Nottingham City Council v LM and others [2014] EWCA Civ 152; [2014] WLR (D) 92
‘Jurisdiction had to be considered in every children case with an international element and at the earliest opportunity, particularly when the proceedings were issued and at the case management hearing.’
WLR Daily, 21st February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Wall v Mutuelle de Poitiers Assurances [2014] EWCA 12; [2014] WLR (D) 86
‘Where a cyclist had been run down in France and brought proceedings in the English courts seeking damages for personal injury, the question whether there should be one single joint expert, or more than one expert pursuant to CPR Pt 35, was a matter of “evidence and procedure” within the meaning of article 1(3) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2007. Therefore the question of which expert evidence the court should order fell to be determined in accordance with English and not French law.’
WLR Daily, 20th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Lily Mottahedan, barrister at 1 Hare Court, examines the court’s approach in determining whether a marriage was a “non-marriage” or a “void” or “valid” in the recent High Court judgment in Asaad v Kurter [2013] EWHC 3852 (Fam).’
Family Law Week, 12th February 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
Corman-Collins SA v La Maison du Whisky SA (Case C-9/12); [2013] WLR (D) 513
‘The rule of jurisdiction laid down in the second indent of article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 for disputes relating to contracts for the supply of services was applicable in the case of a legal action by which a claimant established in one member state claimed, against a defendant established in another member state, rights arising from an exclusive distribution agreement, which required the contract binding the parties to contain specific terms concerning the distribution by the distributor of goods sold by the grantor. It was for the national court to ascertain whether that was the case in the before it.’
WLR Daily, 19th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal handed down two important decisions last week on the application of conflict of law principles to cartel follow-on damages claims: Deutsche Bahn AG & Ors v Morgan Advanced Materials plc & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1484 and Ryanair Limited v Esso Italiana Srl [2013] EWCA Civ 1450. The defendants in each case challenged the jurisdiction of the English courts to hear damages claims arising from their cartel activities.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 24th November 2013
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
‘Mandeep Gill, associate solicitor with The International Family Law Group LLP, considers the recent cautionary reminder given by Mr Justice Bodey that all practitioners must be able to identify whether there are potential Hague Convention implications in any children case with an international element.’
Family Law week, 22nd November 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
Maletic and another v lastminute.com and another (Case C-478/12); [2013] WLR (D) 444
“The concept of ‘other party to the contract’ laid down in article 16(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, p 1)also covered the contracting partner of the operator with which the consumer concluded that contract and which had its registered office in the member state in which the consumer was domiciled.”
WLR Daily, 14th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Emrek v Sabranovic: (Case C-218/12); [2013] WLR (D) 390
“Article 15(1)(c) 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 did not require the existence of a causal link between the means employed to direct the commercial or professional activity to the member state of the consumer’s domicile. However, the existence of such a causal link constituted evidence of the connection between the contract and such activity.”
WLR Daily, 17th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Mittal v Mittal: [2013] EWCA Civ ; [2013] WLR (D) 391
“Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 gave the courts of England and Wales jurisdiction to stay matrimonial proceedings in favour of competing prior proceedings in a non-member state.”
WLR Daily, 18th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG (Case C-170/12); [2013] WLR (D) 367
“In the event of alleged infringement of copyrights protected by the member state of the court seised, the latter had jurisdiction to hear an action to establish liability brought by the author of a work against a company established in another member state and which had, in the latter state, reproduced that work on a material support which was subsequently sold by companies established in a third member state through an Internet site also accessible with the jurisdiction of the court seised. That court had jurisdiction only to determine the damage caused in the member state within which it was situated.”
WLR Daily, 3rd October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Proceedings brought by Schneider (Case C-386/12); [2013] WLR (D) 366
“Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and, in particular article 22(1) thereof in relation to jurisdiction in proceedings concerning rights in rem in immoveable property, did not apply to non-contentious proceedings by which a national of a member state who had been declared to be lacking full capacity and placed under guardianship in that member state had applied to a court in another member state for authorisation to sell his share of a property situated in that other member state.”
WLR Daily, 3rd October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Sunico ApS and others (Case C-49/12); [2013] WLR (D) 347
“The concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 covered an action whereby a public authority of one member state claimed, as against natural and legal persons resident in another member state, damages for loss caused by a tortious conspiracy to commit value added tax fraud in the first member state.”
WLR Daily, 12th September 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Schlecker (trading as Firma Anton Schlecker) v Boedeker: (Case C-64/12); [2013] WLR (D) 346
“Article 6(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980, meant that even where an employee carried out the work in performance of the contract habitually, for a lengthy period and without interruption in the same country, the national court could, under the concluding part of that provision, disregard the law of the country where the work was habitually carried out, if it appeared from the circumstances as a whole that the contract was more closely connected with another country.”
WLR Daily, 12th September 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
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
© Inner Temple Library 2025