Apex Global Management Ltd v Fi Call Ltd and others [2013] EWCA Civ 642; [2013] WLR (D) 228
“The phrase ‘members of his family forming part of his household’ in section 20(1)(b) of the State Immunity Act 1978 should not be given a wider meaning in relation to heads of state than it had in relation to diplomats. Thus a head of state’s ‘household’ was restricted to spouses, civil partners, dependent children and relatives.”
WLR Daily, 11th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Melzer v MF Global UK Ltd: (Case C-228/11); [2013] WLR (D) 196
“The special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort under article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 was not applicable where, in a case in which several people acting in different member states took part in allegedly harmful events, the action was brought against one of them who had not acted within the jurisdiction of the court seised, on the basis of a harmful event imputed to an accomplice or joint participant who was within the jurisdiction of the court, but who was not a party to the dispute.”
WLR Daily, 16th May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Apex Global Management Ltd v FI Call Ltd and others [2013] EWHC 587 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 111
On the proper construction of section 20(1)(b) of the State Immunity Act 1978, whilst an adult member of a sovereign’s or head of state’s family exercising royal or presidential, constitutional and representational functions could be regarded in some circumstances as a member of the sovereign’s or head of state’s household, even though he or she lived apart from the sovereign or head of state, such a situation would be rare, and would be likely to be restricted to the case of a regent, heir to the throne or a person broadly exercising the sovereign’s or head of state’s functions in a full time capacity on his behalf.
WLR Daily, 19th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Stand alone, follow on and hybrid damages claims arising out of multijurisdictional cartels are generating some of the most novel and interesting current problems in conflicts of laws, both in relation to issues of jurisdiction and applicable law. On the jurisdictional side conventional wisdom has it that there are three main routes by which Claimants can seize English jurisdiction.”
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 14th February 2013
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
Folien Fischer AG and another v Ritrama SpA (Case C-133/11); [2012] WLR (D) 292
“An action for a negative declaration seeking to establish the absence of liability in tort, delict, or quasi-delict fell within the scope of article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L12, p 1).”
WLR Daily, 25th October 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re L (A Child) (Recognition of Foreign Order): [2012] EWCA Civ 1157; [2012] WLR (D) 252
“The English court would not refuse recognition of a parental agreement freely reached in a member state of the European Union unless a party seeking to challenge it showed a very high degree of procedure or principle error which led to the conclusion and ratification of the agreement in the country where the child was habitually resident at the time of the agreement. A child’s two monthly rotational residence in England lacked degree of permanence to find habitual residence in England for the English court to make a residence order.”
WLR Daily, 21st August 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“In Sulamerica Cia Nacional De Seguros S.A. v Enesa Engenharia S.A. [2012] EWCA Civ 638 the Court of Appeal explored (amongst other things) the question of how the law governing an arbitration agreement in the absence of express choice is to be determined.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 18th July 2012
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Yukos Capital Sarl v OJSC Rosneft Oil Co (No 2): [2012] EWCA Civ 855; [2012] WLR (D) 186
“Act of state doctrines did not go so far as to prevent examination of the substantial justice available in the courts of foreign jurisdictions, whether in a particular case or on a systemic basis. Where there was a jurisdiction to enforce a foreign award, it was open to the court to look at whether the case had been fairly decided. Where a party to the litigation was asking the English court to recognise a foreign court decision, the English court must be entitled to decide whether or not to enforce the foreign court decision.”
WLR Daily, 27th June 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and others: [2012] EWCA Civ 808; [2012] WLR (D) 181
“There was no such thing in English law as a ‘remedial constructive contract’ and the courts had no jurisdiction to subject parties to contractual obligations under a contract to which neither they, not the only undisputed parties to the contract had ever agreed or intended they should be subject. The Court of Appeal was bound to uphold the principle that it was appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances existed indicating that it was only a façade concealing the true facts. The veil-piercing principle had been developed pragmatically for the purpose of providing a practical solution in particular factual circumstances and could not be invoked wherever it was necessary to do so in the interests of justice and no unconnected third party was involved.”
WLR Daily, 20th June 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Where a commercial contract contained a choice of law clause exclusively in favour of one country and a jurisdiction clause giving the courts of the same country exclusive jurisdiction, but an arbitration clause by which the seat of the arbitration was to be in a different country, the issue of the proper law of the arbitration clause was a matter of contractual interpretation. The proper law depended on all the terms of the particular contract, when read in the light of the surrounding circumstances and commercial common sense.”
WLR Daily, 16th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
F-Tex SIA v Lietuvos-Anglijos UAB „Jadecloud-Vilma“; (Case C-213/10); [2012] WLR (D) 123
“Where a liquidator assigned a claim to have a transaction set aside derived from the national law applicable to the insolvency proceedings, the claim subsequently made by the assignee against a third party to have the transaction set aside came within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L12, p1) and was no longer covered by the exception in article 2(b) for insolvency proceedings.”
WLR Daily, 19th April 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“An English court was entitled to consider whether a foreign judgment obtained in a Convention state had contravened the Human Rights Convention where there was strong factual evidence to rebut the presumption that the procedures of other Convention states complied with article 6. Where a judgment in default had been obtained on a debt established in a foreign final judgment of a Convention state, on an application to set aside the default judgment on the basis of a later judgment of that Convention state given in flagrant breach of article 6, it was a proper exercise of the discretion under CPR r 13.3 to refuse to set aside the default judgment.”
WLR Daily, 29th February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Wokuri v Kassam [2012] EWHC 105 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 13
“A diplomatic agent who had left a mission continued to enjoy immunity in respect of acts performed by him or her in the exercise of his or her functions as a member of that mission within the meaning of article 39(2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) as scheduled to the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964. The residual immunity under article 39(2) was, however, less extensive than that enjoyed by a serving diplomat. The former diplomat would not necessarily have immunity in relation to claims by employees carrying out domestic duties.”
WLR Daily, 30th January 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Realchemie Nederland BV v Bayer CropScience AG (Case C-406/09); [2011] WLR (D) 350
“Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p1) applied to the recognition and enforcement of a decision of a court or tribunal that contained an order to pay a fine in order to ensure compliance with a judgment given in a civil and commercial matter. The costs relating to an exequatur (enforcement) procedure brought in one member state, in the course of which the recognition and enforcement was sought of a judgment given in another member state in proceedings seeking to enforce an intellectual property right, fell within article 14 of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/48/EC of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p 45).”
WLR Daily, 18th December 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Lucasfilm Ltd and others v Ainsworth and another [2011] UKSC 39; [2011] WLR (D) 257
“A judge was entitled to conclude that a helmet worn by a fictional character in a film was not a ‘sculpture’ for the purposes of copyright protection. A claim against a defendant domiciled in England for infringement of a foreign copyright could be justiciable in England.”
WLR Daily, 27th July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
FKI Engineering Ltd and another v Stribog Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 622; [2011] WLR (D) 178
“Where unrelated actions in different member states of the European Union subsequently became related by virtue of the amendment of the earlier action to include an issue related to the later action, the court seised of the later action had a discretion to stay that action on the grounds that it was no longer the court first seised for the purposes of article 28(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Judgments Regulation’).”
WLR Daily, 25th May 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“A serving High Court judge has told the BBC that he is approving commercial surrogacy agreements made by British couples abroad.”
BBC News, 19th May 2011
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Koelzsch v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Case C-29/10); [2011] WLR (D) 93
“Where an employee carries out activities in more than one contracting state the country in which the employee ‘habitually carries out his work in performance of the contract’, within the meaning of article 6(2)(a) of the Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, was that in which or from which, in the light of all the factors which characterised that activity, the employee performed the greater part of his obligations towards his employer.”
WLR Daily, 15th March 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Carey Group plc and others v AIB Group (UK) plc and another [2011] EWHC 567 (Ch); [2011] WLR (D) 86
“A person resident or carrying on business in the jurisdiction of England and Wales was at liberty to comply voluntarily with a request or demand of a foreign government agency, based upon foreign public law, without fear of restraint by the English courts, provided only that he thereby committed no wrong actionable under English law.”
WLR Daily, 11th March 2011
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“A senior UK law officer has urged the home secretary to ensure proper monitoring of extradition requests for criminal suspects between member states in Europe, after the failure to bring a German doctor who accidentally killed a patient on his first UK shift to face justice in Britain.”
Full story
The Guardian, 7th February 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
