Jurisdiction - 2000

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 17 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.

Credit Agricole Indosuez -v- Chailease Finance Corporation [2000] EWCA Civ 19
28 Jan 2000 CA	Jurisdiction
	Link[s] omitted

Messier-Dowty Ltd and Another -v- Sabena Sa and Others [2000] EWCA Civ 48; [2000] 1 WLR 2040
21 Feb 2000 CA Lord Mustill, The Master Of The Rolls Lady Justice Hale	Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The defendants sought a declaration that they would not be liable in respect of their potential involvement in a pending action. The appellants asserted that such a declaration could not be granted since no proceedings were yet in issue. The court said that such orders might be useful in simplifying international court actions, and that a primary motive for seeking the order was to establish a UK jurisdiction was not determinative. Lord Woolf summarised the modern position on granting negative declarations: "The approach is pragmatic. It is not a matter of jurisdiction, it is matter of discretion. The deployment of negative declarations should be scrutinised and their use rejected where it would serve no useful purpose. However, where a negative declaration would help to ensure that the aims of justice are achieved the court should not be reluctant to grant such declarations. They can and do assist in achieving justice . . . While negative declarations can perform a positive role they are an unusual remedy insofar as they reverse the more usual roles of the parties. The natural defendant becomes a claimant and vice-versa. This can result in procedural complications and possible injustice to an unwilling 'defendant'. This in itself justifies caution in extending the circumstances where negative declarations are granted, but, subject to the exercise of appropriate circumspection, there should be no reluctance to their being granted when it is useful to do so."
	Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1968) (Cmnd 7395)
	Link[s] omitted

Youell and others -v- Kara Mara Shipping Company Ltd and others [2000] EWHC 220 (Comm); [2000] CLC 1058; [2001] Lloyds Rep IR 553; [2001] IL Pr 34; [2001] Lloyd's Rep IR 553; [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep 102
13 Mar 2000 ComC Aikens J	Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice	Casemap 1 Cites
	Link[s] omitted

Stocznia Gdanska SA -v- Latreefers Inc; In re Latrefeers Inc; Stocznia Gdanska SA -v- Latvian Shipping Co and others (No 2) [2000] EWCA Civ 36; [2001] 2 BCLC 116
15 Mar 2000 CA	Company, Insolvency, Jurisdiction	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Possible claims against a foreign company for misfeasance, or wrongful or fraudulent trading might be sufficient to justify proceedings here to wind up a foreign registered company. A second requirement is that some person within this jurisdiction would be likely to achieve a substantial benefit from such an action, and third was that some person responsible for distribution of the company's assets was somebody over whom a UK court could exercise a jurisdiction.
	Insolvency Act 1986 221
	Link[s] omitted

Roger Thomas Donohue -v- Armco Inc and others [2000] EWCA Civ 94; [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 579; [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 641; [2000] CLC 1090
29 Mar 2000 CA	Contract, Jurisdiction	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The claimant sought an order restraining the defendants from pursuing a claim in America. The parties were party to a contract governed by English law, but the allegation was one of fraud, and the defendants said this was outside the provisions of the contract. Held: Where a remedy was available both in England and in a foreign jurisdiction, proceedings in the foreign jurisdiction would only be restrained by order here where the foreign proceedings were in some way abusive. An English court may decline an injunction or stay where there was an exclusive jurisdiction clause, but also claims outside the contract which would result in parallel and conflicting proceedings. In this situation there was an overwhelming advantage in securing one decision in the most appropriate forum, which was New York. Injunction refused under conditions.
	Supreme Court Act 1981 37
	[ Bailii ]

Society of Lloyd's -v- White and others
14 Apr 2000 QBD	Jurisdiction, International
	A court in England could issue an injunction preventing parties continuing an action in Australia even though the court there had accepted jurisdiction. The contract contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause for dispute to be settled here, and the Australian court did not appear to have considered relevant English court decisions. Such an action must be speedy, and made with respect for the foreign court.

Berezovsky -v- Forbes Inc and Michaels; Glouchkov -v- Same [2000] 1 WLR 1004; [2000] UKHL 25; [2000] 2 All ER 986
16 May 2000 HL Lord Steyn, Lord Nolan, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough	Defamation, Jurisdiction	Casemap 1 Cites
	Plaintiffs who lived in Russia sought damages for defamation against an American magazine with a small distribution in England. Both plaintiffs had real connections with and reputations in England. A judgment in Russia would do nothing to repair the reputations in England, and accordingly the proper place to sue was in England. Under English law the publication of a defamatory article carries with it a presumption that the person defamed by it has suffered damage, without the need to prove that anyone knowing that person has read the article.
	Link[s] omitted

Vale Do Rio Doce Navegacao SA and another -v- Shanghai Bao Steel Ocean Shipping Co Ltd and Others [2000] 2 All ER (Com) 70
16 May 2000 QBD	Arbitration, Jurisdiction	Casemap 1 Citers
	An arbitration process which sought to join parties who denied being part of the contract for arbitration could not itself decide the contractual power to enforce the arbitration. Accordingly the High Court had no jurisdiction either to apply the arbitration exception to the Convention, or to act under its own practice direction, or to serve proceedings abroad under the Act.
	Arbitration Act 1996 - Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

Raiffesen Zentralbank Osterreich Ag -v- Five Star General Trading Llc and Others
21 Jun 2000 QBD	Jurisdiction	Casemap 1 Citers
	A marine insurance policy governed by English law but made with French insurers was assigned, but notice of the assignment was not made according to French law through a bailiff. Nevertheless recovery under the policy was ordered. Under the Rome Convention the validity of the assignment was governed by the law which in turn governed the underlying asset.
	Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 Sch 1

Océano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores (Judgment) C-240/98; [2000] EUECJ C-240/98
27 Jun 2000 ECJ	European, Jurisdiction, Consumer	Casemap
	Europa Where a jurisdiction clause is included, without being individually negotiated, in a contract between a consumer and a seller or supplier and where it confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business, it must be regarded as unfair within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts in so far as it causes, contrary to the requirement of good faith, a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. The protection provided for consumers by Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts entails the national court being able to determine of its own motion whether a term of a contract before it is unfair when making its preliminary assessment as to whether a claim should be allowed to proceed before the national courts. The national court is obliged, when it applies national law provisions predating or postdating the said Directive, to interpret those provisions, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the Directive. The requirement for an interpretation in conformity with the Directive requires the national court, in particular, to favour the interpretation that would allow it to decline of its own motion the jurisdiction conferred on it by virtue of an unfair term. Europa Approximation of laws - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13 - Power of the national court to determine of its own motion whether a term of a contract is unfair when making its assessment of the contract - Obligation to ensure the effectiveness of the directive when national law is applied. Where a jurisdiction clause is included, without being individually negotiated, in a contract between a consumer and a seller or supplier and where it confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business, it must be regarded as unfair within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts in so far as it causes, contrary to the requirement of good faith, a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. The protection provided for consumers by Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts entails the national court being able to determine of its own motion whether a term of a contract before it is unfair when making its preliminary assessment as to whether a claim should be allowed to proceed before the national courts. The national court is obliged, when it applies national law provisions predating or postdating the said Directive, to interpret those provisions, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the Directive. The requirement for an interpretation in conformity with the Directive requires the national court, in particular, to favour the interpretation that would allow it to decline of its own motion the jurisdiction conferred on it by virtue of an unfair term.
	Link[s] omitted

Holland -v- Lampen-Wolfe [2000] 1 WLR 1573; [2000] UKHL 40; [2000] 3 All ER 833
20 Jul 2000 HL Lord Millett, Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Clyde, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough	Jurisdiction, Defamation	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A claim in libel was defeated by a claim of sovereign immunity. The US established a base at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire, and provided educational services through its staff to staff families. Such provision was part of its Acts as a state, and attracted sovereign immunity. A report which was defamatory of the plaintiff as to her teaching skills and which report was prepared as part of the provision of such services was something done by the armed forces of the US: "the performance of her teaching obligations under the contract between the University and the American Government involved the public function of the state in the provision of instruction to the American forces and their families. The supervisory functions required of the respondent were correspondingly involved in that same enterprise. " Lord Millett : "state immunity is not a "self-imposed restriction on the jurisdiction of its courts which the United Kingdom has chosen to adopt" and which it can, as a matter of discretion, relax or abandon. It is imposed by international law without any discrimination between one state and another. It would be invidious in the extreme for the judicial branch of government to have the power to decide that it will allow the investigation of allegations of torture against the officials of one foreign state but not against those of another. "
	State Immunity Act 1978
	Link[s] omitted

Group Josi Reinsurance Company Sa -v- Universal General Insurance Company C-412/98; [2000] EUECJ C-412/98
9 Aug 2000 ECJ	Jurisdiction, Insurance, European	Casemap
	The Brussels Convention rules allowing jurisdiction apply whenever the proposed defendant is domiciled in a convention country. The plaintiff need not be. The special rules on jurisdiction which apply to insurance cases do not apply to reinsurance contracts.
	Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968
	Link[s] omitted

Montagu Evans -v- Young
19 Sep 2000 OHCS	Contract, Jurisdiction
	In order to use the convention to give a country jurisdiction in a claim involving the payment of money only, it was not enough that the vendor had the option of paying in the UK, or that other parts of the contract might have been performed in the UK. They had to establish that Scotland was the sole place provided by the contract for performance of the particular obligation in issue.
	Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968

Canada Trust Co and Others -v- Stolzenberg and Others (No 2) [2000] UKHL 51; [2000] 4 All ER 481; [2000] 3 WLR 1376; [2002] 1 AC 1; [2001] CLC 118; [2001] IL Pr 40
12 Oct 2000 HL Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough	Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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 at the issue of the writ. The defendant appealed. Held: Where one defendant was domiciled in the UK at the time of the issue of a writ it was permissible at the same time to issue proceedings against other defendants who were not domiciled here, even if that the defendant upon whose domicile the action was founded subsequently abandoned or lost that domicile. The date in question was not the date on which the writ was served, particularly upon other defendants. The words 'sued', and 'issued proceedings', and began proceedings were used interchangeably in the Convention. The standard of proof which the Claimants have to achieve is that of "good arguable case"
	Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1988 Art 6 - Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
	Link[s] omitted

Navigation Maritime Bulgare -v- Rustal Trading Ltd (the Ivan Zagubanski) [2000] EWHC 222 (Comm); [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 106; [2002] 1 LLR 106
16 Nov 2000 ComC Aikens J	Jurisdiction, Arbitration
	The court was asked whether an application to the Court for an anti-suit injunction to enforce an English arbitration clause falls within Article 1(4) of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions, which excludes "arbitration" from their scope.
	Link[s] omitted

Ot Africa Line Ltd -v- Fayad Hijazy and Another; Same -v- Fayad Hijazy and Others
28 Nov 2000 QBD	Litigation Practice, Human Rights, Jurisdiction
	The human right to a fair trial did not amount to a right to an unfettered choice of tribunal. Contracts said that they were exclusively governed by English law and to be decided in England. Proceedings between the parties having already commenced in England some of the defendants were enjoined from continuing another action they had begun in Belgium arising from the same contract.
	Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 art 17

Handelsveem Bv and Others -v- Coreck Maritime GmbH C-387/98; [2000] ECR I-9337; [2000] EUECJ C-387/98
1 Dec 2000 ECJ	Jurisdiction, Transport, European	1 Citers
	When a court looked at a choice of the jurisdiction clause, it was not necessary that the clause should withoutmore establish the jurisdiction. A clause could be effective where the forum will be ascertainable at the time by reference to a the circumstances. In this case of the clause required a dispute under a bill of lading to be decided in the country where the carrier had his principal place of business. The requirement under the convention, that the parties should have should of "agreed" the jurisdiction was satisfied where they had agreed a method of establishing it. The Brussels convention applied only if, first, at least one of the parties to the original contract was domiciled in the contracting state and, second, the parties agreed to submit any dispute before the Court of a contracting state. "The Court has held that, by making the validity of a jurisdiction clause subject to the existence of an 'agreement' between the parties, article 17 of the Convention imposes on the court before which the matter is brought the duty of examining first whether the clause conferring jurisdiction upon it was in fact the subject of consensus between the parties, which must be clearly and precisely demonstrated, and that the purpose of the requirements as to form imposed by article 17 is to ensure that consensus between the parties is in fact established . . "
	Link[s] omitted