personally. In assumpsit against a member of the company on a judgment obtained in the colony against the chairman: Held, that the colonial Legislature had authority to pass the Act, and that there was nothing repugnant to the law of England, or to natural justice, in enacting that actions on contracts made by the company in the colony, instead of being brought against the shareholders individually, should be brought against the chairman whom they had appointed to represent them. That a judgment recovered in such an action, after service of process on the chairman, had the same effect beyond the territory of the colony which it would have had if the defendant had been personally served with process, and, he being a party to the record, the recovery had been personally against him. That, although in an action on a foreign or colonial judgment the judgment is examinable to a certain extent., as, for the purpose of shewing want of jurisdiction, or that defendant was not summoned, or that the judgment was fraudulently obtained, yet such judgment is not examinable upon the merits, as, for the purpose of shewing that the contract sued upon was not made, or was procured by fraud, or that the judgment was erroneous, But that a foreign or colonial judgment obtained against a co-contractor cannot be insisted on by way of merger in an action on the judgment.

Citations:

[1851] EngR 77, (1851) 16 QB 717, (1851) 117 ER 1055

Links:

Commonlii

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Company

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.296393

Banque des Marchands de Moscou (Koupetschesky) v Kindersley: CA 1951

Sir Raymond Evershed MR discussed the need to keep the doctrine against approbation and reprobation within limits.

Judges:

Sir Raymond Evershed MR

Citations:

[1951] Ch D 112

Cited by:

CitedSmith v Skanska Construction Services Ltd QBD 29-Jul-2008
The court considered whether the driver of a vehicle involved in a fatal road accident in Thailand was driving within the authority of the UK employers. The driver was not an employee but had authority to use company vehicles for tasks for the . .
CitedMcLaughlin and Others v Newall QBD 31-Jul-2009
The claimant asked the court to strike out the defence that the claimant had compromised his claim by agreement. The defendant had written letters critical of the claimants who were governors of a school which had disciplined his daughter a teacher . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.277726

Bumper Development Corporation Ltd v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: CA 1991

An Indian temple having a legal persona recognised in India may assert rights and make claims under English Law. Even though it would not be recognised as a litigant if based in England and Wales, it was nonetheless entitled, in accordance with the principle of comity of nations, to sue in England.
Purchas LJ said: ‘The particular difficulty arises out of English law’s restriction of legal personality to corporations or the like, that is to say the personified groups or series of individuals. This insistence on an essentially animate content in a legal person leads to a formidable conceptual difficulty in recognising as a party entitled to sue in our courts something which on one view is little more than a pile of stones.’
Issues of foreign law are issues of fact. However, they are a special kind of fact. The Court is entitled to apply its own legal knowledge to determining the issue. However, it is confined to materials on foreign law which are exhibited to an expert report. The court considered the approach to be taken where there was conflicting evidence as to foreign law. The court must resolve differences in the same way as in the case of other conflicting evidence as to facts. It is not permissible to reject uncontradicted expert evidence unless it is patently absurd.

Judges:

Purchas LJ

Citations:

[1991] 1 WLR 1362, [1991] 4 All ER 638

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

CitedLloyd v Svenby QBD 27-Feb-2006
The two claimants sought title to a car registration plate and to a chassis number. They were to be applied to historic racing cars.
Held: The power to assign registration marks lay with the Secretary of State. Any legal rights rested not with . .
CitedRegina v D(R) Misc 16-Sep-2013
Crown Court at Blackfriars – the court was asked to what extent a witness wanting, from religious conviction, to hide her face with the niqaab form of Islamic dress should be allowed to do so, whilst giving evidence.
Held: The court considered . .
CitedXP v Compensa Towarzystwo Sa and Another QBD 13-Jul-2016
The claimant had been injured in two separate car accidents suffering physical and psychiatric injuries. Liability was admitted but the insurers coud not agree apportionment of losses. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.238747

The 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, of substantial importance the circumstance that Greek law governs, and is, in respects which may well be material, different from English law. ‘
‘I recognise that an English court can, and often does, decide questions of foreign law on the basis of expert evidence from foreign lawyers. Nor do I regard such legal concepts as contractual good faith and morality as being so strange as to be beyond the capacity of an English court to grasp and apply. It seems to be clear, however, that in general, and other things being equal, it is more satisfactory for the law of a foreign country to be decided by the courts of that country. That would be my view, as a matter of common sense, apart from authority. But if authority be needed, it is to be found in The Cap Blanco [1913] P. 130 per Sir Samuel Evans P. at p. 136 and in Settlement Corporation v. Hochschild [1966] Ch. 10, per Ungoed-Thomas J., at p. 18…’
Brandon J identified the advantage on an appeal:
‘Apart from the general advantage which a foreign court has in determining and applying its own law, there is a significant difference in the position with regard to appeal. A question of foreign law decided by a court of the foreign country concerned is appealable as such to the appropriate appellate court of that country. But a question of foreign law decided by an English court on expert evidence is treated as a question of fact for the purposes of appeal, with the limitations in the scope of an appeal inherent in that categorisation. This consideration seems to me to afford an added reason for saying that, in general and other things being equal, it is more satisfactory for the law of a foreign country to be decided by the courts of that country. Moreover, by more satisfactory I mean more satisfactory from the point of view of ensuring that justice is done.’

Judges:

Brandon J

Citations:

[1970] P 94

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

ApprovedDonohue 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. . .
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. . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.228193

Bank Voor Handel En Scheepvaart NV v Slatford: 1951

A Dutch bank deposited a quantity of gold in London before the start of the 1939-1945 war. In May 1940 the Netherlands were invaded and they became an enemy territory for the purposes of the 1939 Act. The Royal Netherlands Government, with the approval of the UK Government, exercised their powers from London and in May 1940 they issued a decree which purported to have the effect of transferring property, including the gold, to the Netherlands Government (the A.1 decree). In July 1940, the Board of Trade made a vesting order transferring the gold to the Custodian of Enemy Property. He sold it for andpound;2 million. In May 1950 the Netherlands Government made an order returning the property in the gold to the Bank. The Bank then claimed against the Custodian in conversion for the present value of the gold. Devlin J held that the A.1 decree was ineffective to transfer moveable property in this country.
Held:
Devlin J said: ‘I think it is convenient to begin by considering what is the general principle of our law with regard to foreign legislation affecting property within our territory. There is little doubt that it is the lex situs which as a general rule governs the transfer of movables when effected contractually. The maxim mobilia sequuntur personam is the exception rather than the rule, and is probably to be confined to certain special classes of general assignments such as marriage settlements and devolutions on death and bankruptcy. Upon this basis the A.1 decree, not being a part of English law, would not transfer the property in this case. But decrees of this character have received in the authorities rather different treatment. Although there is not, as far as I am aware, any authority which distinguishes general legislation, such as part of a civil code, from ad hoc decrees, the effectiveness of such decrees does not appear on the authorities to be determined exclusively by the application of the lex situs. Apart from two recent cases on which the plaintiffs greatly rely, there has been no case in which such a decree has been enforced in this country, but the grounds for refusing effect to them have been variously put. Sometimes it is said that the decree is confiscatory. In the textbooks it is said sometimes that as a matter of public international law no State ought to seek to exercise sovereignty over property outside its own territory, and therefore the principle of comity is against enforcement; and sometimes it is said that the principle of effectiveness is against enforcement, since no State can expect to make its laws effective in the territory of another State. Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 6th ed., p. 13, states: ‘A State’s authority, in the eyes of other States and the courts that represent them, is, speaking very generally, coincident with, and limited by, its power. It is territorial. It may legislate for, and give judgments affecting, things and persons within its territory. It has no authority to legislate for, or adjudicate upon, things or persons not within its territory.’
Denning LJ said: ‘In this connection I would observe that the test of being a servant does not rest nowadays on submission to orders. It depends on whether the person is part and parcel of the organisation.’

Judges:

Devlin J, Denning LJ

Citations:

[1953] 1 QB 248, [1951] 2 TLR 755, [1951] 2 All ER 779

Statutes:

Trading With The Enemy Act 1939

Cited by:

CitedPeer International Corporation Southern Music Publishing Company Inc Peermusic (UK) Limited v Termidor Music Publishers Limited Termidor Musikverlag Gmbh and Co Kg -And-Editoria Musical De Cuba CA 30-Jul-2003
Peer sought declarations that they were the owners, or licensees, of the UK copyright in musical works composed by Cuban nationals, relying on assignments in writing by the composers and in some instances by their heirs. The defendants claimed under . .
CitedReady Mixed Concrete Southeast Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance QBD 8-Dec-1967
Contracts of service or for services
In three cases appeals were heard against a finding as to whether a worker was entitled to have his employer pay National Insurance contributions on his behalf which would apply if he were an employee. He worked as an ‘owner-driver’
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Employment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.186123

Beck v Value Capital Ltd (No 2): 1974

The plaintiffs had obtained leave to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction. They then sought to add a claim and argued that once an additional cause of action was shown to be generically within the scope of Order 11, that was an end of the matter. The court must exercise discretion as if the case were a domestic one, and may not enquire whether leave would have been granted in the circumstances of the particular case.
Held: The court disagreed. Goulding said: ‘No authority directly on the point has been cited. In principle I find the plaintiff’s proposition unacceptable. It seems to me manifestly unfair to a foreign defendant, and it would often enable a plaintiff to circumvent the court’s discretion under RSC Ord. 11 by the familiar device of throwing a sprat to catch a mackerel . . It is enough to say that the discretion to allow an amendment . . will not be exercised an injustice to the opposite party will result, and that it is in general unjust to amend a writ served under RSC Ord. 11 by adding something which the court would probably have refused to sanction under RSC Ord. 11.’
If proceedings are served out of the jurisdiction, and the plaintiff later seeks to bring in by amendment another cause of action which could also be the subject of leave to serve out, then it seems that the amendment is permissible, so long as no injustice to the opposite party will result.

Judges:

Goulding J

Citations:

[1975] 1 WLR 6, [1974] 3 All ER 442

Cited by:

Appeal fromBeck v Value Capital Ltd (No 2) CA 1976
. .
CitedNML Capital Ltd v Argentina SC 6-Jul-2011
The respondent had issued bonds but in 2001 had declared a moratorium on paying them. The appellant hedge fund later bought the bonds, heavily discounted. Judgment was obtained in New York, which the appellants now sought to enforce against assets . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.441567

Society of Lloyd’s v White and others: QBD 14 Apr 2000

A court in England could issue an injunction preventing parties continuing an action in Australia even though the court there had accepted jurisdiction. The contract contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause for dispute to be settled here, and the Australian court did not appear to have considered relevant English court decisions. Such an action must be speedy, and made with respect for the foreign court.

Citations:

Times 14-Apr-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, International

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.89382

Channel Tunnel Group Ltd and Another v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd and Others: CA 1 Apr 1992

The arbitration agreement specified that disputes were to be arbitrated in Brussels, therefore there was no jurisdiction in an English court.

Citations:

Gazette 01-Apr-1992

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1950 12 (6) (h)

Cited by:

Appeal fromChannel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd and Others HL 17-Feb-1993
The court has the power to stay an action which pursued a remedy which was outside the terms of the arbitration agreement determining the dispute. The contract between the parties provided for disputes to be settled by arbitration in Belgium. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Jurisdiction

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.78975

Krenge v Krenge: 1999

The power in an English court to stay family proceedings here in favour of a foreign jurisdiction exists independently of any statute.

Citations:

[1999] 1 FLR 969

Cited by:

CitedMoore v Moore CA 20-Apr-2007
The family were wealthy, and had lived for some time in Spain. On the breakdown of the marriage, the wife returned to the UK, and sought ancillary relief here, though the divorce had been in Spain. The husband argued that this should be dealt with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Jurisdiction

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.251425

Norris v Chambres: 1862

A company director had advanced part of a loan for the purchase of a mine in Prussia. He died, and because of lack of funds, his estate risked losing everything. His estate sought its recovery.
Held: ‘With respect to this advance, I think that, upon the authority of Penn v. Lord Baltimore, which has often been acted upon, the Plaintiff would have been entitled to succeed if he could have proved that the claim for a declaration of the proposed charge or lien on the Maria Anna mine was founded on any contract or privity between him or the deceased [director] and the Defendants, the purchasers of the mine, and if there had not been a suit in the Prussian Courts, in which the same question was raised and had been decided in the Plaintiff’s favour. But I agree in thinking with the Master of the Rolls that the Plaintiff has failed to shew any such contract or privity. Upon the evidence adduced the purchasers of the mine, whom he sues, are to be considered as mere strangers, and any notice which they may have had of the transactions between [the deceased director] and [the old company] (which has now ceased to exist) cannot give this Court jurisdiction to declare the proposed lien or charge on lands in a foreign country. An English Court ought not to pronounce a decree, even in personam, which can have no specific operation without the intervention of a foreign Court, and which in the country where the lands to be charged by it lie would probably be treated as a brutum fulmen. I do not think that the Court of Chancery would give effect to a charge on land in the county of Middlesex so created by a Prussian Court sitting as Dusseldorf or Cologne. But another objection is lis alibi pendens, a suit pending before the proper tribunal in Prussia, and that by this tribunal, a decree has actually been pronounced in favour of the Plaintiff, giving him what he seeks . . We must suppose that the Court at Dusseldorf has ample means to enforce the whole of its decree, and that the Plaintiff will have the full benefit of that decree, which may be considered as creating a debt for which the opposite parties are personally liable and a charge upon the property sold.’

Judges:

Lord Campbell LC

Citations:

(1862) 3 De G.F. and J. 583

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromNorris v Chambres 1861
A company director had committed suicide; the claim was brought by his estate. The company had been established in England to work a Prussian coal mine, and the director had personally advanced a large sum towards its purchase. The company agreed to . .
CitedPenn v Lord Baltimore 1750
The court compelled Lord Baltimore to comply with the obligations he had assumed to the Penn family, by setting the Mason-Dixon line, demarcating boundaries between the privately-owned territories of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Delaware, and . .

Cited by:

CitedR Griggs Group Ltd and others v Evans and others (No 2) ChD 12-May-2004
A logo had been created for the claimants, by an independent sub-contractor. They sought assignment of their legal title, but, knowing of the claimant’s interest the copyright was assigned to a third party out of the jurisdiction. The claimant . .
CitedDeschamps v Miller 1908
The parties disputed land in India. A French couple, had married in France in community of property. So according to the French marriage contract the wife was supposed to be entitled to one half of the husband’s after-acquired property. The husband . .
ExplainedMacmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc and Others (No 3) ChD 1-Jul-1993
Bona fide chargees for value of shares situated in New York and held on trust for Macmillan were able, by application of New York law, to take the shares free of Macmillan’s prior equitable interest of which the chargees had had no notice. Where . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Jurisdiction

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.199520

Pearce v Ove Arup Partnership Ltd and Others: ChD 17 Mar 1997

A UK court may not decline jurisdiction in enforcing Dutch copyright law if it is asked to do so.

Citations:

Times 17-Mar-1997, Gazette 16-Apr-1997

Statutes:

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1968) (Cmnd 7395)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromPearce v Ove Arup Partnership Ltd and others CA 21-Jan-1999
An English court does not have to refuse an application which sought to apply a foreign copyright law in a claim based on acts committed abroad on the basis that not actionable here. Such restrictions applicable to land actions only: ‘It is, we . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Jurisdiction

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84630

National Justice Compania Naviera Sa v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (No 2): CA 15 Oct 1999

An English court does have power to order a non-resident non-party to contribute to the costs of a case, where that party was domiciled in a convention country. Here the third party was alleged to be the alter ego of the actual party. There was no requirement to have sued that third party first under any convention entered into by the UK.

Citations:

Gazette 27-Oct-1999, Times 15-Oct-1999, Gazette 03-Nov-1999, [2000] 1 WLR 603, [2000] 1 All ER 37, [1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 673, [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 129, [2000] CP Rep 13, [2000] CLC 22, [2000] 1 Costs LR 37, [2000] IL Pr 490, [2000] Lloyd’s Rep IR 230, (1999) 149 NLJ 1561, Independent 20-Oct-1999, Independent 22-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 51, Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1968) (Cmnd 7395)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromNational Justice Compania Naviera S A v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd ComC 30-Jul-1999
An application to make a non party liable for costs under section 51(1) Supreme Court Act 1981 is not a claim within Title II of the Brussels Convention, for it is an incidental part of the substantive proceedings already before the Court. It makes . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Costs

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84185

Lord Advocate v R W Forsyth Ltd: 1986

The taxpayer appealed his corporation tax assessments and had applied to a special commissioner for postponement of payment. The applications was to be heard in Glasgow, but for convenience it was heard in London, where it failed. The taxpayer then asked the High Court for judicial review of the postponment decisions. At the same time, the Crown had issued summonses in the Court of Session seeking payment of the tax due.
Held: The court granted a decree in favour of the Crown in both proceedings. The High Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. The decision of the special commissioner on a Scottish tax case, although sitting for administrative convenience in London, remained subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Scottish court. Confusion could result if more than one court had jurisdiction.

Judges:

Lord Wylie

Citations:

(1986) 61 TC 1

Jurisdiction:

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.

Corporation Tax, Scotland, Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.245384

Richardson v Richardson: KBD 1927

A bank owed debts to a judgment debtor customer on accounts held both in London and in Africa. It was accepted that the former were subject to a garnishee order. The dispute concerned the latter.
Held: The bank is no doubt indebted to the judgment debtor and the bank is within the jurisdiction. The Order deals with the case where ‘any other person is indebted to the judgment debtor and is within the jurisdiction’. But both in principle and upon authority, that means ‘is indebted within the jurisdiction and is within the jurisdiction’. The debt must be properly recoverable within the jurisdiction. In principle, attachment of debts is a form of execution, and the general power of execution extends only to property within the jurisdiction of the Court which orders it. A debt is not [properly] within the jurisdiction if it cannot be recovered here. The court was accordingly of opinion that moneys held by the bank to the credit of the judgment debtor at the African branches cannot be made the subject of a garnishee order, for they are not a debt recoverable within the jurisdiction.’ The court went on to hold that, if he was wrong in that conclusion, he would exercise his discretion against the making of an order.

Judges:

Hill J

Citations:

[1927] P 228,

Cited by:

DistinguishedSCF Finance Co Ltd v Masri (No 3) 1987
The court accepted that in a case where the garnishee was not indebted within the jurisdiction that might be relevant to the exercise of the court’s discretion. Since, in this case, the debt in question was an English debt, the court’s jurisdiction . .
No Longer good lawInterpool Ltd v Galani CA 1988
The debtor appealed against an order to answer questions and disclose documents relating to any debts owed to him or other property or means belonging to him outside the jurisdiction. The court looked at the examination of a judgment debtor under . .
CitedSociete Eram Shipping Company Limited and others v Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Compagnie Internationale de Navigation HL 12-Jun-2003
The appeal concerned a final third party debt order (formerly a garnishee order). A judgment in France was registered here for enforcement. That jurisdiction was now challenged.
Held: A third party debt order is a proprietary remedy operating . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183542

Regina v Sansom: CACD 2 Jan 1991

The appellants had been charged with conspiracy contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The court rejected the argument that the principle laid down in Somchai referred only to the common law and that it could not be applied to conspiracies charged under the Act of 1977. It should now be regarded as the law of England on this point.

Judges:

Taylor LJ

Citations:

[1991] 2 QB 130, (1991) 92 Cr App R 115

Statutes:

Criminal Law Act 1977 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedSomchai Liangsiriprasert v Government of the United States of America PC 1991
(Hong Kong) Application was made for the defendant’s extradition from Hong Kong to the USA. The question was whether a conspiracy entered into outside Hong Kong with the intention of committing the criminal offence of trafficking in drugs in Hong . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Bartle and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte; Regina v Evans and Similar (No 3) HL 24-Mar-1999
An application to extradite a former head of state for an offence which was not at the time an offence under English law would fail, but could proceed in respect of allegations of acts after that time. No immunity was intended for heads of state. . .
CitedSheppard and Another, Regina v CACD 29-Jan-2010
The defendants appealed against their convictions for publishing racially inflammatory material. They skipped bail during the trial, were convicted in their absence, and returned after being refused asylum in the US. The convictions related to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Jurisdiction

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.235353

Frans Maas Logistics (UK) Ltd v CDR Trucking BV: ComC 23 Mar 1999

CMR Convention: Articles 31(2) and 36 – relating on jurisdiction. Brussels Convention: Article 57. Applicability in cases covered by the CMR convention.
Article 31.2 of CMR to be limited to proceedings brought by same claimant against the same defendant, and that, on that basis, the lis pendens provisions of articles 21 and 22 of the Brussels Convention should be applied to preclude a mirror image claim in England raising the same issues, but with the parties’ positions as claimant and defendant reversed, to those raised in prior Dutch proceedings.
A claim for a negative declaration could not give rise to a ‘pending’ action within the meaning of article 31(2), and that in any event an action for a negative declaration and an action for substantive monetary relief were not ‘on the same grounds’.

Judges:

Colman J

Citations:

[1999] 1 All ER (Comm), [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 179

Statutes:

Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 31.1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

OverruledAndrea Merzario Ltd v Internationale Spedition Leitner Gesellschaft Gmbh CA 23-Jan-2001
. .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.225403

Cope v Doherty: CA 2 Jan 1858

Turner LJ: ‘An attempt was made on the part of the appellants to bring this case within Don v Lippman and cases of that class, but I think those cases have no bearing upon the point. This is a question of liability, and not of procedure.’

Judges:

Turner LJ

Citations:

(1858) 2 De G and J 614

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromCope v Doherty 1858
Owners of an American ship which had collided with and sunk another American ship applied to limit their liability pursuant to section 504 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854.
Held: The section did not apply to collisions between foreigners. . .

Cited by:

CitedStevens v Head 18-Mar-1993
(High Court of Australia) The court considered a claim for damages arising out of a motor accident in New South Wales, where the claim had been brought in the courts of Queensland. The questions arose as to whether or not a provision in the Motor . .
CitedHarding v Wealands CA 17-Dec-2004
The claimant sought damages here for a road traffic accident which had occurred in Australia. The defendant was working in England. The defendant argued that the law of New South Wales applied.
Held: The general rule in section 11 was not to . .
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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.222526

Parker v Schuller: CA 1901

The plaintiffs had obtained leave to serve a writ out of the jurisdiction under Order 11, r 1(e) of the RSC on the ground that the claim was for breach of a contract within the jurisdiction. The breach alleged was of a CIF contract, and the allegation was that the contract was broken by reason of a failure to deliver in Liverpool the goods that were the subject of the contract. Leave was given ex parte and upheld inter partes. The plaintiffs now conceded that the way that their claim had been advanced had been misconceived in that a CIF contract involves an obligation to deliver documents, not the goods to which the documents relate. The plaintiffs tried to persuade the Court to uphold the leave given to serve out on the basis of substituting for the original claim a claim for failure to deliver the relevant documents in Liverpool.
Held: Permission was refused. A L Smith MR said: ‘It was not until the case came into this Court that the plaintiff set up another cause of action. That could not be allowed.’
Collins LJ said: ‘an application for leave to issue a writ for service out of the jurisdiction ought to be made with great care and looked at strictly. If a material representation upon which the leave was obtained in the first instance turned out to be unfounded, the plaintiff ought not to be allowed . . to set up another and a distinct cause of action which was not before the Judge upon the original application. It was clear from the affidavit that the only case made on the original application was that the defendants were bound to deliver the goods in this country, and that there was a breach of that contract here, and upon that representation alone leave was originally granted to issue the writ and serve notice thereof abroad.’
Romer LJ said: ‘an application for leave to issue a writ for service out of the jurisdiction ought to be made with great care and looked at strictly. If a material representation upon which the leave was obtained in the first instance turned out to be unfounded, the plaintiff ought not to be allowed, when an application was made by the defendant to discharge the order for the issue of the writ and the service, to set up another and a distinct cause of action which was not before the judge upon the original application.’

Judges:

A L Smith MR, Collins, Romer LJJ

Citations:

(1901) 17 TLR 299

Cited by:

To be confined to its factsNML Capital Ltd v Argentina SC 6-Jul-2011
The respondent had issued bonds but in 2001 had declared a moratorium on paying them. The appellant hedge fund later bought the bonds, heavily discounted. Judgment was obtained in New York, which the appellants now sought to enforce against assets . .
AppliedRe Jogia (A Bankrupt) 1988
Application was made for leave to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction in a claim for money had and received in connection with payments made to the defendant after a receiving order.
Held: A plaintiff who has been given permission to . .
CitedMetall und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette Inc CA 1990
There was a complicated commercial dispute involving allegations of conspiracy. A claim by the plaintiffs for inducing or procuring a breach of contract would have been statute-barred in New York.
Held: Slade LJ said: ‘The judge’s approach to . .
CitedAB v CD QBD 3-Jan-2014
The parties were contracted to each other in respect of an internet based marketing system for metals and other resources. The claimant had contracted in effect to promote the system. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent termination of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.441563

Waterhouse v Reid: 1938

The court has no power to make orders against persons outside its territorial jurisdiction unless authorised by statute and that there is no inherent extra-territorial jurisdiction.

Judges:

Greer LJ

Citations:

[1938] 1 KB 743, [1938] 1 All ER 235

Cited by:

CitedNML Capital Ltd v Argentina SC 6-Jul-2011
The respondent had issued bonds but in 2001 had declared a moratorium on paying them. The appellant hedge fund later bought the bonds, heavily discounted. Judgment was obtained in New York, which the appellants now sought to enforce against assets . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.441566

Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK and another v Bader and others: 17 Dec 1998

Judges:

Moore-Bick J

Citations:

Unreported, 17 December 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedMidland International Trade Services v Al Sudairy ChD 11-Apr-1990
The court had power to order the payment of interest on a judgment of a court in Saudi Arabia even though a Saudi court would have applied Sharia law. That law follows the teaching in the Koran forbidding the payment or receipt of interest. . .

Cited by:

CitedKnight v Axa Assurances QBD 24-Jul-2009
The claimant was injured in a car accident in France. The defendant insurer said that the quantification of damages was to be according to French law and the calculation of interest also. The claimant said that English law applied.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.375207

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.’

Judges:

Lord Wright

Citations:

[1939] AC 277, [1939] UKPC 7

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

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 . .
CitedPatel v Mirza SC 20-Jul-2016
The claimant advanced funds to the respondent for him to invest in a bank of which the claimant had insider knowledge. In fact the defendant did not invest the funds, the knowledge was incorrect. The defendant however did not return the sums . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Jurisdiction

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.228196

Khrapunov v JSC BTA Bank: CA 2 Feb 2017

Judges:

Gloster DBE, Beatson, Sales LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 40, [2017] WLR(D) 71

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromJSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov SC 21-Mar-2018
A had been chairman of the claimant bank. After removal, A fled to the UK, obtaining asylum. The bank then claimed embezzlement, and was sentenced for contempt after failing to disclose assets when ordered, but fled the UK. The Appellant, K, was A’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Torts – Other

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.573867

SC Rolinay Sea Star SRL v Compania de Navigatie Maritimie Petromin SA (The Bumbesti): QBD 12 Jul 1999

An award made by the Constanza Court of Arbitration of Romania could not be enforced in rem in the English courts against a ship here, since the award was not an agreement relating to the use of the hire of a ship within the section.

Citations:

Times 12-Jul-1999

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 20(2)(h)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.89037

Sameon Co Sa v Nv Petrofina SA and Another (The World Hitachi Zosen): QBD 8 Apr 1996

An express contractual term will be required to displace the Convention rules on domicile. The standard wording in charterparty contracts is insufficient to do this. The word ‘adjusted’ by itself would normally be taken to refer to the process of assessment of general average contributions; more explicit wording would be needed to create a binding agreement as to the place of payment. Consequently, the wording of the clause was not sufficiently specific to bring the contract within article 5(1) or article 17 of the Brussels Convention, thereby enabling the general rule conferring jurisdiction on the courts of the defendants’ country of domicile to be ousted.

Judges:

Justice Langley

Citations:

Times 08-Apr-1996

Statutes:

1968 Brussels Convention 5(1) 17, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Jurisdiction

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88992

Dollfus Mieg et Cie v CWD International Ltd; LBJ Regents Ltd and another v Dolifus Mieg et Cie: QBD 17 Mar 2003

The applicant was a Part 20 defendant in a cross action brought between two other parties. It sought to have its own claim against the original claimant heard as a counterclaim.
Held: Article 6 should not be construed so widely as to allow a cross claim by someone other than the original defendant to the counterclaim. The normal domicile rule could not support such a derogation.

Judges:

Havelock-Allan J

Citations:

Times 19-Apr-2003

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 20, Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 6(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBaltic Insurance Group v Jordan Grand Prix Limited and Others and Quay Financial Software Limited and Others (By Counter Claim and One Other Action) HL 20-May-1998
The Brussels Convention requires an insurance company to commence a claim against an insured in the country in which it operates. This applies also to non-convention countries, and a counterclaim may not add a new party from another jurisdiction. . .
CitedDollfus Mieg et Cie v CWD International Ltd; LBJ Regents Ltd and another v Dolifus Mieg et Cie QBD 17-Mar-2003
The applicant was a Part 20 defendant in a cross action brought between two other parties. It sought to have its own claim against the original claimant heard as a counterclaim.
Held: Article 6 should not be construed so widely as to allow a . .

Cited by:

CitedDollfus Mieg et Cie v CWD International Ltd; LBJ Regents Ltd and another v Dolifus Mieg et Cie QBD 17-Mar-2003
The applicant was a Part 20 defendant in a cross action brought between two other parties. It sought to have its own claim against the original claimant heard as a counterclaim.
Held: Article 6 should not be construed so widely as to allow a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules, European

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.180875

Lakah Group and Another v al-Jazeera Satellite Channel and Another: QBD 26 Mar 2003

The defendant sought an order that the defamation proceedings had been invalidly served.
Held: The Rule introduced an additional code and alternative method of service, but not a comprehensive code. Establishing a place of business under section 695 connoted a greater degree of permanence than was required under the rules. However the rules still required that the respondent had a ‘place of business’ and service at a place with which the company had no more than a transient connection was insufficient. The claimant had not established that service had been effective.

Judges:

Gray J

Citations:

Times 18-Apr-2003

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 695, Civil Procedure Rules 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromLakah Group and Another v Al Jazeera Satellite Channel and Another CA 9-Dec-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Defamation

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.180855

Vik v Deutsche Bank Ag: CA 6 Sep 2018

DB sought to enforce payment of a judgment debt of US$320 million. The appellant was accused of failing to comply orders designed to facilitate collection. There was uncertainty in the rules: ‘this is a matter where consideration by the Rules Committee would be most welcome. Putting to one side the cases in which (on the view I take) permission is not required to serve an alleged contemnor out of the jurisdiction, it must be in the public interest that there should be a specific jurisdictional gateway permitting such service on an officer of a company, where the fact that he is out of the jurisdiction is no bar to the making of a committal application. ‘

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 2011)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Contempt of Court

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622329

Hellenische Republik v Kuhn: ECJ 4 Jul 2018

Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Scope – Article 1 (1) – Concept of’ civil and commercial matters’ – Obligations issued by a Member State – Participation to the restructuring of the public debt – Unilateral and retroactive modification of the conditions of the loan – Clauses of collective action – Recourse exercised against the State by private creditors holding these obligations as natural persons – Responsibility of the State for acta jure imperii – Special powers – Article 7 (1)(a) – Jurisdiction in contractual matters – Concept of ‘contractual matters’ – Concept of ‘free commitment of one party to another’ – Concept of ‘place of performance of the obligation on which the application is based ‘- Subscription conditions of the State bond – Successive transfers of the debt – Effective location of the’ principal obligation ‘- Payment of interest

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:528, C-308/17, [2018] EUECJ C-308/17 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Jurisdiction, Contract

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620027

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’.

Judges:

Lord Steyn, Lord Nolan, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough

Citations:

Times 16-May-2000, Gazette 31-May-2000, [2000] 1 WLR 1004, [2000] UKHL 25, [2000] 2 All ER 986

Links:

House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

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
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 CA 28-May-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
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Jurisdiction

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.78349

Villiers v Villiers: CA 17 May 2018

H’s appeal from interim maintenance and legal fees allowance order. He denied that the Court had jurisdiction.

Judges:

King, David Richards, Moylan LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1120, [2018] WLR(D) 303

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Maintenance) Regulations 2011, Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Jurisdiction

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616340

EON Czech Holding v Dedouch and Others: ECJ 7 Mar 2018

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Exclusive jurisdiction – Article 22(2) – Validity of decisions of the organs of companies or legal persons having their seat in the territory of a Member State – Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of that Member State – Decision of the general meeting of a company ordering the compulsory transfer to that company’s principal shareholder of the shares held by the company’s minority shareholders and determining the consideration to be paid to them by the principal shareholder – Judicial procedure for reviewing the reasonableness of that consideration

Citations:

C-560/16, [2018] EUECJ C-560/16, [2018] WLR(D) 149, ECLI:EU:C:2018:167, [2018] ILPr 19, [2018] 4 WLR 94

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedAkcil and Others v Koza Ltd and Another SC 29-Jul-2019
The first claimant was an English company all of whose shares were owned by a Turkish company. The second claimant as director caused changes to the company’s constitution and share structure. The parties disputed the jurisdiction of the UK Courts . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.606004

Koza Ltd and Another v Akcil and Others: CA 18 Oct 2017

Appeal as to jurisdiction in dispute over control of English registered company based in Turkey.

Judges:

Floyd, Flaux LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1609, [2018] 1 BCLC 591

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromKoza Ltd and Another v Akcil and Others ChD 21-Dec-2016
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoKoza Ltd and Another v Akcil and Others ChD 16-Nov-2017
. .
See AlsoKoza Ltd and Another v Akcil and Others ChD 26-Feb-2018
Application to add party out of jurisdiction and for service . .
See AlsoKoza Ltd and Another v Akcil and Others ChD 19-Jun-2018
Struggle for control of company . .
See AlsoKoza Ltd and Another v Akcil and Others CA 23-May-2019
Whether proposed payments would be in breach of undertakings given as to dealing with assets in impending litigation. . .
See AlsoAkcil and Others v Koza Ltd and Another SC 29-Jul-2019
The first claimant was an English company all of whose shares were owned by a Turkish company. The second claimant as director caused changes to the company’s constitution and share structure. The parties disputed the jurisdiction of the UK Courts . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Company, European

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.597404

Reid v Ramlort Ltd: IHCS 14 Oct 1998

A Scottish court has no jurisdiction to act in a Scottish bankruptcy case could not act to retrieve property assigned without consideration to an English company with no connection to Scotland other than the gift.

Citations:

Times 14-Oct-1998

Statutes:

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Sch 8

Citing:

See alsoRe Thoars (Dec’d); Reid v Ramlort Ltd ChD 15-Nov-2002
The deceased had a valuable life insurance policy. Before an operation he wrote it in trust with no consideration. He died in the operation. He was insolvent. The issue was as to when the policy was to be valued.
Held: The property was to be . .

Cited by:

See AlsoRe Thoars (Dec’d); Reid v Ramlort Ltd ChD 15-Nov-2002
The deceased had a valuable life insurance policy. Before an operation he wrote it in trust with no consideration. He died in the operation. He was insolvent. The issue was as to when the policy was to be valued.
Held: The property was to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88725

Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich Aktiengesellschaft v National Bank of Greece Sa: QBD 25 Sep 1998

A term which had only been found to be implied into a contract could still prove to be central to its performance and so could be the deciding factor in a claim for jurisdiction under the Brussels Convention.

Citations:

Times 25-Sep-1998

Statutes:

Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 Art 5

Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85647

Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich Ag v Five Star General Trading Llc and Others: QBD 21 Jun 2000

A marine insurance policy governed by English law but made with French insurers was assigned, but notice of the assignment was not made according to French law through a bailiff. Nevertheless recovery under the policy was ordered. Under the Rome Convention the validity of the assignment was governed by the law which in turn governed the underlying asset.

Judges:

Longmore J

Citations:

Times 21-Jun-2000, Gazette 22-Jun-2000, [2000] 2 Ll.R. 684

Statutes:

Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 Sch 1

Cited by:

Appeal fromRaffelsen Zentralbank Osterreich Ag v Five Star General Trading Llc and Others CA 1-Mar-2001
An assigned marine insurance policy was subject to a claim. The issue was the ability of an assignee to claim as a claim in contract where the proper law was that under which the contract was made, or a claim of an intangible right to claim against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85648

Montagu Evans v Young: OHCS 19 Sep 2000

In order to use the convention to give a country jurisdiction in a claim involving the payment of money only, it was not enough that the vendor had the option of paying in the UK, or that other parts of the contract might have been performed in the UK. They had to establish that Scotland was the sole place provided by the contract for performance of the particular obligation in issue.

Citations:

Times 19-Sep-2000

Statutes:

Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968

Contract, Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83806

Jyske Bank (Gibraltar) Ltd v Spjeldnaes and Others (No 2): ChD 4 Nov 1998

A creditor is not able to enforce his rights directly against a third party holding money in trust for the debtor. Without taking out a winding up order he has no locus standi to claim. Case against Irish company to be dropped and restarted in Ireland.

Citations:

Times 06-Nov-1998, Gazette 04-Nov-1998

Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82651

Gidrxsime Shipping Co Ltd v Tantomar Transporters Maritimos Ltd: QBD 27 May 1994

The disclosure of papers which are outside the jurisdiction can be ordered within Mareva proceedings, and after judgment.

Citations:

Times 27-May-1994, Gazette 13-Jul-1994, [1995] 1 WLR 299

Cited by:

CitedParker v C S Structured Credit Fund Ltd and another ChD 12-Feb-2003
The claimant alleged a breach of a share sale agreement, and sought information in advance of discovery.
Held: The court’s power to order information to be provided in anticipation of discovery was not to be used as a fishing expedition. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80817

Petronas Lubricants Italy SpA v Livio Guida: ECJ 7 Mar 2018

ECJ Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Jurisdiction in respect of individual employment contracts – Employer who has been sued in the courts of the Member State where he is domiciled – Counterclaim for the employer – Determination of competent jurisdiction

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:163, [2018] EUECJ C-1/17 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Jurisdiction, Employment

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.606017

Saey Home and Garden NV/SA v Lusavouga-Maquinas e Acessorios Industriais SA: ECJ 8 Mar 2018

Judicial Cooperation In Civil Matters – Verbal Agreement Without Written Confirmation – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Article 25 – Existence of a jurisdiction clause – Verbal agreement without written confirmation – Clause contained in the general terms and conditions of sale mentioned in invoices – Article 7(1)(b) – Commercial concession agreement between two companies established in different Member States in respect of the market of a third Member State – Article 7(1)(b), second indent – Determination of the court with jurisdiction – Place of performance of the obligation that is characteristic of such a contract

Citations:

[2018] WLR(D) 152, [2018] EUECJ C-64/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:173

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Jurisdiction

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.606024

Citibank Na, London Branch v Oceanwood Opportunities Master Fund and Others: ChD 19 Feb 2018

Application by the claimant, Citibank, for directions as to whether it should, as security trustee and security agent under complex loan arrangements, seek and/or act in accordance with the directions of a body of creditors of which the first defendant, Oceanwood was a majority holder of debt, and whose wishes or vote would therefore govern; or whether provisions of the documentation which exclude from voting those who ‘control’ the debtor mean that Oceanwood’s voice cannot be heard. The matter with which this judgment deals is one of jurisdiction – whether this court or the courts of New York, should be dealing with this matter in the light of the jurisdictional clauses contained in the loan documentation.

Judges:

Mann J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 305 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Insolvency

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605341

Wink v Croatio Osiguranje Dd: QBD 3 May 2013

The meaning of ‘damage . . sustained within the jurisdiction’ in the jurisdiction ‘gateway’ under Ground 9(a) of paragraph 3.1(9) of CPR PD 6B ‘Claims in Tort’.

Judges:

Haddon-Cave J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1118 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Personal Injury

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.601872

Vilca and Others v Xstrata Ltd and Another: QBD 19 Jan 2018

Claims for personal injuries suffered during a protest in Peru about a company whose parent company was registered within the UK. The court now heard submissions as to the Peruvian law of limitation.

Judges:

Stuart-Smith J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 27 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Limitation, International

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.603732

Docherty and Others v The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills: SCS 21 Mar 2018

The House was asked: ‘Where a man, while working in Scotland, inhales asbestos fibres that cause injury to his body after he has become resident in England, which law is applicable to determine the admissibility of claims for damages made by his executors and relatives after his death?’

Citations:

[2018] ScotCS CSOH – 25

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.609346

Newland Shipping and Forwarding Ltd v Toba Trading Fzc and Others: ComC 16 Jun 2017

Dual application by the Fifth Defendant Shaikh Ahmad Saqer Mohamed Alqasemi firstly for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 and secondly to dispute jurisdiction under CPR 11.

Judges:

Sara Cockerill QC

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1416 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.594589

B v L: FC 20 Oct 2016

H, a devout Muslim, objected to the English court dealing with the divorce proceedings brought by W. He said that under Sharia law, any proceedings had to occur in Pakistan.
Held: The court had jurisdiction. There was clear evidence that the law of divorce in Pakistan was discriminatory, and that W would have less rights there. Though both parties had dual English and Pakistani nationality both were clearly resident here.

Judges:

Francis J

Citations:

[2016] EWFC 67

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Jurisdiction

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.592356

Ahmed and Another v Ali Khalifa: ComC 23 May 2017

Application to stay the proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens on the basis that the courts of Bahrain would be a distinctly more appropriate venue for the trial of the claim than the courts of England.

Judges:

Sir Jeremy Cooke

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1198 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588909

Kareda v Stefan Benko: ECJ 15 Jun 2017

ECJ (Jurisdiction In Civil and Commercial Matters : Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Article 7(1) – Concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and of a ‘contract for the provision of services’ – Recourse claim between jointly and severally liable debtors under a credit agreement – Determination of the place of performance of the credit agreement

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:472, [2017] WLR(D) 395, [2017] EUECJ C-249/16

Links:

WLRD, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Jurisdiction

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588279

Twin Benefits Ltd v Barker: ChD 19 Jun 2017

The defendant applied to have set aside an order allowing service on him of proceedings under a trust.
Held: The application succeeded.

Judges:

Marcus Smith J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1412 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Trusts, Jurisdiction

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588219

Dennis v Tag Group Ltd and Others: ChD 10 Apr 2017

The question for the Court is whether the First and Second Respondents, who are resident outside the jurisdiction, have submitted to the jurisdiction of England and Wales by participating in and resisting an injunction application.

Judges:

Briggs R

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 919 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction

Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.583679

Guaranty Trust Co of New York v Hannay and Co: CA 1915

A claimant does not need to have a subsisting cause of action against a defendant before the court will grant a claimant a declaration. The court considered the ambiguity in the meaning of the word ‘jurisdiction’: ‘The first and, in my opinion, the only really correct sense of the expression that the Court has no jurisdiction is that it has no power to deal with and decide the dispute as to the subject matter before it, no matter in what form or by whom it is raised. But there is another sense in which it is often used, i.e., that, although the Court has power to decide the question it will not according to its settled practice do so except in a certain way and under certain circumstances.’ An unsuccessful attack was mounted on the vires of Ord 25 r 5.
Pickford LJ said: ‘I think therefore that the effect of the rule is to give a general power to make a declaration whether there be a cause of action or not, and at the instance of any party who is interested in the subject matter of the declaration.’ and ‘The first and, in my opinion, the only really correct sense of the expression that the Court has no jurisdiction is that it has no power to deal with and decide the dispute as to the subject-matter before it, no matter in what form or by whom it is raised. But there is another sense in which it is often used, i.e., that, although the Court has power to decide the question it will not according to its settled practice do so except in a certain way and under certain circumstances.’
Bankes LJ: ‘It is essential, however, that a person who seeks to take advantage of the rule must be claiming relief. What is meant by this word relief? When once it is established, as I think it is established, that relief is not confined to relief in respect of a cause of action it seems to follow that the word itself must be given its fullest meaning. There is, however, one limitation which must always be attached to it, that is to say, the relief claimed must be something which it would not be unlawful or unconstitutional or inequitable for the court to grant or contrary to the accepted principles upon which the court exercises its jurisdiction. Subject to this limitation I see nothing to fetter the discretion of the court in exercising a jurisdiction under the rule to grant relief, and having regard to general business convenience and the importance of adapting the machinery of the courts to the needs of suitors I think the rule should receive as liberal a construction as possible.’

Judges:

Pickford LJ, Bankes LJ

Citations:

[1915] 2 KB 536, [1914-15] All ER 24, 113 LT 98, 84 LJKB 1465

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

ApprovedGarthwaite v Garthwaite CA 1964
The court discussed what was constitutive jurisdiction: ‘The ‘jurisdiction’ of a validly constituted court connotes the limits which are imposed upon its power to hear and determine issues between persons seeking to avail themselves of its process . .
CitedFourie v Le Roux and others HL 24-Jan-2007
The appellant, liquidator of two South African companies, had made a successful without notice application for an asset freezing order. He believed that the defendants had stripped the companies of substantial assets. The order was set aside for . .
CitedF v West Berkshire Health Authority HL 17-Jul-1990
The parties considered the propriety of a sterilisation of a woman who was, through mental incapacity, unable to give her consent.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the operation would be lawful if the doctor considered it to be in the best . .
CitedRolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union CA 14-May-2009
The parties disputed whether the inclusion of length of service within a selection matrix for redundancy purposes would amount to unlawful age discrimination. The court was asked whether it was correct to make a declaratory judgment when the case . .
CitedSRJ v Person(s) Unknown (Author and Commenters of Internet Blogs) QBD 10-Jul-2014
The claimant sought an order for the disclosure by his solicitor of the identity of the author of an internet blog publishing critical material which, the claimant said, was its confidential information. The defendant’s solicitor had failed to . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.248201