Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T14:26:29.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. Civil and Commercial Litigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Wendy Kennett  and
Peter McEleavy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There continues to be a steady stream of cases, particularly those raising questions of interpretation of international instruments. Many nevertheless involve the application of those instruments to particular facts, rather than fundamental points of principle. The following are among the more significant.

Type
Current Developments
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 2002 , pp. 463 - 473
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Court of Appeal decision is included in an earlier Current Developments section: (1999) 48 ICLQ 9966 at 969Google Scholar.

2 [1987] AC 871.

3 [2001] EWCA Civ 661.

4 Chancery Division, 11 May 2001.

5 Ibid, 9 July 2001.

6 In the light of the known and disputed facts, there were various ways in which the administrators’ claims could have been formulated. A partnership argument was one of those. Hart J considered that the administrators faced some difficulty in establishing their claim on the merits, but thought that the claim was at least arguable in that form.

7 [2001] EWCA Civ 61 [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 490.

8 [2001] EWCA Civ 173 [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 618.

9 [1992] Ch 72.

10 [2000] 1 L Pr 73.

11 eg British Aerospace Pic v Dee Howard Co [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep 368.

12 [2001] EWCA Civ 1318.

13 [2001] EWCA Civ 556.

14 [1996] QB 657.

15 Case C-398/92, [1994] ECR 1–467.

16 As indicated by the reasoning in Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom (1995) 20 EHRR 442 and Federal Bank v Hadkinson (CA) 27 Oct 1999.

17 Stubbings v UK (1996) 23 EHRR 213.

18 [1987] 1 QB 1028 [1987] 1 All ER 194.

19 [1990] 1 AC 295.

20 [1906] 2 KB 26 [1904–7] All ER Rep 827, CA.

21 [2001] EWCA Civ 1317.

22 [1986] 1 Ch 482 [1986] 1 All ER 653.

23 Commission Working Document, ‘Mutual Recognition of Decisions on Parental Responsibility’, 27/3/2001, COM (2001) 166 final p. 9.

24 OJ 2000 C 234/07.

25 Council Press Release 13865/00 (Presse 457).

26 COM(2001) 505 final.

27 CJ-FA (2001) RAP 34, see the Council of Europe website: <http://www.legal.coe.in/family>.