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 . . But the jurisdiction which alone is important in these matters is the competence of the court in an international sense – i.e., its territorial competence over the subject matter and over the defendant. Its competence or jurisdiction in any other sense is not regarded as material by the courts of this country.”
Lindley MR
[1899] 1 Ch 781
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAdams 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 July 2021; Ref: scu.468978