Tag: Jurisdiction

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 from – Norris 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 . .
Cited – Penn 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:

Cited – R 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 . .
Cited – Deschamps 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 . .
Explained – Macmillan 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 from – Pearce 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 from – National 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:

Cited – Tehrani 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:

Distinguished – SCF Finance Co Ltd v Masri (No 3) 1987
The court accepted that in a case where the garnishee was not indebted within the jurisdiction that might be relevant to the exercise of the court’s discretion. Since, in this case, the debt in question was an English debt, the court’s jurisdiction . .
No Longer good law – Interpool 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 . .
Cited – Societe 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:

Applied – Somchai 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:

Cited – Regina 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. . .
Cited – Sheppard 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:

Overruled – Andrea Merzario Ltd v Internationale Spedition Leitner Gesellschaft Gmbh CA 23-Jan-2001
. .
Cited – British 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 from – Cope 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:

Cited – Stevens 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 . .
Cited – Harding v Wealands CA 17-Dec-2004
The claimant sought damages here for a road traffic accident which had occurred in Australia. The defendant was working in England. The defendant argued that the law of New South Wales applied.
Held: The general rule in section 11 was not to . .
Cited – Harding v Wealands HL 5-Jul-2006
Claim in UK for Accident in Australia
The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.222526

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:

Cited – NML 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:

Approved – Midland 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:

Cited – Knight 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:

Cited – OT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corporation and others CA 13-Jun-2005
The parties to a contract had agreed that the proper law for the contract was England. One party commenced proceedings in Canada, and the courts of Canada had accepted jurisdiction as the most appropriate and convenient forum to resolve the dispute. . .
Cited – Les 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 . .
Cited – Vizcaya 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 . .
Cited – Patel 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 from – JSC 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

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

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

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:

Cited – Baltic 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. . .
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
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 from – Lakah 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 from – Berezovsky 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 Also – Berezovsky 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 . .
Cited – Spiliada 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 . .
Cited – Ladd 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 . .
Cited – Duke 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 . .
Cited – Diamond 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. . .
Cited – Ratcliffe 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 . .
Cited – Shevill 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 . .
Cited – Shevill, 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 . .
Cited – Lee 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 . .
Cited – Kroch 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 . .
Cited – Cordoba Shipping Co Ltd v National State Bank, Elizabeth, New Jersey (The Albaforth) CA 1984
A negligent misrepresentation was made in a telex sent from the United States but received and acted upon in England. The judge had set aside leave to serve the document out of the jurisdiction.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The transmission was . .

Cited by:

Cited – Lewis 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 . .
Cited – Dow 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 Also – Berezovsky 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 . .
Cited – Mardas v New York Times Company and Another QBD 17-Dec-2008
The claimant sought damages in defamation. The US publisher defendants denied that there had been any sufficient publication in the UK and that the court did not have jurisdiction. The claimant appealed the strike out of the claims.
Held: The . .
Cited – Metropolitan 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 . .
Cited – Flood 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 . .
Cited – VTB 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 . .
Cited – Ahuja 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:

Cited – Akcil 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 from – Koza Ltd and Another v Akcil and Others ChD 21-Dec-2016
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Koza Ltd and Another v Akcil and Others ChD 16-Nov-2017
. .
See Also – Koza Ltd and Another v Akcil and Others ChD 26-Feb-2018
Application to add party out of jurisdiction and for service . .
See Also – Koza Ltd and Another v Akcil and Others ChD 19-Jun-2018
Struggle for control of company . .
See Also – Koza 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 Also – Akcil 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 also – Re 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 Also – Re 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 from – Raffelsen 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:

Cited – Parker 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:

Approved – Garthwaite 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 . .
Cited – Fourie 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 . .
Cited – F 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 . .
Cited – Rolls-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 . .
Cited – SRJ 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 . .
Cited – Aspect 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

Waterford Wedgwood Plc and Another v David Vagli Ltd and Another, Haughton Third Party: ChD 13 May 1998

The sellers had supplied counterfeit Waterford crystal to a buyer in New York, arranging for the goods to be shipped from Ireland to Spain and then from Spain to Felixstowe, where they were transhipped and sent to New York. The question was whether the sellers had infringed the Waterford trade mark in the United Kingdom by importing the goods into Felixstowe, and whether the English court had jurisdiction.
Held: The defendant had imported the goods into the United Kingdom. The buyer had not imported them into the United Kingdom. He had imported them into New York. The passage of the goods through Felixstowe was entirely the act of the seller and he was therefore the importer in relation to the United Kingdom. A third party claim by defendant against person domiciled in a convention country did not just because of that fall within the convention though satisfied Order 16 requirement as ‘any other third party proceedings.’

Judges:

Sir Richard Scott V-C

Citations:

Times 13-May-1998, [1998] FSR 92

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – SABAF Spa (A Company Incorporated Under the Laws of Italy) v MFI Furniture Centres Limited and others; Sabaf Spa (A Company Incorporated Under the Laws of Italy) v MFI Furniture Centres Limited and others HL 14-Oct-2004
The patent holder had complained of imports of infringing items by the respondent, who in turn challenged the patent for obviousness. The Court of Appeal had rejected the rule of colocation as inconsistent with the test in Windsurfing.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Intellectual Property

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.90316

Banca Carige Spa Cassa Di Risparmio Di Genova E Imperia v Banco Nacional De Cuba and Another: ChD 11 Apr 2001

Application to discharge order declaring that leave was not needed for service of proceedings on the defendant out of the jurisdiction.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC 562 (Ch), [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 147, [2001] 2 BCLC 407, [2001] BPIR 407, [2001] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 203, [2001] 1 WLR 2039, [2001] 3 All ER 923

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insolvency, Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.577490

AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others: SC 1 Mar 2017

AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought as damages the costs incurred in the German litigation. The defendant asserted lack of jurisdiction saying that the alleged wrong had taken place in Germany.
Held: AMT’s appeal failed. The loss complained of, the expenditures, occurred in Germany, and the complaint should be pursued there. There was no place for a special rule for the tort of inducing breach of contract.
There need be no reference to the ECJ.
19

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 13, [2017] 2 WLR 853, [2017] 4 All ER 382, [2017] 1 CLC 178, [2017] WLR(D) 154, [2017] 2 All ER (Comm) 1041, [2018] AC 439, [2017] ILPr 22, UKSC 2015/0091

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At ComC – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier, Dr Meier and Dr Guntner Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft Mbh ComC 11-Apr-2014
Application by the Defendant for a declaration that the court did not have jurisdiction over it in respect of the subject matter of the claim and for an order setting aside service of the Claim Form.
Held: The English courts had jurisdiction. . .
At CA – Marzillier, Dr Meier and Dr Guntner Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft Mbh v AMT Futures Ltd CA 26-Feb-2015
Claims were to be made against the execution only broker defendant by the claimants who were based in Germany. The contracts provided for the exclusive jurisdiction of the EW Courts.
Held: The English courts did not have jurisdiction as the . .
Cited – Overseas Union Insurance Ltd and others v New Hampshire Insurance Company ECJ 27-Jun-1991
ECJ Article 21 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters must be interpreted as meaning that the rules applicable to lis alibi pendens . .
Cited – Airbus Industrie G I E v Patel and Others HL 2-Apr-1999
An Indian Airlines Airbus A-320 crashed at Bangalore airport after an internal Indian flight. The plaintiff passengers lived in England. Proceedings began in Bangalore against the airline and the airport authority. The natural forum was the . .
Cited – Erich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl ECJ 9-Dec-2003
The claimant Austrian company had for many years sold goods to the defendant an Italian company. Eventually it presented a claim before the court in Italy. Having obtained judgement, it later sought to enforce the order through the Austrian court . .
Cited – Handelskwekerij GJ Bier Bv v Mines De Potasse D’Alsace Sa ECJ 30-Nov-1976
Europa Where the place of the happening of the event which may give rise to liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict and the place where that event results in damage are not identical, the expression ‘place . .
Cited – Dumez France SA and Tracoba SARL v Hessische Landesbank and others ECJ 11-Jan-1990
ECJ The expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ contained in Article 5(3 ) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters may . .
Cited – Coty Germany (Anciennement Coty Prestige Lancaster Group) ECJ 5-Jun-2014
ECJ (Judgment Of The Court) Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulations (EC) No 40/94 and No 44/2001 – Community trade mark – Article 93(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – International jurisdiction . .
Cited – Erich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl ECJ 9-Dec-2003
The claimant Austrian company had for many years sold goods to the defendant an Italian company. Eventually it presented a claim before the court in Italy. Having obtained judgement, it later sought to enforce the order through the Austrian court . .
Cited – Marinari v Lloyd’s Bank ECJ 19-Sep-1995
A ‘harmful event’ occurred where the physical damage was suffered and not at the time and place of a later financial loss.
Europa The term ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 5(3) of the . .
Cited – Shevill 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 . .
Cited – Reunion Europeenne Sa and Others v Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor Bv and Another ECJ 27-Oct-1998
French consignees of a shipment of peaches sued in France the Australian issuers of the bill of laiding under which the goods were carried (a contract claim) and the Dutch carriers and master of the ship in which they were carried (tort claims).
Cited – Allianz Spa (Anciennement Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta) v West Tankers Inc (‘the Front Comor’) ECJ 10-Feb-2009
ECJ (Judgment) A West Tankers ship damaged a jetty in Syracuse. An agreement provided for an arbitration in London. The insurers having paid out brought a subrogated action in Italy. West Tankers sought an order . .
Cited – Dolphin Maritime and Aviation Services Ltd v Sveriges Angartygs Assurans Forening ComC 2-Apr-2009
The defendant sought to strike out the claim for want of jurisdiction and that it had no prospect of success. . .
Cited – Zuid-Chemie v Philippo’s Mineralenfabriek NV/SA (Area Of Freedom, Security and Justice) ECJ 16-Jul-2009
Europa Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters – Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 Definition of the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’. . .
Cited – Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech Ag ECJ 3-Oct-2013
ECJ Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction – Matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-delict – Copyright – Material support reproducing a protected work – Placing on line – Determination of the place where . .
Cited – Edate Advertising v X ECJ 29-Mar-2011
ECJ Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction ‘in tort or quasi-delict’ – Violation of personal rights that may have been committed by the publication of information . .
Cited – Wintersteiger v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH ECJ 16-Feb-2012
Judicial co-operation in civil matters – Jurisdiction – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001- Infringement of a trade mark as a result of the registration by a competitor of a sign identical to the trade mark with an internet search services provider – . .
Cited – Srl CILFIT v Ministero Della Sanita ECJ 6-Oct-1982
ECJ The obligation to refer to the Court of Justice questions concerning the interpretation of the EEC Treaty and of measures adopted by the community institutions which the third paragraph of article 177 of the . .
Cited – Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schroder, Munchmeyer, Hengst and Co and others ECJ 27-Sep-1988
ECJ For Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters to apply, a connection must exist between the various actions brought . .
Cited – Universal Music International Holding BV v Schilling and others ECJ 16-Jun-2016
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Special jurisdiction – Article 5(3) – Tort, delict or quasi-delict – Harmful event – . .
Cited – Folien Fischer Ag and Another v Ritrama Spa ECJ 19-Apr-2012
ECJ (Opinion) Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Special grounds of jurisdiction – Matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict – . .
Cited – Melzer v MF Global UK ECJ 29-Nov-2012
ECJ Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Special jurisdiction in tort or delict – Cross-border participation of several people in the same . .
Cited – Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide SA v Akzo Nobel NV ECJ 21-May-2015
ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Special jurisdiction – Article 6(1) . .

Cited by:

Cited – Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v Lungowe and Others SC 10-Apr-2019
The claimants alleged negligence causing them personal injury and other losses arising from pollution from mining operations of the defendants in Zambia. The company denied jurisdiction. In the Court of Appeal the defendants’ appeals were dismissed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.577934

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

French consignees of a shipment of peaches sued in France the Australian issuers of the bill of laiding under which the goods were carried (a contract claim) and the Dutch carriers and master of the ship in which they were carried (tort claims).
Held: There was no jurisdiction under Article 6(1) because none of the defendants were domiciled in France. After referring to Kalfelis: ‘It follows that two claims in one action for compensation directed against different defendants and based in one instance on contractual liability and in the other on liability in tort or delict cannot be regarded as connected.’
Europa An action by which the consignee of goods found to be damaged on completion of a transport operation by sea and then by land, or by which his insurer who has been subrogated to his rights after compensating him, seeks redress for the damage suffered, relying on the bill of lading covering the maritime transport, not against the person who issued that document on his headed paper but against the person whom the plaintiff considers to be the actual maritime carrier, does not fall within the scope of matters relating to a contract within the meaning of Article 5, point 1, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, since the bill of lading in question does not disclose any contractual relationship freely entered into between the consignee and the defendant. Such an action is, however, a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5, point 3, of that Convention, since that concept covers all actions which seek to establish the liability of a defendant and are not related to matters of contract within the meaning of Article 5, point 1. As regards determining the `place where the harmful event occurred’ within the meaning of Article 5, point 3, the place where the consignee, on completion of a transport operation by sea and then by land, merely discovered the existence of the damage to the goods delivered to him cannot serve to determine that place. Whilst it is true that the abovementioned concept may cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it, the place where the damage arose can, in the circumstances described, only be the place where the maritime carrier was to deliver the goods. Article 6, point 1, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that a defendant domiciled in a Contracting State cannot, on the basis of that provision, be sued in another Contracting State before a court seised of an action against a co-defendant not domiciled in a Contracting State on the ground that the dispute is indivisible rather than merely displaying a connection. The objective of legal certainty pursued by the Convention would not be attained if the fact that a court in a Contracting State had accepted jurisdiction as regards one of the defendants not domiciled in a Contracting State made it possible to bring another defendant, domiciled in a Contracting State, before that same court in cases other than those envisaged by the Convention, thereby depriving him of the benefit of the protective rules laid down by it.

Citations:

Times 16-Nov-1998, C-51/97, [1998] ECR I-6511, [1998] EUECJ C-51/97

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Mazur 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 . .
Cited – Shahar v Tsitsekkos and others ChD 17-Nov-2004
The defendant wished to make a claim against another party outside the jurisdiction and was granted permission to serve documents which were headed ‘defence and counterclaim’. The proposed defendant argued that such a document could be served in . .
Cited – Casio Computer Co Ltd v Sayo and others CA 11-Apr-2001
The court was asked whether a constructive trust claim based on dishonest assistance is a matter ‘relating to tort, delict or quasi delict’ for the purpose of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention?
Held: A constructive trust claim based upon . .
Cited – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.88750

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

The defendant sought to strike out the claim for want of jurisdiction and that it had no prospect of success.

Judges:

Christopher Clarke J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 716 (Comm), [2009] 1 CLC 460, [2009] 2 Lloyds Rep 123

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Brussels Convention 1968

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Trident Turboprop (Dublin) Ltd v First Flight Couriers Ltd CA 2-Apr-2009
The appellant entered into two aircraft leasing agreements but were unable to maintain payments. They appealed against rejection of their argument that the agreements were not exempt from the controls under the 1977 Act by being international supply . .
Cited – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Contract

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.331162

Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft v Liquimar Tankers Management Inc: ComC 3 Feb 2017

The court was asked whether so-called asymmetric jurisdiction clauses confer exclusive jurisdiction on the court or courts of a Member State within the terms of Article 31(2) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters .

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 161 (Comm), [2017] WLR(D) 78

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575364

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

The claimant sought administration of her husband’s estate according to his domicile in England. The defendant claimed the estate under Islamic law, and that there had been no marriage, and that he had been domiciled in Saudi Arabia.
Held: The real issue was as to whether Sharia law should be applied and whether the will was executed properly. Issues to be decided by a court in Saudi would follow the decisions to be made first by the English court. Case management directions were to be made to bring before the English court the issues which that court can, and should, decide before addressing issues of Islamic law. The perpetual restraint against the defendant issuing proceedings in Riyadh was lifted, and the claimant was to be allowed to amend her pleadings.

Judges:

Sir Andrew Morritt VC, Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 857, Times 22-Jul-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Airbus Industrie G I E v Patel and Others HL 2-Apr-1999
An Indian Airlines Airbus A-320 crashed at Bangalore airport after an internal Indian flight. The plaintiff passengers lived in England. Proceedings began in Bangalore against the airline and the airport authority. The natural forum was the . .
Cited – Wim Harry Gerard Maronier v Bryan Larmer CA 29-May-2002
The defendant had been a dentist in the Netherlands. An action for damages was begun against him, but then stayed. Judgment was later entered in the Netherlands after he had moved to the UK, and of which he was ignorant. There was no subsisting . .
Cited – Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak, Yong Joon Kim and, Lee Kui Jak (F) PC 14-May-1987
Brunei Darussalam – The Board was asked where a civil claim should be tried.
Held: The court stated some principles governing the grant of anti-suit injunctions restraining foreign proceedings. The inconvenience of a forum is of itself not a . .
Cited – Pelligrini v Italy ECHR 2002
. .
Cited – Lubbe (Suing As Administrator Of The Estate Of Rachel Jacoba Lubbe) and 4 Others v Cape plc and Related Appeals HL 22-Jun-2000
South African asbestosis victims suing in England submitted that to stay their proceedings in favour of the South African forum would violate their article 6 rights. A stay was refused on the non-Convention ground that, because of the lack of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Jurisdiction

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.198514

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

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

Judges:

Laws, Rix and Longmore LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 710, Times 21-Jun-2005, [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 32, [2005] 2 LLR 170, [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 170, [2005] 1 CLC 923

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Donohue 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. . .
Cited – 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, . .
Cited – The 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 . .
Cited – 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, . .
Cited – Adams v National Bank of Greece HL 1961
Questions of interpretation and enforcement of contracts are resolved by reference to the proper law. Although debt under a contract whose proper law is the law of another jurisdiction may, for the purposes of Scots law, be discharged by insolvency . .
Cited – Airbus Industrie G I E v Patel and Others HL 2-Apr-1999
An Indian Airlines Airbus A-320 crashed at Bangalore airport after an internal Indian flight. The plaintiff passengers lived in England. Proceedings began in Bangalore against the airline and the airport authority. The natural forum was the . .
Cited – AMCHEM Products Incorporated v British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) 24-Mar-1993
Supreme Court of Canada – Courts – Appropriate forum – Action commenced in U.S. courts – Plaintiffs largely resident in Canada – Most of corporate defendants with some connection with state where action brought – Anti-suit injunction sought in . .
Cited – Erich Gasser GmbH v MISAT Srl ECJ 9-Dec-2003
The claimant Austrian company had for many years sold goods to the defendant an Italian company. Eventually it presented a claim before the court in Italy. Having obtained judgement, it later sought to enforce the order through the Austrian court . .
Cited – Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Another CA 14-Nov-2002
An order was sought to restrain proceedings in Pakistan.
Held: The agreement provided that it should be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of England. The national state was also party to the agreement, and had waived sovereign immunity. It . .
Cited – Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA – The Angelic Grace CA 1995
On the charterers’ orders the Angelic Grace was required to tie up alongside another vessel which they owned. Whilst unloading the weather turned and the vessels collided. Each blamed the other and the owners claimed a salvage. The court considered . .
Cited – Continental Bank Na v Aeakos Compania Naviera Sa and Others CA 26-Nov-1993
The Bank was entitled to an injunction in the UK, by virtue of the jurisdiction given in their agreement, even though it was not the UK court which was first seised of the matter. Steyn LJ said: ‘. . a claim for damages for breach of contract would . .
Cited – Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak, Yong Joon Kim and, Lee Kui Jak (F) PC 14-May-1987
Brunei Darussalam – The Board was asked where a civil claim should be tried.
Held: The court stated some principles governing the grant of anti-suit injunctions restraining foreign proceedings. The inconvenience of a forum is of itself not a . .
Cited – The Fehmarn 1957
Willmer J said: ‘Clearly it requires a strong case to satisfy the court that the agreement [an express agreement to submit to a foreign tribunal] should be overridden.’ . .
Cited – The Fehmarn 1958
The effect of an agreement prorogating a foreign jurisdiction is to confer on the English court a discretion to stay the English proceedings. . .
Cited – Turner v Grovit and others HL 13-Dec-2001
The applicant was a solicitor employed by a company in Belgium. He later resigned claiming unfair dismissal, saying he had been pressed to become involved in unlawful activities. The defendants sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the English . .
Cited – Turner v Grovit ECJ 27-Apr-2004
The claimant had been employed as a solicitor by the respondent at locations across Europe, and came to claim in England that they had wrongly implicated him in unlawful activity. The company sought to issue proceedings in Spain.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Contract

Leading Case

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.226156

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

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

Judges:

Keith of Kinkel, Griffiths, Mackay of Clashfern, Goff of Chieveley LL, Sir John Megaw

Citations:

[1987] 1 AC 871, [1987] UKPC 12

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – National Westminster Bank v Utrecht-America Finance Company CA 10-May-2001
An agreement between the parties for assignment or novation of a credit agreement, contained a ‘take out’ agreement (‘TOA’). The defendant began proceedings in California to rescind the agreement, and the claimants obtained summary judgement under . .
Cited – Turner v Grovit and others HL 13-Dec-2001
The applicant was a solicitor employed by a company in Belgium. He later resigned claiming unfair dismissal, saying he had been pressed to become involved in unlawful activities. The defendants sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the English . .
Cited – Fort Dodge Animal Health Ltd v Akzo Nobel Nv CA 27-Oct-1997
(Patents) ‘The United Kingdom courts have jurisdiction to prevent vexation and oppression by persons subject to their jurisdiction. In particular, the courts are entitled to prevent persons domiciled in this country from being submitted to vexatious . .
Cited – Airbus Industrie G I E v Patel and Others HL 2-Apr-1999
An Indian Airlines Airbus A-320 crashed at Bangalore airport after an internal Indian flight. The plaintiff passengers lived in England. Proceedings began in Bangalore against the airline and the airport authority. The natural forum was the . .
Cited – Al-Bassam v Al-Bassam CA 1-Jul-2004
The claimant sought administration of her husband’s estate according to his domicile in England. The defendant claimed the estate under Islamic law, and that there had been no marriage, and that he had been domiciled in Saudi Arabia.
Held: The . .
Cited – OT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corporation and others CA 13-Jun-2005
The parties to a contract had agreed that the proper law for the contract was England. One party commenced proceedings in Canada, and the courts of Canada had accepted jurisdiction as the most appropriate and convenient forum to resolve the dispute. . .
Cited – Harms Offshore AHT Taurus Gmbh and Co KG v Bloom and Others CA 26-Jun-2009
The court had granted to the liquidators of a company a mandatory injunction requiring the appellant German companies to attempt to obtain the release of assets from attachment by the court in new York.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.443457

Lungowe and Others v Vedanta Resources Plc and Another: CA 13 Oct 2017

Appeal against jurisdiction order

Judges:

Jackson, Simon, Asplin LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1528, [2017] BCC 787, [2018] 1 WLR 3575, [2017] WLR(D) 741

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Lungowe and Others v Vedanta Resources Plc and Another TCC 27-May-2016
‘The claimants are 1,826 Zambian citizens who are residents of four communities (Shimulala, Hellen, Kakosa and Hippo Pool) in the Chingola region of Zambia. On 31 July 2015, they commenced these proceedings alleging personal injury, damage to . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v Lungowe and Others SC 10-Apr-2019
The claimants alleged negligence causing them personal injury and other losses arising from pollution from mining operations of the defendants in Zambia. The company denied jurisdiction. . .
See Also – Lungowe v Vedanta Resources Plc and Others TCC 27-Mar-2020
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Torts – Other, Jurisdiction

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.596092

St Vincent European General Partner Ltd v Robinson and Others: ComC 17 Nov 2016

Application by the Applicants for a declaration that the court has no jurisdiction over the claims made against them in this action, and for an order setting aside the proceedings as against them. The ground of the application is that (according to the Applicants) the claims in this action all arise out of or in connection with a Shares Pledge Agreement to which the Claimant and the Applicants are parties, and which contains a provision conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of Cyprus.

Salter QC HHJ
[2016] EWHC 2920 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Jurisdiction

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571760

JEB Recoveries Llp v Binstock: CA 19 Oct 2016

Appeal by the defendant, Mr Binstock, against the order of His Honour Judge Barker QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, made on 8 May 2015, declaring that the court had jurisdiction to hear what has been described as the third claim of the claimant, JEB Recoveries LLP (‘JEB’), and dismissing an application by Mr Binstock that the claim should be struck out on the ground that it was founded upon a champertous assignment.

Moore-Bick VP CA, Tomlinson, Kitchin LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1008
Bailii
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001
England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Contract

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570175

Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority and Others v Bestfort Development Llp and Others: ChD 16 Oct 2015

In an application notice pursuant to Section 25 of the 1982 Act, the Claimants, which are all, in one form or another, entities of the government of the Emirates of Ras Al Khaimah, one of the Emirates forming the United Arab Emirates (UAE) sand which I am going to call RAK appled for wide ranging interlocutory relief by way of worldwide freezing injunctions and the appointment of receivers; in support of proceedings which have been commenced in the Republic of Georgia and which are, as I understand it, to be commenced in the UAE.

Master Bowles
[2015] EWHC 2926 (Ch)
Bailii
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
England and Wales

Jurisdiction

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.570006

Magellan Spirit Aps v Vitol Sa ‘Magellan Spirit’: ComC 4 Mar 2016

The Owner of the Magellan Spirit applied for an anti-suit injunction to restrain VSA from suing the Owner in Nigeria on the ground that the parties had agreed to refer the dispute to the jurisdiction of the High Court in London. VSA denies that there is such an agreement and has cross-applied for a declaration that the English court has no jurisdiction to try the Owner’s claim in this action.

Leggatt J
[2016] EWHC 454 (Comm)
Bailii

Jurisdiction

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560756