Tag: Jurisdiction

Crociani and Others v Crociani and Others: PC 26 Nov 2014

(Court of Appeal of the Bailiwick of Jersey ) ‘The principal issue on this appeal is whether proceedings (‘the Proceedings’) brought in the Royal Court of Jersey by Cristiana Crociani (‘Cristiana’) and others (‘the respondents’) against her mother Edoarda Crociani (‘Mme Crociani’) and others (‘the appellants’) should be stayed on the ground that they were brought in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in clause 12 of a Trust Deed made on 24 December 1987 (‘the 1987 Deed’). The determination of this issue involves resolving the following disputes, namely (i) (a) whether clause 12 of the 1987 Deed (‘clause 12′) is an exclusive jurisdiction clause, and (b) if so, in the events which have happened, whether it confers exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of Mauritius in respect of the claims made in the Proceedings, and (ii) if so, whether the Proceedings should be stayed. The appellants contend that the answer to these questions is yes, and the respondents argue that it is no.’

Lord Neuberger,Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge
[2014] UKPC 41
Bailii, Baiii Summary
England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Trusts

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.539286

Consorci Sanitari Del Maresme v Corporacio de Salut del Maresme i la Selva: ECJ 6 Oct 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 267 TFEU – Jurisdiction of the Court – Status of the referring body as a court or tribunal – Independence – Compulsory jurisdiction – Directive 89/665/EEC – Article 2 – Bodies responsible for review procedures – Directive 2004/18/EC – Articles 1(8) and 52 – Public procurement procedures – Meaning of ‘public entity’ – Public authorities – Inclusion

C-203/14, [2015] EUECJ C-203/14, [2015] WLR(D) 398, ECLI:EU:C:2015:664, [2016] PTSR 277
Bailii, WLRD
European

Jurisdiction

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553091

Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated: CA 3 Jul 2015

The claimant commenced an action here after suffering injury whilst in Egypt on an excursion organised under the control of the defendant. The defendant denied jurisdiction as regards the damage suffered.
Held: The defendant’s appeal was allowed in part. The use of the word ‘damage’ in the Regulation could not be relied upon to create a false distinction between ‘any damage’ and ‘the direct damage’.

Arden, Bean, King LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 665, [2015] 2 CLC 151, [2015] CP Rep 40, [2016] PIQR P2, [2015] WLR(D) 292, [2016] 1 WLR 1814
Bailii, WLRD
Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2007, Civil Procedure Rules 6, Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934
England and Wales
Cited by:
At CA – Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie SC 19-Dec-2017
The claimant and her family were in a car crash while on holiday in Egypt. The claimant’s husband and his daughter died. The holiday had been booked in England and the car excursion booked in advance from England. The hotel operator was incorporated . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, European, Personal Injury, Torts – Other, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549764

Chai v Peng (2): FD 17 Oct 2014

Bodey J
[2014] EWHC 3518 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Chai v Peng FD 13-Mar-2014
Application for further maintenance pending suit. . .
See Also – Chai v Peng FD 1-May-2014
The court was severely critical of the practice in divorce proceedings of uissuing a petition for divorce but then not serving it for some time. Holman J referred to a colourful metaphor deployed by leading counsel for the husband: ‘To file [a . .
See Also – Chai v Peng (1) FD 17-Oct-2014
. .

Cited by:
See Also – Chai v Peng CA 12-Jun-2015
Application to adjourn full hearing of appeal. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Jurisdiction

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538864

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.457573

Re International Tin Council: ChD 1987

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Insolvency, Jurisdiction

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.185746

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

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

Ackner LJ, Robert Goff LJ
[1984] 2 Lloyd’s LR 91
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 – Cooley v Ramsey QBD 1-Feb-2008
The claimant sought damages after being severely injured in a road traffic accident in Australia caused by the defendant. The defendant denied that the court had jurisdiction to permit service out of the jurisdiction. The claimant said that the . .
Cited – Batey v Todd Engineering (Staffs) Ltd QBNI 7-Mar-1998
. .
Cited – Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin ComC 21-Nov-2001
. .
Cited – Douglas, Zeta-Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Ltd, Hola Sa, Junco, The Marquesa De Varela, Neneta Overseas Ltd, Ramey ChD 27-Jan-2003
The claimants sought an order striking out the defendants’ defence on the grounds that, by destroying documents, the possibility of a fair trial had been prejudiced.
Held: Refusing the order, save as to certain paragraphs of the defence, the . .
Cited – Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin ComC 22-Oct-2003
. .
Cited – Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin CA 14-Oct-2004
The claimant sought damages from what were said to be speculative trades carried out by the defendant whilst working in Russia. The claims were in both equity and in tort. He was a director of the company which was incorporated in Guernsey.
Cited – 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 . .
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 – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.220026

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Insolvency

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.347220

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

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

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

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.361471

Adams v Cape Industries plc: CA 2 Jan 1990

Proper Use of Corporate Entity to Protect Owner

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

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

Cited by:
Applied – Rakusens Ltd v Baser Ambalaj Plastik Sanayi Ticaret AS CA 11-Oct-2001
A company had sought and obtained leave to serve proceedings on a foreign based company, by serving documents on a local agent. The local agent was an independent contractor, who received and transmitted orders to the company, but who, themselves, . .
Cited – Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others (No 2) CA 12-Jun-2003
World-wide freezing orders had been made under the 1982 Act. The defendants were members of a Turkish family with substantial business interests in the telecommunications industry. In breach of orders made in the US some defendants had sought to . .
Cited – Harding v Wealands HL 5-Jul-2006
Claim in UK for Accident in Australia
The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
Held: . .
Cited – Rubin and Another v Eurofinance Sa and Others SC 24-Oct-2012
The Court was asked ‘whether, and if so, in what circumstances, an order or judgment of a foreign court . . in proceedings to adjust or set aside prior transactions, eg preferences or transactions at an undervalue, will be recognised and enforced in . .
Cited – Rubin and Another (Joint Receivers and Managers of The Consumers Trust) v Eurofinance Sa and Others CA 30-Jul-2010
. .
Cited – Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013
In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The . .
Cited – Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .
Cited – Public Joint Stock Company (‘Rosgosstrakh’) v Starr Syndicate Ltd and Others ComC 17-Jun-2020
Reserved judgment on the claimant’s application for summary judgment on its claim for recognition and enforcement of three judgments obtained in its favour in the Russian courts . .
Cited – Fetch.AI Ltd and Another v Persons Unknown Category A and Others ComC 15-Jul-2021
Cryptocurrency Action
The claimants sought damages and other remedies saying that the unknown defendants had obtained access to the private key guarding their crypto currency assets, and then sold them at an undervalue, acquiring substantial profits for themselves in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Company

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.179853

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

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

Eady J
[2008] EWHC 3135 (QB), [2009] EMLR 8
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
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 – Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group Plc and others CA 28-Nov-2007
Aldi appealed against an order striking out as an abuse of process its claims against the defendant on a construction dispute. The defendant said the claims should have been brought as part of earlier proceedings.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .
Cited – Dingle v Associated Newspapers HL 1964
The plaintiff complained of an article written in the Daily Mail which included the reporting of a report of a Parliamentary select committee. The reporting of the select committee’s report was privileged under the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. At . .
Cited – Pfeifer v Austria ECHR 15-Nov-2007
The right to protect one’s honour and reputation is to be treated as falling within the protection of Article 8: ‘a person’s reputation, even if that person is criticised in the context of a public debate, forms part of his or her personal identity . .
Cited – Steinberg v Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another CA 3-Mar-2005
The defendant appealed dismissal of his defence to an action in defamation.
Held: The court proceeded in his absence, discerning two grounds of appeal from the papers. He had suggested that he awaited pro bono representation but was by . .
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 – Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd HL 10-Feb-2005
The claimant wished to pursue his claim for defamation against the defendant, but was reluctant to return to the UK to give evidence, fearing arrest and extradition to the US. He appealed refusal of permission to be interviewed on video tape. Held . .
Cited – Affaire Radio France et autres v France ECHR 30-Mar-2004
A person’s right to protect his/her reputation is among the rights guaranteed by ECHR Article 8 as an element of the right to respect for private life. . .
Cited – Loutchansky v The Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (Nos 2 to 5) CA 5-Dec-2001
Two actions for defamation were brought by the claimant against the defendant. The publication reported in detail allegations made against the claimant of criminal activities including money-laundering on a vast scale. They admitted the defamatory . .
Cited – Schellenberg v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 2000
The claimant had settled defamation actions against the Guardian and the Sunday Times on disadvantageous terms, when it seemed likely that he was about to lose. He then pressed on with this almost identical action against the BBC.
Held: A . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Gutnick v Dow Jones 28-Aug-2001
(High Court of Victoria) Callinan J said: ‘A publisher, particularly one carrying on the business of publishing, does not act to put matter on the Internet in order for it to reach a small target. It is its ubiquity which is one of the main . .

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.278860

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

Third Party not bound by jurisdiction clause

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

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

Jurisdiction, Contract, Company

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.588732

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, European

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.317958

Elefanten Schuh Gmbh v Pierre Jacqmain: ECJ 24 Jun 1981

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.214991

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

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

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

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

The Scottish taxpayer had agreed that this appeal againat an assessment to corporation tax issued in Scotland was better heard in England. He sought judicial review of a refusal to suspend an order for repayment pending his appeal.
Held: While the court had jurisdiction to make such an order, the proper forum was Scotland.
Macpherson J
[1987] 1 All ER 1035
Scotland
Cited by:
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.
Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.245385

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cited by:
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 – 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’. . .
Cited – Mattar and Saba v Public Trustee 1952
Alberta Appellate Division – The court denied enforcement of a Quebec judgment on promissory notes, and held that an agreement to submit to the jurisdiction of a foreign court is not to be implied from the fact that the defendant has entered into a . .
Cited – Adams v Cape Industries plc ChD 1990
The piercing of the veil argument was used to attempt to bring an English public company, which was the parent company of a group which included subsidiaries in the United States, within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. Where a . .
Cited – 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 . .

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

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

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

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

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

ECJ The way in which article 17 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 is to be applied must be interpreted in the light of the effect of the conferment of jurisdiction by consent, which is to exclude both the jurisdiction determined by the general principle laid down in article 2 and the special jurisdictions provided for in articles 5 and 6 of that convention. In view of the consequences that such an option may have on the position of the parties to the action, the requirements set out in article 17 governing the validity of clauses conferring jurisdiction must be strictly construed.
By making the validity of clauses conferring jurisdiction subject to the existence of an ‘ agreement ‘ between the parties, article 17 imposes on the court before which the matter is brought the duty of examining, first, whether the clause conferring jurisdiction upon it was in fact the subject of a consensus between the parties, which must be clearly and precisely demonstrated, for the purpose of the formal requirements imposed by article 17 is to ensure that the consensus between the parties is in fact established.
In the case of a clause conferring jurisdiction, which is included among the general conditions of sale of one of the parties, printed on the back of the contract, the requirement of a writing under the first paragraph of article 17 of the convention of 27 september 1968 is only fulfilled if the contract signed by the two parties includes an express reference to those general conditions.
In the case of a contract concluded by reference to earlier offers, which were themselves made with reference to the general conditions of one of the parties including a clause conferring jurisdiction, the requirement of a writing under the first paragraph of article 17 of the convention of 27 september 1968 is satisfied only if the reference is express and can therefore be checked by a party exercising reasonable care.
C-24/76, R-24/76, [1976] EUECJ R-24/76, [1976] ECR 1831
Bailii
Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
European
Cited by:
Cited – Bols 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 . .
Cited – Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA SC 4-Jul-2018
A banking facility was provided under a contract applying English law and jurisdiction. The parties now disputed whether on an assignment the dispute was to be resolved under Portuguese law.
Held: Recognition in the United Kingdom of measures . .

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

The Case of the SS Lotus”: PCIJ 1927″

References: (1927) PCIJ Series A – No 10
Ratio: Jurisdiction is primarily territorial in both international and domestic law: ‘the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a state is that – failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary – it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another state. In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a state outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention. It does not, however, follow that international law prohibits a state from exercising jurisdiction in its own territory, in respect of any case which relates to acts which have taken place abroad, and in which it cannot rely on some permissive rule of international law. Such a view would only be tenable if international law contained a general prohibition to states to extend the application of their laws and the jurisdiction of their courts to persons, property and acts ‘outside their territory’, and if, as an exception to this general prohibition, it allowed states to do so in certain specific cases. But this is certainly not the case under international law as it stands at present. Far from laying down a general prohibition to the effect that states may not extend the application of their laws and the jurisdiction of their courts to persons, property and acts outside their territory, it leaves them in this respect a wide measure of discretion which is only limited in certain cases by prohibitive rules; as regards other cases, every state remains free to adopt the principles which it regards as best and most suitable.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – The United States of America v Nolan SC (Bailii, [2015] UKSC 63, [2016] IRLR 34, [2015] 3 WLR 1105, [2016] 1 CMLR 42, [2015] ICR 1347, [2016] 1 All ER 857, [2015] WLR(D) 441, [2016] AC 463, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2014/0073, SC, SC Summary)
    Mrs Nolan had been employed at a US airbase. When it closed, and she was made redundant, she complained that the appellant had not consulted properly on the redundancies. The US denied that it had responsibility to consult, and now appealed.

(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 11-Aug-17
Ref: 591914

Neste Chemicals SA and Others v DK Line Sa and Another (‘The Sargasso’): CA 4 Apr 1994

References: Times 04-Apr-1994, [1994] 3 All ER 180
Coram: Steyn LJ, Peter Gibson LJ and Sir Tasker Watkins
Ratio: An English Court becomes seised of a case on the service of the writ. Steyn LJ: ‘the general thrust of the Dresser UK Ltd case is not only binding on us but . . . is correct’. There were no ‘exceptions to the rule that date of service marks the time when the English court becomes definitively seised of proceedings’. The ECJ in the Zelger case had ’emphasise[d] the importance of certainty in national procedural laws’, and that ‘a ‘date of service’ rule would be readily comprehensible not only in England but also in other Contracting States.’
Statutes: Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
This case cites:

  • Considered – Dresser UK v Falcongate Freight Management Ltd; The Duke of Yare CA ([1992] 5 CL 373, [1992] QB 502)
    In England the court was first seised of a matter at the point when the proceedings were served, not when they were issued. Article 21 was metaphorically described as a ‘tie-break rule’ which operates on the basis of strict chronological . .
  • Cited – Siegfried Zelger v Sebastiano Salinitri ECJ (Europa, C-129/83, R-129/83, Bailii, [1984] EUECJ R-129/83, [1984] ECR 2397)
    Article 21 of the Convention of 28 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that the court ‘first seised’ is the one before which the requirements for proceedings to become definitively pending are first fulfilled, such requirements to be . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Nussberger and Another v Phillips and Another (No 4) CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 654, Times 17-Jul-06, [2006] 1 WLR 2598, Gazette 08-Jun-06)
    A claim was issued in London in December 2004, and then served in part in Switzerland in January 2005. One copy was removed from the bundle by a Swiss official, seeing that it had been marked ‘Nor for service out of the jurisdiction.’ That marking . .
  • Cited – Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2) HL (Times 17-Oct-00, House of Lords, Gazette 02-Nov-00, House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii, [2000] UKHL 51, [2000] 4 All ER 481, [2000] 3 WLR 1376, [2002] 1 AC 1, [2001] CLC 118, [2001] IL Pr 40)
    The plaintiffs alleged the involvement of the defendant in a conspiracy to defraud. He had been domiciled in England, but had moved to Germany. He denied that the UK court had jurisdiction. The court of appeal said that jurisdiction was determined . .
  • Cited – Phillips and Another v Symes and others HL (Bailii, [2008] UKHL 1, [2008] 2 All ER 537, [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 918, [2008] 1 WLR 180, [2008] 1 CLC 29, [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 344)
    Various parties had sought relief in the English courts and in Switzerland after an alleged fraud. There had been a mistake in service of the proceedings in England. The high court had dispensed with service an backdated the effect of the order to . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 01-Sep-16
Ref: 84257

Gutnick v Dow Jones; 10 Dec 2002

References: [2002] HCA 56
Links: Austlii
Ratio (High Court of Australia) The Court rejected a challenge, in the context of Internet libel, to the applicability of such established principles as that vouchsafed in Duke of Brunswick: ‘It was suggested that the World Wide Web was different from radio and television because the radio or television broadcaster could decide how far the signal was to be broadcast. It must be recognised, however, that satellite broadcasting now permits very wide dissemination of radio and television and it may, therefore, be doubted that it is right to say that the World Wide Web has a uniquely broad reach. It is no more or less ubiquitous than some television services. In the end, pointing to the breadth or depth of reach of particular forms of communication may tend to obscure one basic fact. However broad may be the reach of any particular means of communication, those who post information on the World Wide Web do so knowing that the information they make available is available to all and sundry without any geographic restriction. . . . A publisher, particularly one carrying on the business of publishing, does not act to put matter on the Internet in order for it to reach a small target. It is its ubiquity which is one of the main attractions to users of it. And any person who gains access to the Internet does so by taking an initiative to gain access to it in a manner analogous to the purchase or other acquisition of a newspaper, in order to read it. . . Comparisons can, as I have already exemplified, readily be made. If a publisher publishes in a multiplicity of jurisdictions it should understand, and must accept, that it runs the risk of liability in those jurisdictions in which the publication is not lawful and inflicts damage.’
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – Gutnick -v- Dow Jones ([2002] HCA 56, Austlii, [2001] VSC 305)
    (High Court of Victoria) Callinan J said: ‘A publisher, particularly one carrying on the business of publishing, does not act to put matter on the Internet in order for it to reach a small target. It is its ubiquity which is one of the main . .
  • Cited – Duke of Brunswick -v- Harmer QBD ((1849) 14 QB 185, [1849] EngR 915, Commonlii, (1849) 117 ER 75)
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Appealed to – Gutnick -v- Dow Jones ([2002] HCA 56, Austlii, [2001] VSC 305)
    (High Court of Victoria) Callinan J said: ‘A publisher, particularly one carrying on the business of publishing, does not act to put matter on the Internet in order for it to reach a small target. It is its ubiquity which is one of the main . .
  • Cited – Lewis and others -v- King CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 1329, Times 26-Oct-04)
    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 – Metropolitan International Schools Ltd. (T/A Skillstrain And/Or Train2Game) -v- Designtechnica Corp (T/A Digital Trends) and Others QBD ([2011] 1 WLR 1743, Bailii, [2009] EWHC 1765 (QB), Times, [2009] EMLR 27)
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 26-Apr-16
Ref: 220028

Seashell Shipping Corporation v Mutualidad de Seguros del Instituto Nacional de Industria (‘The Magnum’ ex ‘Tarraco Augusta’): CA 1989

References: [1989] 1 Lloyds Rep 47
Coram: Parker LJ
Where the decision as to forum depends upon the construction of the document or documents in one language and the rival courts are, on the one hand, courts whose native language is that of the document and on the other hand, courts whose native language is not that of the document, it is in the interests of the parties and the ends of justice that the true meaning should be ascertained and be decided by the courts whose native language is that of the document.
Parker LJ said: ‘In my view it would be unjust to the plaintiff to prevent him from proceeding in Courts where the result of his bargain would be to produce success and to force him to proceed in Courts where the result would or might be that the defendants escaped from their bargain.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Sawyer -v- Atari Interactive Inc ChD (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 2351 (Ch), [2006] ILPr 8)
    The claimant owned the copyright in several successful computer games. He had granted licenses for the use of the software, which licences were assigned to the defendants. Disputes arose as to the calculation of royalty payments, and the claimant . .
  • Cited – Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp -v- Kuwait Insurance Co HL ([1984] AC 50, [1983] 2 All ER 884, [1983] 2 Lloyds Rep 365, [1983] 3 WLR 241)
    A claimant must show good reason why service on a foreign defendant should be permitted. This head of jurisdiction was an exorbitant jurisdiction, one which, under general English conflict rules, an English court would not recognise as possessed by . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 05-Feb-16 Ref: 237272

AMCHEM Products Incorporated v British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board); 24 Mar 1993

References: [1993] 1 SCR 897, (1993) 102 DLR (4th) 96, [1993] 3 WWR 441, 77 BCLR (2d) 62, 150 NR 321, 23 BCAC 1, [1993] CarswellBC 47, JE 93-674
Links: Canlii
Coram: La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin JJ
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 Canadian courts to prevent action in U.S. courts – Principles governing the determination of appropriate forum and governing comity between courts – Whether or not an injunction appropriate.
Prerogative writs – Injunctions – Appropriate forum for bringing action – 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 Canadian courts to prevent action in U.S. courts – Whether or not an injunction appropriate.
Conflict of laws – Courts – 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 Canadian courts to prevent action in U.S. courts – Principles governing the determination of appropriate forum and governing comity between courts – Whether or not an injunction appropriate.
Sopinka J discussed the importance of comity considerations in anti-suit injunction applications and held: ‘the domestic court as a matter of comity must take cognisance of the fact that the foreign court has assumed jurisdiction. If, applying the principles relating to forum non conveniens . . the foreign court could reasonably have concluded that there was no alternative forum that was clearly More appropriate, the domestic court should respect that decision and the application [for an anti-suit injunction] should be dismissed.’
This case is cited by:

  • Approved – Airbus Industrie G I E -v- Patel and Others HL (Times 06-Apr-98, House of Lords, Gazette 07-May-98, Bailii, [1998] UKHL 12, [1999] 1 AC 119, [1998] 2 All ER 257, [1998] 2 WLR 686)
    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 – OT Africa Line Ltd -v- Magic Sportswear Corporation and others CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 710, Times 21-Jun-05)
    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. . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 10-Nov-15 Ref: 228197

Williams v Jones; 22 Jan 1845

References: [1845] EngR 394, (1845) 13 M & W 628, (1845) 153 ER 262
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Parke B
An action of debt lies upon a judgment of a county court. And the declaration need not state that the defendant resided within the jurisdiction of the county court, or was liable to be summoned to that court for the debt ; it is enough to state that the plaintiff levied his plaint in the county court for a Cause of action arising within its jurisdiction.
Where a court of competent jurisdiction has adjudicated a certain sum to be due from one person to another, a legal obligation arises to pay that sum, on which an action of debt to enforce the judgment may be maintained.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Rubin and Another -v- Eurofinance Sa and Others SC (Bailii, [2012] UKSC 46, [2012] 3 WLR 1019, [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 615, [2012] WLR(D) 285, [2012] 2 BCLC 682, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC, UKSC 2010/0184)
    The Court was asked ‘whether, and if so, in what circumstances, an order or judgment of a foreign court . . in proceedings to adjust or set aside prior transactions, eg preferences or transactions at an undervalue, will be recognised and enforced in . .
  • Cited – Adams -v- Cape Industries plc CA ([1990] Ch 433, [1991] 1 All ER 929, [1990] 2 WLR 657, [1990] BCLC 479, [1990] BCC 786)
    The defendant was an English company and head of a group engaged in mining asbestos in South Africa. A wholly owned English subsidiary was the worldwide marketing body, which protested the jurisdiction of the United States Federal District Court in . .

In Re Mansergh; 11 Jun 1861

References: [1861] EngR 711, (1861) 1 B & S 400, (1861) 121 ER 764
Links: Commonlii
Jurisdiction of Queen’s bench over tribunals abroad. Court martial. Military status.-I. This Court has no jurisdiction over tribunals out of the realm of England, although in countries subject to the British Crown. 2. Where the civil rights of a person in military service are affected by the judgment of a military tribunal, in which that tribunal has acted without jurisdiction, or has exceeded its jurisdiction, this Court will interfere; aliter where nothing but the military status of the party is affected by the judgmeat.-3. A. Captain in the Queen’s service, when stationed with his regiment in india, was gazetted to a majority ; and the appointment was notified in the general orders of the Commander-in-chief in India at head quarters, and in the regimental orders.

Compania Naviera Vascongado v Steamship ‘Cristina’: HL 1938

References: [1938] AC 485
Coram: Lord Atkin
A state-owned ship that was used for public purposes could not be made the subject of proceedings in rem. Lord Atkin described the absolute immunity of a sovereign of a foreign state within this jurisdiction: ‘The foundation for the application to set aside the writ and arrest of the ship is to be found in two propositions of international law engrafted into our domestic law which seem to me to be well established and to be beyond dispute. The first is that the courts of a country will not implead a foreign sovereign, that is, they will not by their process make him against his will a party to legal proceedings whether the proceedings involve process against his person or seek to recover from him specific property or damages.
The second is that they will not by their process, whether the sovereign is a party to the proceedings or not, seize or detain property which is his or of which he is in possession or control. There has been some difference in the practice of nations as to possible limitations of this second principle as to whether it extends to property only used for the commercial purposes of the sovereign or to personal private property. In this country it is in my opinion well settled that it applies to both.’
This doctrine derives from the maxim par in parem non habet imperium, but also from ideas as comity or reciprocity, the practicability of enforcement, or the respect for the dignity of other states.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Jones -v- Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others HL (Bailii, Bailii, [2006] UKHL 26, [2007] 1 AC 270, [2007] 1 All ER 113, [2006] 2 WLR 1424)
    The claimants said that they had been tortured by Saudi police when arrested on false charges. They sought damages, and appealed against an order denying jurisdiction over the defendants. They said that the allegation of torture allowed an exception . .
  • Cited – Holland -v- Lampen-Wolfe HL (Gazette 17-Aug-00, House of Lords, Times 27-Jul-00, Gazette 03-Aug-00, Bailii, [2000] 1 WLR 1573, [2000] UKHL 40, [2000] 3 All ER 833)
    The US established a base at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire, and provided educational services through its staff to staff families. The claimant a teacher employed at the base alleged that a report on her was defamatory. The defendant relied on state . .
  • Cited – Aziz -v- Aziz and others Rev 1 CA (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 712, Times 17-Jul-07)
    The claimant sought return of recordings and of money paid to the defendant through an alleged fraud or threats. She was the former wife of the Sultan of Brunei and head of state, who now sought an order requiring the court to protect his identity . .
  • Cited – NML Capital Ltd -v- Argentina SC (Bailii, [2011] UKSC 31, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC, UKSC 2010/0040)
    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 . .

Lord Portarlington v Soulby; 10 Dec 1833

References: [1834] 3 My & K 104, [1833] EngR 932, (1833) 6 Sim 356, (1833) 58 ER 628 (A)
Links: Commonlii
The court of appeal recognised its ability to restrain the commencement of proceedings in other courts and jurisdictions as to the same matter. The power was grounded not upon ‘any pretension to the exercise of judicial rights abroad’ but upon the fact that the party being restrained is subject to the in personam jurisdiction of the English court.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Turner -v- Grovit and others HL ([2002] ICR 94, House of Lords, Bailii, Gazette 14-Feb-02, [2001] UKHL 65, [2002] 1 WLR 107, [2002] 1 All ER 960 (Note), [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 320 (Note), [2002] IRLR 358, [2002] ILPr 28, [2002] CLC 463)
    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 . .

John Pfeiffer Pty Limited v Rogerson; HCA 16 Apr 1999

References: [2000] HCA 36, (2000) 203 CLR 503
Links: Austlii
(High Court of Australia) The double actionability rule should be discarded with regard to claims brought in an Australian court in respect of a civil wrong arising out of acts or omissions that occurred wholly within one or more of the law areas of the Commonwealth of Australia.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Harding -v- Wealands CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 1735, Times 05-Jan-05, [2005] 1 WLR 1539)
    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 . .

Stevens v Head; 18 Mar 1993

References: [1993] HCA 19, (1993) 112 ALR 7, [1993] Aust Torts Reports 81-203, (1993) 17 MVR 1, (1993) 67 ALJR 343, [1993] 176 CLR 433
Links: Austlii
Coram: Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gudron, McHugh JJ
(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 Accidents Act 1988 of New South Wales which limited the amount of damages which could be recovered in respect of non-economic loss was a substantive rule to be applied as part of the lex causae.
Held: In relation to questions of the quantification of damage, anything beyond the ascertainment of the heads of liability is a procedural question, and thus referring to a New South Wales statute: ‘section 79 is plainly a provision which affects the measure of damages but does not touch the heads of liability in respect of which damages might be awarded. It is simply a law relating to the quantification of damages and that, as we have seen, is a matter governed solely by the lex fori.’
Mason CJ: ‘The law relating to damages is partly procedural and partly substantive. According to the traditional application of the substance-procedure distinction, the question whether legislative provisions dealing with awards of damages are substantive or procedural has been approached by asking whether the provisions affect the character of the wrong actionable or go only to the measure of compensation. This approach is consistent with the equation traditionally drawn between matters of procedure and matters relating to remedies.’
This case cites:

  • Cited – Cope -v- Doherty CA ((1858) 2 De G and J 614)
    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.’ . .

This case is cited by:

  • Approved – Roerig -v- Valiant Trawlers Ltd CA ([2002] All ER (D) 234, Bailii, [2002] EWCA Civ 21, [2002] 1 WLR 2304)
    The claimant who was Dutch, was a widow of a fisherman who had died at sea. The question on appeal was ‘in assessing damages for loss of dependency should benefits resulting from the loss be deducted from the damages?’ The claimant’s position under . .
  • Cited – Harding -v- Wealands CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 1735, Times 05-Jan-05, [2005] 1 WLR 1539)
    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 (Times 06-Jul-06, Bailii, [2006] UKHL 32, [2006] 3 WLR 83, [2006] 2 CLC 193, [2006] RTR 35, [2006] 4 All ER 1)
    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: . .

Charles Duke of Brunswick v The King of Hanover; 13 Jan 1844

References: [1844] EngR 95, (1843-1844) 6 Beav 1, (1844) 49 ER 724
Links: Commonlii
Discussion of the question whether a sovereign prince is liable to the jurisdiction of the Courts of a foreign country, in which he happens to he resident, and as to the liability to suit of one who unites in himself the characters both of an independent foreign sovereign and a subject.
A sovereign prince, resident in the dominions of another, is ordimarily exempt from the jurisdiction of the Courts there.
A foreign sovereign may sue in this country, both at law and in equity; and, if he sues in equity, he submits himself to the jurisdiction, and a cross-bill may be filed against him, which he must answer on oath ; but a foreign sovereign does not, by filing a bill in Chancery against A., making himself liable to be sued in that Court for an independent matter by B.
The King of Hanover, after his accession, renewed his oath of allegiance, to the Queen of England, and claimed the rights of an English peer. Held, that he was exempt from the jurisdiction of the English Courts for acts done by him as a soveregn prince, but was liable to be sued in those Courts in respect of matters done by him as a asubject. Held, also, that the sovereign character prevailed where the acts were done abroad, and also where it was doubtful in which of the two characters they had been done.
A foreign sovereign prince, who was also an English peer, was made a Defendant to a suit and served with a letter missive. The Lord Chancellor refused to recall it.
The Defendant then appeared, and filed a demurrer for want of jurisdiction. Held, first, that the Lord Chancellor had not decided that the Defendant was liable to the jurisdiction of the Court ; and, secondly, that the Defendant had not, by appearing, waived any defence to the bill.
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Duke of Brunswick -v- The King of Hanover HL ((1848) 2 HL Cas 1, (1844) 6 Beav 1, [1848] EngR 794, Commonlii, (1848) 2 HLC 1, (1848) 9 ER 993)
    The Duke claimed that the King of Hanover had been involved in the removal of the Duke from his position as reigning Duke and in the maladministration of his estates.
    Held: ‘A foreign Sovereign, coming into this country cannot be made . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 17-Feb-16 Ref: 304687

Rapisarda v Colladon (Irregular Divorces); FC 30 Sep 2014

References: [2014] EWFC 35
Links: Bailii
Coram: Sir James Munby P FD
The court considered applications to set aside some 180 petitions for divorce on the grounds that they appeared to be attempts to pervert the course of justice by wrongfully asserting residence in order to benefit from the UK jurisdiction.
Held: It had been asserted that the English court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition in accordance with the Council Regulation on the basis that the petitioner was habitually resident and had been resident in England and Wales. In all but one case there was in fact no reason to think there had been any UK residence. The English court was deceived; the English court was induced by fraud to accept that it had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. It was apparent that an Italian had been offering a service providing UK divorces to Italian nationals.
Petitions not having reached the stage of decree had now been dismissed. The decrees must be set aside as being void for fraud. In each case the underlying petition must be dismissed. This is not a matter of judicial discretion; it is the consequence which follows inexorably as a matter of law from the facts as I have found them. It made no difference if one or other or both of the parties have re-married or even had a child.
Sir James summarised the law: ‘i) perjury without more does not suffice to make a decree absolute void on the ground of fraud;
ii) perjury which goes only to jurisdiction to grant a decree and not to jurisdiction to entertain the petition, likewise does not without more suffice to make a decree absolute void on the ground of fraud;
iii) a decree, whether nisi or absolute, will be void on the ground of fraud if the court has been materially deceived, by perjury, forgery or otherwise, into accepting that it has jurisdiction to entertain the petition;
iv) a decree, whether nisi or absolute, may, depending on the circumstances, be void on the ground of fraud if there has been serious procedural irregularity, for example, if the petitioner has concealed the proceedings from the respondent.’
Statutes: Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 5(2), Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Family Procedure Rules 2010 7.5(1), Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 8
This case cites:

  • Cited – Ali Ebrahim -v- Ali Ebrahim (Queen’s Proctor intervening) ([1983] 1 WLR 1336)
    . .
  • Cited – Sheldon -v- Sheldon (The Queen’s Proctor Intervening) ([1865] EngR 180 (A), Commonlii, (1865) 4 Sw & Tr 75)
    Practice. – Dismissal of Petition – No Evidence produced -The Queen’s Proctor intervened in a suit for dissolution in which the respondent did not appear, and alleged collusion and the petitioner’s adultery. No evidence being tendered in support of . .
  • Endorsed – Crowden -v- Crowden (The King’s Proctor showing cause) ((1906) 23 TLR 143)
    The normal practice of the Queen’s Proctor is not to adduce evidence in support of the plea on intervening in a divorce petition, and there is no need for him to do so where there is no answer to the plea. . .
  • Endorsed – Clutterbuck -v- Clutterbuck and Reynolds (Queen’s Proctor showing cause) ([1961] 105 Sol Jo 1012)
    The court considered the proper practice where the Proctor intervened in a divorce petition, but no answer was received from the parties. . .
  • Cited – Wiseman -v- Wiseman ([1953] P 79)
    A decree absolute of divorce which would otherwise be void, will still be void even though one of the parties has subsequently remarried and had a child. . .
  • Cited – Bater -v- Bater CA ([1906] P 209)
    The judgment of a divorce court dissolving a marriage is a judgment in rem, conclusively established the new status of the parties to the suit. A decree obtained in a foreign country by false evidence or by collusion in regard to the matrimonial . .
  • Cited – Lazarus Estates Ltd -v- Beasley CA ([1956] 1 QB 702, [1956] 1 All ER 341)
    There was a privative clause in the 1954 Act. A landlord’s declaration under the Act that work of a specified value, supporting an increase in rent, had been carried out on leased premises, could not be questioned after 28 days of its service on the . .
  • Cited – Callaghan -v- Hanson-Fox (Andrew) ([1992] Fam 1, [1991] 2 FLR 519)
    H sought to have set aside a decree absolute obtained on the petition of his now deceased wife on the ground of fraud, in that the petitioner had falsely sworn in her affidavit verifying the petition that the marriage had broken down irretrievably . .
  • Cited – Moynihan -v- Moynihan (No 2) FD ([1997] 1 FLR 59)
    The Queen’s Proctor applied to have set aside a decree absolute of divorce obtained by fraud on the part of the petitioner, the by then deceased Lord Moynihan. The particulars set out in the petition were false in a number of material respects; the . .
  • Cited – S -v- S (Ancillary Relief: Consent Order) FD (Gazette 11-Apr-02, [2002] 3 WLR 1372, [2003] Fam 1, [2002] 1 FLR 992, [2002] IDS Pensions Law Reports 219)
    An order for ancillary relief had been made by consent. Later the House of Lords issued a judgment which changed the law which had been the basis of the decision to accept the settlement. The wife now sought to set aside the consent order, and . .
  • Cited – Marinos -v- Marinos FD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 2047 (Fam), [2007] 2 FLR 1018)
    The court was asked as to points of both law and fact under Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2203, commonly known as Brussels II (revised). The greek father and english mother and their children had lived in Greece and England. W began . .
  • Cited – Kearly -v- Kearly FD ([2009] EWC 1876 (Fam), [2010] 1 FLR 619)
    . .
  • Cited – Leake -v- Goldsmith FD (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 988 (Fam), [2009] 2 FLR 684)
    . .
  • Cited – V -v- V FD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 1190 (Fam), [2011] 2 FLR 778)
    The court was asked as to its jurisdiction to hear a divorce petition under the Regulation Brussels II Revised. . .
  • Cited – Tan -v- Choy CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 251)
    This appeal concerns the fifth indent of Article 3(1)(a) of the Regulation, which provides that ‘[i]n matters relating to divorce . . jurisdiction shall lie with the courts of the Member State (a) in whose territory . . the applicant is habitually . .

Bank Voor Handel En Scheepvaart NV v Slatford: 1953

References: [1953] 1 QB 248
Coram: Devlin J
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 £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: ‘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.’
Statutes: Trading With The Enemy Act 1939
This case is cited by:

Ilyssia Compania Naviera SA v Bamaodah ‘The Elli 2’: CA 1985

References: [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 107
Coram: May LJ, Ackner LJ
May LJ considered the creation of a contract by implication, saying: ‘no such contract should be implied on the facts of any given case unless it is necessary to do so: necessary, that is to say, in order to give business reality to a transaction and to create enforceable obligations between parties who are dealing with one another in circumstances in which one would expect that business reality and those enforceable obligations to exist.’
As to choice of jurisdiction by choice of law, May LJ considered BP v Hunt, saying that he would not go so far as Kerr J in saying that the fact that the contract was governed by English law was a predominating factor. That factor would have a different weight in different circumstances.
Ackner LJ observed that where exclusive reliance was placed on the contract being governed by English law, the burden of showing that there was good reason justifying service out of the jurisdiction was a particularly heavy one.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Sawyer -v- Atari Interactive Inc ChD (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 2351 (Ch), [2006] ILPr 8)
    The claimant owned the copyright in several successful computer games. He had granted licenses for the use of the software, which licences were assigned to the defendants. Disputes arose as to the calculation of royalty payments, and the claimant . .
  • Cited – Novus Aviation Ltd -v- Onur Air Tasimacilik As CA (Bailii, [2009] EWCA Civ 122, [2009] 1 CLC 850, [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 576)
    The defendant appealed against a refusal to set aside the grant of leave to serve outside the jurisdiction granted to the claimant. Neither party conducted and business in England, and the contract was made in Switzerland, but was expressed to be . .

Neste Chemicals SA and Others v DK Line Sa and Another (The Sargasso”): CA 4 Apr 1994″

References: Times 04-Apr-1994, [1994] 3 All ER 180
Coram: Steyn LJ, Peter Gibson LJ and Sir Tasker Watkins
An English Court becomes seised of a case on the service of the writ. Steyn LJ: ‘the general thrust of the Dresser UK Ltd case is not only binding on us but . . . is correct’. There were no ‘exceptions to the rule that date of service marks the time when the English court becomes definitively seised of proceedings’. The ECJ in the Zelger case had ’emphasise[d] the importance of certainty in national procedural laws’, and that ‘a ‘date of service’ rule would be readily comprehensible not only in England but also in other Contracting States.’
Statutes: Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
This case cites:

  • Considered – Dresser UK -v- Falcongate Freight Management Ltd; The Duke of Yare CA ([1992] 5 CL 373, [1992] QB 502)
    In England the court was first seised of a matter at the point when the proceedings were served, not when they were issued. Article 21 was metaphorically described as a ‘tie-break rule’ which operates on the basis of strict chronological . .
  • Cited – Siegfried Zelger -v- Sebastiano Salinitri ECJ (Europa, C-129/83, R-129/83, Bailii, [1984] EUECJ R-129/83, [1984] ECR 2397)
    Article 21 of the Convention of 28 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that the court ‘first seised’ is the one before which the requirements for proceedings to become definitively pending are first fulfilled, such requirements to be . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Nussberger and Another -v- Phillips and Another (No 4) CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 654, Times 17-Jul-06, [2006] 1 WLR 2598, Gazette 08-Jun-06)
    A claim was issued in London in December 2004, and then served in part in Switzerland in January 2005. One copy was removed from the bundle by a Swiss official, seeing that it had been marked ‘Nor for service out of the jurisdiction.’ That marking . .
  • Cited – Canada Trust Co and Others -v- Stolzenberg and Others (No 2) HL (Times 17-Oct-00, House of Lords, Gazette 02-Nov-00, House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii, [2000] UKHL 51, [2000] 4 All ER 481, [2000] 3 WLR 1376, [2002] 1 AC 1, [2001] CLC 118, [2001] IL Pr 40)
    The plaintiffs alleged the involvement of the defendant in a conspiracy to defraud. He had been domiciled in England, but had moved to Germany. He denied that the UK court had jurisdiction. The court of appeal said that jurisdiction was determined . .
  • Cited – Phillips and Another -v- Symes and others HL (Bailii, [2008] UKHL 1, [2008] 2 All ER 537, [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 918, [2008] 1 WLR 180, [2008] 1 CLC 29, [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 344)
    Various parties had sought relief in the English courts and in Switzerland after an alleged fraud. There had been a mistake in service of the proceedings in England. The high court had dispensed with service an backdated the effect of the order to . .

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

References: [2009] EWCA Civ 632, [2009] Bus LR 1663, [2010] 1 Ch 187, [2010] 2 WLR 349
Links: Bailii, Times
Coram: Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton and Sir John Chadwick
The court had granted to the liquidators of a company a mandatory injunction requiring the appellant German companies to attempt to obtain the release of assets from attachment by the court in new York.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The statutory prohibition against creditors bringing proceedings against a company being wound up by the court is not extra-territorial. The protection of the assets of a company in administration is not to be regarded by the Court as differing in substance from the protection of the assets of a company in compulsory liquidation. In both cases, the assets of the company are dealt with by an officer appointed by the Court in accordance with statutory duties.
The conduct of the Appellants and the circumstances of the attachments brought it into the exceptional category in which the grant of injunctive relief is justified, notwithstanding comity and notwithstanding the outstanding application of the Administrators in New York.
Statutes: Insolvency Act 1986
This case cites:

  • Cited – In Re Oriental Inland Steam Company ex parte Scinde Railway Company CA ((1874) LR 9 Ch App 557)
    The liquidator obtained an order requiring a creditor who had attached assets in India to return them to the company in liquidation.
    Sir W M James LJ said: ‘The winding-up is necessarily confined to this country. It is not immaterial to . .
  • Cited – Mitchell -v- Carter ChD ([1997] 1 BCLC 673)
    Section 183 of the 1986 Act, which precludes a creditor who levies execution or attaches a debt after commencement of a winding up, from retaining the benefit of his execution or attachment, does not apply to executions or attachments in foreign . .
  • Cited – Re Vocalion (Foreign) Ltd ([1932] 2 Ch 196)
    The section only applies only to proceedings pending in the UK, and not to proceedings in a foreign Court. The Court has an equitable jurisdiction in personam to restrain a respondent properly served in this country from proceeding with an action . .
  • Cited – Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak and another PC ([1987] 1 AC 871)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Polly Peck International Plc -v- The Marangos Hotel Company Ltd & Others CA (Times 18-May-98, Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 789, [1998] 3 All ER 812, [1998] 2 BCLC 185)
    Leave had been given for the insolvent plaintiff company to bring proceedings. The defendant now challenged that leave.
    Held: A claim that a massively insolvent company had wrongfully occupied Turkish Cypriot property would not allow a claim . .
  • Cited – Barclays Bank -v- Homan CA ([1993] BCLC 680)
    If the conduct of a creditor can be castigated as oppressive or vexatious the Court can and should grant relief in order to protect the performance by administrators of their functions and duties. . .