No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Actions in personam – Assumed Jurisdiction of the English Court
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Extract
By assumed jurisdiction is meant the taking of jurisdiction by the English court under the provisions of Rules of the Supreme Court, Order 11, rules 1 and 2, (hereafter referred to as R.S.C. Ord. 11, r. 1 or r. 2). These provisions form an important and extensive exception to the basic jurisdictional rule that competence is founded upon actual service of the writ upon the defendant within the jurisdictional territory and are designed to bring, either actually or notionally, defendants who are outside the jurisdiction (usually, albeit loosely, referred to as foreign defendants) within the jurisdiction of the High Court. It is not the purpose of this article to outline or discuss each of the situations provided for by R.S.C. Ord. 11, rr. 1 and 2, but critically to examine the present working of this exceptional jurisdiction in the light of a number of recent decisions. In order properly to do so it is necessary to consider, briefly but again critically, the basic rule relating to service of the writ within the jurisdiction.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1974
References
1. For the specific provisions of R.S.C. Ord. 11, see, Morris, , The Conflict of Laws, (1971) pp. 64–74Google Scholar; Cheshire, , Private International Law, 8th ed. (1970) pp. 83–89.Google Scholar
2. See, Gutteridge, (1933), 44Google Scholar Hague Recueil des Cours 125; Mann (1964) 1 Hague Recueil des Cours 9.
3. Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, s. 5.
4. R.S.C. Ord. 5.
5. Or Wales or Berwick-on-Tweed. Hereafter, any reference to England or “the jurisdiction” is a reference to this total geographical area.
6. Garthwaite v. Garthwaite [1964] P. 356 at p. 387Google Scholarper Diplock L.J.
7. In the case of a matrimonial suit the petitioner has a right to serve abroad upon the respondent without obtaining leave of the court: Matrimonial Causes Rules 1968, r. 109(1).
8. [1966] 1 All E.R. 673.
9. [1966] 1 All E.R. 676 n. 8.
10. Watkins v. North American Land and Timber Co. (1904), 20 T.L.R. 534.Google Scholar
11. See, supra, n. 8, at p. 676.
12. [1972] 2 W.L.R. 1077.
13. [1936] 1 K.B. 382 at p. 398 per Scott L.J.
14. [1973] 2 W.L.R. 795.
15. For discussion of this aspect of the decision, see, MacLean, (1973), 22Google Scholar Int. & Comp. L.Q. 748; Bridge, (1973), 36 Mod. L.R. 649.Google Scholar
16. See, also, those cases where the conduct of the plaintiff could be described as an abuse of the court: Egbert v. Short [1907] 2 Ch. 205Google Scholar; Re Norton's Settlement [1908] 1 Ch. 471Google Scholar, where the proceedings were not brought bona fide but as a device to force the defendant to settle and were stayed.
17. As a general rule the writ must be served personally on the defendant by the plaintiff or his agent: Ord. 10, r. 1(1). There are some exceptions: see, infra, n. 22 and n. 23. In addition, the court may make an order for substituted service if it accepts that personal service is impractical: Ord. 65, r. 4, see, also, Porter v. Freudenberg [1915] 1 K.B. 857.Google Scholar Where the defendant is insured against his potential liability service may be ordered on his insurers: Gurtner v. Circuit [1968] 1 AU E.R. 328.Google Scholar
18. See, Cheshire, , op. cit. at p. 625.Google Scholar
19. Signed at Brussels, 27 September 1968.
20. The English court has accepted presence in the foreign country as sufficient: Carrick v. Hancock (1895), 12 T.L.R. 59.Google Scholar But contrast, Emanuel v. Symon [1908] 1 K.B. 302 at p. 309Google Scholarper Buckley L.J.; “In actions in personam there are five cases in which the courts of this country will enforce a foreign judgment… (2) where he was resident in the foreign country when the action began”, – presence was not mentioned. See also, Schibsby v. Westenholz (1870) L.R. 6 Q.B. 155, at p. 161.Google Scholar
21. Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Supplementary Protocol, Art. 4(e), concluded 1 February 1971.
22. If at the time of issue it is known that the defendant is out of the jurisdiction then leave to issue the writ is also needed: R.S.C. Old. 6, r. 7(1). In such a case the practice is to make one application to issue and serve.
23. R.S.C. Ord. 10, r. 1(2).
24. R.S.C. Ord. 10, r. 1(3); see The Gniezno [1967] 2 All E.R. 738.Google Scholar
25. R.S.C. Ord. 11, rr. 1, 2.
26. R.S.C. Ord. 11, r. 4.
27. Maroux v. Soc. Com. Abel Pereira Da Fonseca S.A.R.L., see. infra, n. 60 loc. cit.
28. Mackender v. Feldia A.G. [1966] 3 All E.R. 847 at p. 851Google Scholarper Diplock L.J.
29. R.S.C. Ord. 11, r. 3. In Evans Marshall & Co. v. Bertola S.A., infra, n. 86 loc. cit., Kerr J. speaks of the concurrent writ.
30. R.S.C. Ord. 13.
31. (1970), 318 F. Supp. 161. For the English proceedings, see, infra, n. 36, loc. cit.
32. See, generally, Collins (1972), 21 Int. & Comp. L.Q. 656 at pp. 678–680.
33. [1968] 1 N.S.W.R. 577.
34. See, Somportex v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum, infra, n. 36Google Scholarloc. cit. at p. 29.
35. See, also, Collins, , loc. cit. at pp. 673–681.Google Scholar
36. Criticised, Collins, ibid, at p. 678.
37. [1968] 3 All E.R. 26.
38. Strongly judicially approved: see, ibid, at p. 29 per Lord Denning M.R.
39. See, Evans Marshall & Co. v. Bertola S.A., infra, n. 86Google Scholarloc. cit. at p. 358; there the second defendants' solicitors accepted servide on behalf of the first defendants “on a without prejudice basis”, i.e. without prejudice to the latters' right to apply under R.S.C. Ord. 12, r. 8.
40. [1915] 2 K.B. 580.
41. [1951] Ch. 842 at pp. 850–851 per Denning L.J.
42. Daarnhouwer & Co. N. V. v. Boulos [1968] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 259 at pp. 265–269per Megaw J.Google Scholar
43. Collins, , loc. cit. at p. 677.Google Scholar
44. “… a court of a Contracting State shall have jurisdiction if the defendant enters an appearance before it This does not apply if the defendant appears solely to challenge the court's jurisdiction …”
45. (1885), 29 Ch. D. 239 at pp. 242–243.
46. Approved by Farwell L.J. in The Hagen, infra, n. 47Google Scholarloc. cit., the generally accepted and most frequently cited authority on the propel exercise of the judicial discretion.
47. Supra, n. 44, loc. cit.
48. [1908] p. 189.
49. See, also, Unterweser Reederei G.m.b.H. v. Zapata Off-Shore Company: The Chaparral, infra, n. 77loc. cit.Google Scholar
50. Infra, n. 59 loc. cit.
51. Kroch v. Rossell et Cie. (1937) 157 L.T. 379Google Scholar; The Metamorphosis [1953] 1 W.L.R. 543.Google Scholar
52. Infra, n. 68 loc. cit.
53. Infra, n. 60 loc. cit.
54. 7 October 1968, unreported, cited by Kerr J. in Evans Marshall & Co. v. Bertola S.A., infra, n. 86 loc. cit. at p. 364.Google Scholar
55. Supra, n. 16 loc. cit.
56. Maroux v. Soc. Com. Abel Pereira Da Fonseca S.A.R.L., infra, n. 60 loc. cit. at p. 965per Megarry J.Google Scholar
57. See, Ehrenzweig, The Conflict of Laws, (1962), at p. 121 et seq.; Ehrenzweig & Jayme, Private International Law, Vol. 2 (1973) at pp. 37–40.
58. See, Anton, , Private International Law, (1967), at p. 148et seq.Google Scholar
59. Buttes Gas & Oil Co. v. Hammer, infra, n. 59Google Scholarloc. cit.; see Collins, , loc. cit. at p. 668.Google Scholar
60. [1971] 3 All E.R. 1025.
61. [1972] 1 W.L.R. 962; criticised, Cohn (1973), 22 Int. & Comp. L.Q. 157.
62. This provision allows the plaintiff to choose his remedy if he has alternative claims in contract and tort: see, Matthews v. Kuwait Bechtel Corp. [1959] 2 Q.B. 57Google Scholar, where a plaintiff employed abroad under a contract governed by English law sustained personal injuries abroad in the course of that employment and was allowed to serve out in an action for breach of an implied contractual term even though it was a tortious fact-situation for which leave would not have been given as the tort was not committed within the jurisdiction.
63. Miller & Partners v. Whitworth Street Estates Ltd. [1970] A.C. 583.Google Scholar
64. The Assunzione [1953] 1 W.L.R. 929 at p. 939.Google Scholar
65. Re United Railways of Havana and Regla Warehouses Ltd. [1968] A.C. 1007.Google Scholar
66. (1961), 111 L.J. 519.
67. Cohn, , loc. cit., at p. 160.Google Scholar
68. See, Distillers Co. (Biochemicals) Ltd. v. Thompson [1971] 2 W.L.R. 441Google Scholar; criticised, Collins, , loc. cit at pp. 663–666.Google Scholar
69. [1972] 1 All E.R. 451; discussed, Jaffey (1974), 23 Int. & Comp. L.Q. 1 at pp. 27–28, Collins, , loc. cit. at pp. 669–672.Google Scholar
70. Ibid, at p. 456. Emphasis supplied.
71. The Hagen, supra, n. 47 loc. cit. at p. 201per Farwell J.Google Scholar
72. See Evans Marshall & Co. v. Bertola S.A., infra, n. 86 loc. cit. at pp. 360–361per Kerr J.Google Scholar
73. See, Ord. 10, r. 3 and Ord. 11, r. 2. See, also, British Controlled Oilfields Ltd. v. Stagg (1921), 127 L.T. 209.Google Scholar
74. (1893), 10 T.L.R. 22; 10 T.L.R. 103 (C.A.).
75. Ibid., at p. 23.
76. See, Evans Marchall & Co. v. Bertola S.A., infra, n. 86 loc. cit. at p. 361.Google Scholar
77. Supra, n. 27 loc. cit. at p. 853.
78. Unterweser Reederei G.m.b.H. v. Zapata Off-Shore Company: The Chaparral [1968] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 158.Google Scholar For the American proceedings, see, M/S Bremen and Unterweser Reederei G.m.b.H. v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. (1972) 407 U.S. 1Google Scholar; [1972] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 315. The arguments of the parties and the decisions in the American proceedings are set out in, (1972), 11 Int Leg. Mat 601–642 (Court of Appeals), and at pp. 832–844 (Supreme Court). Both the English and the American proceedings have been fully discussed: see, Collins, (1971), 20 Int. & Comp. L.Q. 550Google Scholar; (1973), 22 Int & Comp. L.Q. 332; Becker, (1973), 22 Int. & Comp. 329Google Scholar; Burgess, (1972), 11 Int. Leg. Mat. 599Google Scholar; Nadelmann, (1973), 21 Am. Jo. Comp. L. 124.Google Scholar
79. Ibid, at p. 163.
80. [1970] p. 94.
81. See, Oppenheimer v. Louis Rosenthal & Co. [1937] 1 All E.R. 23Google Scholar, where the persecution of Jews in Germany influenced the court in allowing proceedings to continue.
82. Supra, n. 79 loc. cit. at pp. 103–104. See, also, Evans Marshall & Co. v. Bertola S.A., infra, n. 86 loc cit. at p. 362.Google Scholar
83. [1958] 1 W.L.R. 159; the contract provided that disputes were to be litigated in Russian courts and governed by Russian law.
84. Ibid, at p. 162; this test was expressly approved and applied by Maguiie J. in Hopkins v. Difrex (1966) 1 N.S.W.R. 797.Google Scholar
85. Infra, n. 86 loc. cit. at p. 383.
86. Ibid, where his Lordship also approved The Eleftheria, supra, n. 79Google Scholarloc. cit.
87. [1973] 1 W.L.R. 349.
88. Viz. “… if … an injunction is sought ordering the defendant to do or refrain from doing anything within the jurisdiction …”
89. Viz. “… in respect of a breach committed within the jurisdiction of a contract made within or without of the jurisdiction …”
90. Although the agreement referred to “sole agents and representatives” in fact it was an exclusive distribution agreement.
91. On the basis of service within the jurisdiction on these second defendants the plaintiffs could have applied for leave under Ord. 11, r. 1 (1) (j), viz. “… a person out of the jurisdiction is a necessary or proper party …”
92. See, supra, n. 86/loc. cit. at p. 362, where, on the basis of expert evidence as to Spanish law Kerr J. held that the clause was exclusive.
93. Ibid., loc. cit. at p. 363: “It is a battle about the proper marketing of sherry in the United Kingdom”.
94. Ibid.
95. Ibid., loc. cit. at p. 364.
96. Ibid., loc. cit. at pp. 363–364.
97. Ibid., loc. cit. at p. 364.
98. Ibid., loc. cit. at pp: 369–386.
99. Supra, n. 27 loc. cit. at p. 853.
100. Supra, n. 86 loc. cit. at p. 384.
101. This matter was singled out for comment in the Court of Appeal: ibid., loc. cit. at p. 377 per Sachs L.J., at p. 385 per Cairns L.J.
102. Ibid., loc. cit. at p. 363 per Kerr J.
103. Ibid., loc. cit. at p. 377 per Sachs L.J., at p. 385 per Cairns L J.
104. Ibid., loc. cit. at pp. 363–364.
105. Supra, n. 82 loc. cit. at p. 336 per Denning L.J.: “… the impression that the German owners did not object to the dispute being decided in this country but wished to avoid the giving of security”.
106. Collins, (1973), 22 Int. &. Compt L.Q. 332 at p. 343.Google Scholar
107. One is reminded of the maxim, ‘He who seeks equity must do equity’, with particular reference to the modern development of equitable estoppel; see Central London Property Trust Ltd. v.High Trees House Ltd. [1947] K.B. 130.Google Scholar
108. Thus it would be proper for the court to take into consideration the factor of inequality between the parties in deciding whether to insist upon due observance of this term of the agreement. It is thought that Karminski J. was alluding to this consideration when he noted that the contract had been, “freely entered into”, by the parties in The Chaparral, supra, n. 77 loc. cit. at p. 159.Google Scholar