Legal Briefing. Lungowe & Others v Vedanta Resources Plc & Konkola Copper Mines [2017]
|
|
- Mervin Morrison
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Legal Briefing Lungowe & Others v Vedanta Resources Plc & Konkola Copper Mines [2017]
2 Friday 13th October: An auspicious day for Zambian claimants On Friday 13 October 2017 the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Lungowe & Others v Vedanta Resources Plc & Konkola Copper Mines [2017] EWCA Civ 1528 dismissing the appeals of both Vedanta Resources and Konkola Copper Mines in relation to the jurisdiction of the Courts of England and Wales to hear the claims of almost 2,000 Zambians regarding alleged environmental pollution. Background The Claimants are 1,826 Zambian citizens who commenced proceedings against Vedanta, a UK domiciled multinational mining company, and its Zambian subsidiary Konkola Copper Mines ( KCM ), a copper mining company operating one of the largest copper mines in the world. The Claimants allege that as a result of the Defendants toxic effluent discharge from their Nchanga Copper Mine they have suffered loss of income through damage to the land and waterways on which they rely. They further contend that many are suffering from personal injuries as a result of having to consume and use polluted water. They are seeking damages, remediation and cessation to the alleged continual pollution that they say is gravely impacting their lives. Following service of proceedings in August 2015 both Defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the English Courts, filing applications which sought, inter alia, a declaration that the court does not have jurisdiction to try the claims. In April 2016 Mr Justice Coulson (now Lord Justice Coulson), heard submissions and evidence from all parties during a three day hearing in the Technology and Construction Court. Coulson LJ s judgment of 27 May 2016 found categorically in favour of England as the most convenient forum for the resolution of the claims allowing the claims to proceed against both Defendants.
3 The legal framework for determining jurisdiction The English courts apply two separate sets of rules to determine jurisdiction in cases before it: i. The rules contained in the Recast Brussels Regulation for defendants domiciled within the EU, particularly Article 4 which states persons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State ; and ii. For defendants domiciled outside of the EU the court generally applies common law principles. The decision in relation to Vedanta s appeal In the first instance decision, the Claimants relied on the judgment of Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU ) in Owusu v Jackson [2005] QB 801, where it was held that a national court is precluded from declining the mandatory jurisdiction conferred on it by Article 4 of the Recast Brussels Regulation on the grounds of forum non conveniens. In his judgment, Coulson J agreed with the Claimants explaining that Owusu v Jackson is authority for the proposition that forum non conveniens arguments are irrelevant to the claim against Vedanta, give the terms of what is now Article 4 [54] and further that it has been repeatedly held in subsequent decision in the United Kingdom that the decision in Owusu v Jackson prevents any consideration of the forum non conveniens principle when the defendant, or one of the defendants, is domiciled in the UK [56].
4 In their appeal, Vedanta contended that in fact Owusu is not dispositive of the jurisdiction in relation to Vedanta because: i. Owusu was a case on its own facts and did not apply to this case; ii. Owusu was not intended to apply where non-eu claimants are using the existence of a claim against an EU domiciled party as a device to ensure their claim against another defendant is heard in this jurisdiction; iii. The reasoning of the CJEU was flawed and should be followed in the circumstances of this case or that there should be a reference to the CJEU on the present case; iv. The approach in Owusu cannot apply where the proceedings amount to an abuse of EU law; and v. That there is no real issue between the Vedanta and the Claimants or if there is, the claim against Vedanta is so weak that this should be reflected in exercise of the court s discretion in allowing KCM s application, therefore a stay of the claim against Vedanta is justified. In the Court of Appeal s leading judgment, Simon LJ dismissed the first three arguments summarily by stating simply that these arguments are not open to Vedanta. The effect of the ECJ decision in Owusu v Jackson is that article 4 of the Recast Regulation precludes the English Court from declining what is a mandatory jurisdiction where the defendant is a company domiciled in England and Wales [34]. In rejecting Vedanta s fourth argument Simon LJ agreed with Coulson J in that the threshold was high for an abuse argument to succeed and that it does not do so in the present case [39]. The Judge s decision on Vedanta s fifth argument concerned arguments relating to the second Appellants application which are addressed next.
5 The decision in relation KCM s appeal In their initial application, KCM submitted that because the entire focus of the claim is on Zambia, on straightforward forum non conveniens grounds, the order permitting service out of the jurisdiction under paragraph 3.1 of Practice Direction 6B (often referred to as the necessary or proper party gateway) should be set aside. The Claimants argued in response that because there is a real issue between themselves and Vedanta it is reasonable that the court tries the issues in the UK. The parties agreed with Coulson J s assessment of the issues that arise in order to consider properly CPR Part 6.37(3): i. Whether the Claimants claim against KCM has a real prospect of success; ii. If so, whether there is a real issue between the Claimants and Vedanta; iii. Whether it is reasonable for the court to try that issue; and iv. Whether England is the proper place in which to bring that claim? Simon LJ in his judgment on KCM s appeal dealt with the above points in the same order:- (i) Does the Claimants claim against KCM have a real prospect of success? In addressing the first question Simon LJ recognised the importance of courts not expressing general views about the underlying merits when faced with a jurisdiction challenge [56] whilst agreeing with Coulson J s conclusion that the Claimants had a real prospect of success against KCM for the same reasons, namely: KCM was the operator of the Nchanga mine, there had been recorded discharges of toxic effluent from the mine, under some of the Zambian statutes there is strict liability for consequences of toxic discharges and the underlying basis of the claimants claim has not been challenged [56]. (ii) Is there a real issue between the Claimants and Vedanta? In addressing the second question, Simon LJ recognised that it gives rises to an initial question as to how the court should approach an issue of law in the underlying litigation which may be fundamental to the court s jurisdiction. In coming to his conclusion he relied on the Altimo Holdings case and decided that the observations in [84] of the Altimo Holdings case suggest that the court should proceed on the basis of a pleaded case and that the more doubtful the point of law, the more cautious the court should be, since the question of law goes to the existence of the jurisdiction [63].
6 The Judge accepted that Coulson J was entitled to rely on the Claimants expert evidence from Mr Mwenye SC that liability under Zambian statute was not limited to KCM as the mine licence holder and there was a real prospect of success against Vedanta under these statutory provisions on the basis that it exerted the relevant control over KCM s operations [66]. Simon LJ then went on to consider whether Vedanta could owe a duty of care under English law since if the court concluded that no common law duty of care could arise as a matter of English law, the foundation of the claimants expert view of Zambian law would be decisively undermined [67]. The Judge went onto to consider a large body of case law on the issue. From his assessment of the case law he drew the following conclusions: (1) The starting point is the three-part test of foreseeability, proximity and reasonableness. (2) A duty may be owed by a parent company to the employee of a subsidiary, or a party directly affected by the operations of that subsidiary, in certain circumstances. (3) Those circumstances may arise where the parent company (a) has taken direct responsibility for devising a material health and safety policy the adequacy of which is the subject of the claim, or (b) controls the operations which give rise to the claim. (4) Chandler v. Cape Plc and Thompson v. The Renwick Group Plc describe some of the circumstances in which the three-part test may, or may not, be satisfied so as to impose on a parent company responsibility for the health and safety of a subsidiary s employee. (5) The first of the four indicia in Chandler v. Cape Plc [80], requires not simply that the businesses of the parent and the subsidiary are in the relevant respect the same, but that the parent is well placed, because of its knowledge and expertise to protect the employees of the subsidiary. If both parent and subsidiary have similar knowledge and expertise and they jointly take decisions about mine safety, which the subsidiary implements, both companies may (depending on the circumstances) owe a duty of care to those affected by those decisions. (6) Such a duty may be owed in analogous situations, not only to employees of the subsidiary but to those affected by the operations of the subsidiary. (7) The evidence sufficient to establish the duty may not be available at the early stages of the case. Much will depend on whether, in the words of Wright J, the pleading represents the actuality [83]. Simon LJ went on to assess the evidence submitted by the Claimants in support of the assertion that Vedanta owed them a duty of care and concluded that there is a serious question to be tried which should not be disposed of summarily, notwithstanding the question goes to the court s jurisdiction [90].
7 (iii) Is it reasonable for the court to try the issue between the Claimants and Vedanta? The Appellant s appeal in respect of this question centred on the Red October case by relying on it to assert that Coulson J had erred in deciding that it was reasonable for the court to try the issue between the Claimants and Vedanta. Simon LJ recognised that the facts of the Red October case were considerably different to those in the present case: i) the Claimants sue Vedanta in this jurisdiction pursuant to the Recast Regulations and Owusu; and ii) that the claimants wish to proceed against Vedanta as a company that has sufficient funds to meet any judgment of the English court [96]. The Judge concluded that Coulson J at first instance was plainly right and in any event it was a conclusion open to him. (iv) Is KCM a necessary and proper party to the claim against Vedanta? This was not a major issue between the parties and therefore Simon LJ dealt with this summarily agreeing with Coulson J s conclusion that Vedanta and KCM can be regarded as broadly equivalent defendants [100]. (v) Is England and Wales the proper place in which to bring that claim? At first instance, Coulson J identified two questions that were required in order to decide this issue, namely: i) whether England and Wales was the appropriate place to try the Claimants claims against KCM; and ii) if not, whether the Claimants would get access to justice in Zambia. The Judge reached three conclusions in addressing these questions: i) ignoring the claim against Vedanta, England is not the appropriate forum; ii) however, taking into account the Vedanta claim, England is the most appropriate forum; and iii) if he were wrong, the Claimants would not get access to justice in Zambia in any event. The Appellants were appealing the latter two decisions. In considering whether Coulson J was right to conclude that given the Vedanta claim England is the appropriate forum, Simon LJ considered a number of relevant cases which assisted in his conclusion that Coulson J was correct: it was inappropriate for the litigation to be conducted in parallel proceedings [117]. In addressing whether Coulson J had erred in deciding that there was a real risk the Claimants would not obtain justice in Zambia, Simon LJ recognised that the burden of proof was on the Claimants. The Appellants argued that the Claimants had not discharged this evidential burden and that Coulson J had reversed the burden i.e. that it lay on the Appellants. The latter submission was rejected by Simon LJ. In addressing the former submission, Simon LJ provided a summary of the substantial evidence relied on by the Claimants and whilst acknowledging there were some partial contradictions in the evidence, the criticism amounted to what might be described as nibbling around the edges rather than making any substantial bites into the cogency of the Judge s findings [132]. He therefore rejected this ground of appeal.
8 Conclusion Simon LJ therefore found no grounds for re-opening Coulson J s decision, a conclusion that Lord Justice Jackson and Lady Justice Asplin sitting with him agreed with. In dismissing the appeal Simon LJ stated: in my view, he did not reach a view that was wrong; he reached a conclusion that was in accordance with the law. Oliver Holland, solicitor, international group claims team at Leigh Day oholland@leighday.co.uk Footnotes (1) Lungowe & Others v Vedanta Resources Plc & Konkola Copper Mines [2016] EWHC 975 (2) Regulation No. 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (3) Dominic Liswaniso Lungowe & Others v (1) Vedanta Resoources Plc and (2) Konkola Copper Mines Plc [2016] EWHC 975 (TCC) (4) Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v. Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd and others [2012] 1 WLR 1804 (5) Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605; Ngcobo and others v. Thor Chemicals Holdings Ltd (November 1996, per Maurice Kay J, unreported); Connelly v. RTZ Corporation Plc [1999] C.L.C. 533; Lubbe and ors v. Cape Plc [2000] 1 WLR 1545; Chandler v. Cape Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525, [2012] 1 WLR 3111; Thompson v. The Renwick Group Plc [2014] EWCA Civ 635. (6) Erste Group Bank AG, London Branch v. JSC VMZ Red October and ors [2015] EWCA Civ 379
Before : LORD JUSTICE JACKSON LORD JUSTICE SIMON and LADY JUSTICE ASPLIN Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWCA Civ 1528 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT (The Hon Mr Justice Coulson) Before : Case
More informationBefore: THE HON MR JUSTICE COULSON Between:
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 975 (TCC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT Case No: HT-2015-000292 Royal Courts of Justice Rolls Building, Fetter
More informationTIME TO REVISIT FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN THE UK? GROUP JOSI REINSURANCE CO V UGIC
705 TIME TO REVISIT FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN THE UK? GROUP JOSI REINSURANCE CO V UGIC Christopher D Bougen * There has been much debate in the United Kingdom over the last decade on whether the discretionary
More informationLitigation and Dispute Resolution
Litigation and Dispute Resolution Review November 2017 Contents Company 2 UK parent company liability to parties affected by operations of a UK or foreign subsidiary: Dominic Liswaniso Lungowe & ors v
More informationMareva Injunctions in Support of the Enforcement of Arbitral Awards 14 October 2016
Mareva Injunctions in Support of the Enforcement of Arbitral Awards 14 October 2016 Margaret Clare Ryan Mareva Injunctions: Overview Equitable injunction that prevents, for a limited time, specific assets
More informationGalliford Try Construction Ltd v Mott MacDonald Ltd [2008] APP.L.R. 03/14
JUDGMENT : Mr Justice Coulson : TCC. 14 th March 2008 Introduction 1. This is an application by the Defendant for an order that paragraphs 39 to 48 inclusive of the witness statement of Mr Joseph Martin,
More information"HOME IS WHERE THE HEART IS" DOMICILE, JURISDICTION, AND ANCHOR DEFENDANTS
BRIEFING "HOME IS WHERE THE HEART IS" DOMICILE, JURISDICTION, AND ANCHOR DEFENDANTS SEPTEMBER 2017 WHAT WILL THE ENGLISH COURTS APPROACH BE TO DETERMINING WHETHER A DEFENDANT IS DOMICILED IN THE JURISDICTION?
More informationAvoiding jurisdictional disasters: How will the updated EU Jurisdiction Rules impact your dispute resolution strategy?
Dispute resolution October 2015 Update Avoiding jurisdictional disasters: How will the updated EU Jurisdiction Rules impact your dispute resolution strategy? The UK continues to retain its position as
More informationMay 10, H.E. Edgar Chagwa Lungu President of the Republic of Zambia Office of the President PO Box Lusaka, Zambia.
May 10, 2017 H.E. Edgar Chagwa Lungu President of the Republic of Zambia Office of the President PO Box 50212 Lusaka, Zambia Office of the Treasurer Osgoode Hall 130 Queen Street West Toronto, Ontario
More informationELA ARBITRATION AND ADR GROUP. Issues arising from Brussels I Recast and Rome I
ELA ARBITRATION AND ADR GROUP Issues arising from Brussels I Recast and Rome I Question 1 Arbitration and Brussels I Recast: Do we agree that that arbitration is outside Brussels I and that the Regulations
More informationThe Safari Workaround decision
Group Actions 9 October 2018 The Safari Workaround decision By On 8 October 2018, Warby J handed down judgment rejecting a representative claim against Google on behalf of a class of iphone users (Lloyd
More informationIt s a fair cop: Supreme Court reviews duty of care
It s a fair cop: Supreme Court reviews duty of care Patrick West, Barrister, St John s Chambers Published on 14 February 2018 (And a foot note on the Worboys Case) Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
More informationEmployment Special Interest Group
Employment law: the convenient jurisdiction to bring equal pay claims - the High Court or County Court on the one hand or the Employment Tribunal on the other hand? Jonathan Owen Introduction 1. On 24
More informationLondongrad Calling: Jurisdiction Battles in the English Courts
25 Londongrad Calling: Jurisdiction Battles in the English Courts Roger Stewart QC, Graham Chapman QC and Can Yeginsu* Introduction When will the English court take jurisdiction over a dispute that has
More informationBefore: MR RECORDER BERKLEY MISS EASHA MAGON. and ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE PLC
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CENTRAL LONDON Case No: B53Y J995 Court No. 60 Thomas More Building Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Friday, 26 th February 2016 Before: MR RECORDER BERKLEY B E T W
More informationCuthbert v Gair (t/a The Bowes Manor Equestrian Centre) [2008] APP.L.R. 09/03
JUDGMENT : Master Haworth : Costs Court. 3 rd September 2008 1. This is an appeal pursuant to CPR Rule 47.20 from a decision of Costs Officer Martin in relation to a detailed assessment which took place
More informationINSURANCE/REINSURANCE JURISDICTION AND APPLICABLE LAW REFRESHER
INSURANCE/REINSURANCE JURISDICTION AND APPLICABLE LAW REFRESHER RPC 17 MAY 2012 RICHARD HARRISON 1. This seminar provides a review of some of the most recent developments in jurisdiction and applicable
More informationContentious Commentary
Contentious Commentary June 2016 1 Newsletter June 2016 Contentious Commentary Contract The usual cohort Interpreting contracts remains difficult. The trend in contractual interpretation is unquestionably
More informationJUDGMENT. BPE Solicitors and another (Respondents) v Gabriel (Appellant)
Trinity Term [2015] UKSC 39 On appeal from: [2013] EWCA Civ 1513 JUDGMENT BPE Solicitors and another (Respondents) v Gabriel (Appellant) before Lord Mance Lord Sumption Lord Carnwath Lord Toulson Lord
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM 21 December 2010 Before Registered at the Court of Justice under No. ~ 6b 5.21:. Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Collins (1)JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2) J.P.Morgan
More informationArbitration: Enforcement v Sovereign Immunity a clash of policy
Arbitration: Enforcement v Sovereign Immunity a clash of policy Presented by Hermione Rose Williams Advocates BVI Outline: A talk which examines the tension between the enforcement of arbitral awards and
More informationCase No: B3/2015/0832 & 1137 & 1168 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM LIVERPOOL CIVIL AND FAMILY COURT 3YK54788.
Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWCA Civ 72 Case No: B3/2015/0832 & 1137 & 1168 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM LIVERPOOL CIVIL AND FAMILY COURT 3YK54788 Royal Courts of Justice
More informationLOWIN. and W PORTSMOUTH & CO. JUDGMENT (As Approved)
[2016] EWHC 2301 (QB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Case No: QB/2016/0049 The Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Monday, 20 June 2016 BEFORE: MRS JUSTICE ELISABETH LAING
More informationConsultation. Civil Procedure Rules: Costs Capping Orders
Consultation Civil Procedure Rules: Costs Capping Orders Response of Browne Jacobson LLP 22 October 2008 Contents Contents... 1 Introduction... 2 Browne Jacobson LLP... 2 Interest in the Consultation...
More informationLIMITATION running the defence
LIMITATION running the defence Oliver Moore, Guildhall Chambers 9 th June 2010 SECTION 11 (4) LIMITATION ACT 1980 the period applicable is three years from (a) date on which cause of action accrued; or
More informationBefore: NEIL CAMERON QC Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. Between:
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 2647 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Case No: CO/2272/2016 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 28/10/2016
More informationEMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS. At the Tribunal On 12th December 2002 Judgment delivered on 11 March 2003
Appeal No. EAT/0018/02TM EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS At the Tribunal On 12th December 2002 Judgment delivered on 11 March 2003 Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE J ALTMAN MR
More informationB e f o r e: LORD JUSTICE FLOYD EUROPEAN HERITAGE LIMITED
Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWCA Civ 238 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION B2/2012/0611 Royal Courts of Justice Strand,London WC2A
More informationJUDGMENT. Nugent and another (Appellants) v Willers (Respondent) (Isle of Man)
Hilary Term [2019] UKPC 1 Privy Council Appeal No 0079 of 2016 JUDGMENT Nugent and another (Appellants) v Willers (Respondent) (Isle of Man) From the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man (Staff of
More informationIN THE COURT OF SESSION WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES IN THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY I.A.
IN THE COURT OF SESSION WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES IN THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY I.A. against a decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
More informationLORD JUSTICE MUMMERY LORD JUSTICE LLOYD
Case No: A2/2011/0901 Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Civ 971 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION COMPANIES COURT MR JUSTICE LEWISON
More informationHANDY CLIENT GUIDE TO JURISDICTION UNDER RECAST BRUSSELS ENGLAND AND WALES LEGAL GUIDE SECOND EDITION
HAD CLIET GUIDE TO JURISDICTIO UDER RECAST BRUSSELS REGULATIO EGLAD AD WALES LEGAL GUIDE SECOD EDITIO July 2015 HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS 02 HAD CLIET GUIDE TO JURISDICTIO DOES THE EGLISH COURT HAVE JURISDICTIO?
More informationBefore: LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN LADY JUSTICE GLOSTER and LORD JUSTICE VOS Between:
Annex 1 Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWCA Civ 1539 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT MRS JUSTICE LANG CO/6859/2013
More information"Conflict of laws: Does the UK Court have jurisdiction to rule on infringement and/or validity of a US Patent? Why are we getting involved?
"Conflict of laws: Does the UK Court have jurisdiction to rule on infringement and/or validity of a US Patent? Why are we getting involved?" In Lucas Film v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39 the UK Supreme Court
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN [1] GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES LTD. [2] SILVANUS ERNEST.
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SAINT LUCIA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HCVAP 2012/006 BETWEEN [1] GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES LTD. [2] SILVANUS ERNEST and Appellants [1] THE DIRECTOR
More informationJUDGMENT. Perry and others (Appellants) v Serious Organised Crime Agency (Respondent)
Trinity Term [2012] UKSC 35 On appeal from: [2010] EWCA Civ 907; [2011] EWCA Civ 578 JUDGMENT Perry and others (Appellants) v Serious Organised Crime Agency (Respondent) Perry and others No. 2 (Appellants)
More informationHIGH COURT PLANNING CHALLENGES COSTS: AARHUS, THE SULLIVAN REPORT, BUGLIFE AND HINTON ORGANICS. Nathalie Lieven QC
HIGH COURT PLANNING CHALLENGES COSTS: AARHUS, THE SULLIVAN REPORT, BUGLIFE AND HINTON ORGANICS Nathalie Lieven QC (A) INTRODUCTION 1. The purpose of this paper is to assess recent developments in the application
More informationBefore : LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY (Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division) and LORD JUSTICE RIMER
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Civ 164 Case No: T2/2010/1717 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE SPECIAL IMMIGRATION APPEALS COMMISSION REF NO: SC732009
More informationB e f o r e: THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES (The Lord Woolf of Barnes) LORD JUSTICE WALLER and LORD JUSTICE LAWS
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 879 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (HIS HONOUR JUDGE BRADBURY)
More informationJUDGMENT JUDGMENT GIVEN ON. 4 July Lord Mance Lord Sumption Lord Hodge Lady Black Lord Lloyd-Jones. before
Trinity Term [2018] UKSC 34 On appeal from: [2016] EWCA Civ 1092 JUDGMENT Goldman Sachs International (Appellant) v Novo Banco SA (Respondent) Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation Fund and others (Appellants)
More informationPROSPECTIVE IMPACT OF BREXIT ON JURISPRUDENCE AND COSTS. ACL MANCHESTER CONFERENCE 18 th MAY 2018 SEMINAR NOTES
PROSPECTIVE IMPACT OF BREXIT ON JURISPRUDENCE AND COSTS ACL MANCHESTER CONFERENCE 18 th MAY 2018 SEMINAR NOTES 1. There are few areas of law that have remained unaffected by EU law. employment rights,
More informationJUDGMENT. In the matter of an application by Hugh Jordan for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland)
Hilary Term [2019] UKSC 9 On appeal from: [2015] NICA 66 JUDGMENT In the matter of an application by Hugh Jordan for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) before Lady Hale, President Lord Reed, Deputy President
More informationBefore : LADY JUSTICE ARDEN LORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL and LORD JUSTICE BRIGGS with MASTER GORDON SAKER (Senior Costs Judge) sitting as an Assessor
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWCA Civ 1096 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM BIRKENHEAD COUNTY COURT AND FAMILY COURT District Judge Campbell A89YJ009 Before : Case No: A2/2015/1787
More informationFLOODING CLAIMS. By Andrew Williams. Last winter was the wettest since records began in It s a fair bet, then, that
By Andrew Williams Last winter was the wettest since records began in 1766. It s a fair bet, then, that there may be several flooding claims arising out of the events of that winter that have yet to be
More informationJudgment rendered in Micula v Romania enforcement proceedings ([2017] EWHC 31 (Comm))
Judgment rendered in Micula v Romania enforcement proceedings ([2017] EWHC 31 (Comm)) In a case of exceptional nature, the High Court has refused Romania s application, supported by the European Commission,
More informationBefore : THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ROTH Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 1830 (Ch) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION REVENUE LIST Case No: HC-2013-000527 Royal Courts of Justice Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
More informationJUDGMENT. Birmingham City Council (Appellant) v Abdulla and others (Respondents)
Michaelmas Term [2012] UKSC 47 On appeal from: [2011] EWCA Civ 1412 JUDGMENT Birmingham City Council (Appellant) v Abdulla and others (Respondents) before Lady Hale Lord Wilson Lord Sumption Lord Reed
More informationMR ANDREW GRAEME WARING. and MR MARK MCDONNELL. Judgment. 1. On 14 June 2016, the claimant and defendant were cycling in opposite directions on Lodge
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BRIGHTON CLAIM NO: D60YJ743 Brighton County and Family Court William Street Brighton BN2 0RF BEFORE HER HONOUR JUDGE VENN BETWEEN MR ANDREW GRAEME WARING Claimant and MR MARK MCDONNELL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE MONTSERRAT CIRCUIT (CIVIL) A.D GALLOWAY HARDWARE & BUILDING MATERIALS LTD
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT Claim No. MNIHCV2014/0024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE MONTSERRAT CIRCUIT (CIVIL) A.D. 2014 Between: DANTZLER INC. and GALLOWAY HARDWARE & BUILDING MATERIALS LTD Claimant
More informationABA INTERNATIONAL DISCOVERY BOOK
ABA INTERNATIONAL DISCOVERY BOOK UNITED KINGDOM (ENGLAND AND WALES) 1 A. OVERVIEW Documentary and oral testimony in the normal course standard procedure The English High Court may order the taking of evidence
More informationCompetition litigation in the European Union: recent developments
Competition litigation in the European Union: recent developments Jonathan Hitchin Partner, London Tel +44 20 3088 4818 jonathan.hitchin@allenovery.com Patrick Arnold Associate, London Tel +44 20 3088
More informationCommercial Briefing. Consideration, Anti- Oral Variation Clauses and Collateral Unilateral Contracts. Andrew Bowen QC (Scotland) FCIARB
Spring 2018 Number 5 Commercial Briefing Andrew Bowen QC (Scotland) FCIARB Consideration, Anti- Oral Variation Clauses and Collateral Unilateral Contracts MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising
More informationASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL SS & ors (Ankara Agreement no in-country right of appeal) Turkey [2006] UKAIT 00074 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House on 22 May and 28 June 2006 Notice sent: 29
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2009
CLAIM NO. 743 OF 2009 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2009 BETWEEN BCB HOLDINGS LIMITED First Claimant/Respondent THE BELIZE BANK LIMITED Second Claimant/Respondent AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BELIZE
More informationAmendments to Statements of Case Learning the Hard Way: PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov and others [2016] EWHC 2816 (Comm)
Amendments to Statements of Case Learning the Hard Way: PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov and others [2016] EWHC 2816 (Comm) Simon P. Camilleri * Associate, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson (London) LLP,
More informationCourt of Appeal rules that already incurred costs in approved costs budget can be challenged in later assessment proceedings
Court of Appeal rules that already incurred costs in approved costs budget can be challenged in later assessment Harrison v. University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust [2017] EWCA 792 Article
More informationJUDGMENT. Honourable Attorney General and another (Appellants) v Isaac (Respondent) (Antigua and Barbuda)
Easter Term [2018] UKPC 11 Privy Council Appeal No 0077 of 2016 JUDGMENT Honourable Attorney General and another (Appellants) v Isaac (Respondent) (Antigua and Barbuda) From the Court of Appeal of the
More informationCommercial and Insolvency Update December Recognition of foreign judgments and suspected judicial bias:
Commercial and Insolvency Update December 2017 Recognition of foreign judgments and suspected judicial bias: Maximov v OJSC Novolipetsky Metallurgichesky Kombinat [2017] EWHC 1911 (Comm) Alexander Halban
More informationProperty Law Briefing
MARCH 2018 Zachary Bredemear May I serve by email? The CPR vs Party Wall Act 1996 The Party Wall Act 1996 contains provisions that deal with service of documents by email (s.15(1a)-(1c)). The provisions
More informationJUDGMENT. Hallman Holding Ltd (Appellant) v Webster and another (Respondents) (Anguilla)
Hilary Term [2016] UKPC 3 Privy Council Appeal No 0103 of 2014 JUDGMENT Hallman Holding Ltd (Appellant) v Webster and another (Respondents) (Anguilla) From the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean
More informationJUDGMENT. R (on the application of AA) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)
Trinity Term [2013] UKSC 49 On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 1383 JUDGMENT R (on the application of AA) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) before Lord Neuberger,
More informationVictoria House Bloomsbury Place London WC1A 2EB 17 October Before:
Neutral citation [2008] CAT 28 IN THE COMPETITION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Case Number: 1077/5/7/07 Victoria House Bloomsbury Place London WC1A 2EB 17 October 2008 Before: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BARLING (President)
More informationUnder construction: drafting and interpretation of land options
Under construction: drafting and interpretation of land options Charlie Newington-Bridges, St John s Chambers Published on 27 September 2016 Land Options Introduction 1. In H&S Developments v Chant [2016]
More informationVTB Capital - Supreme Court Decision
VTB Capital - Supreme Court Decision Publication - 17/07/2013 What are the legal consequences of "piercing the corporate veil" of a company? If it is appropriate to do so, will the controller of the company
More informationReview. Intellectual Property & Technology. March
March 2011 Review Intellectual Property & Technology HOW NOT TO ENFORCE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS - LESSONS FROM MEDIA CAT LIMITED V ADAMS & ORS 1 Summary Following a series of increasingly bizarre
More informationInjunction Applications in complex cases. Recent cases and some points to think about
Injunction Applications in complex cases Recent cases and some points to think about 1. A glance at any cause list reveals that the Chancery Division and Commercial Court continue to see healthy volumes
More informationBefore : PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION LADY JUSTICE SMITH and LORD JUSTICE AIKENS Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Civ 160 Case No: C1/2010/1568 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM QBD ADMINISTRATIVE COURT IN BIRMINGHAM THE RECORDER OF BIRMINGHAM
More informationSentencing law in England and Wales Legislation currently in force. Part 5 Post-sentencing matters
Sentencing law in England and Wales Legislation currently in force Part 5 Post-sentencing matters 9 October 2015 Law Commission: Sentencing law in England and Wales Legislation currently in force Part
More informationLEGAL ISSUES IN ARBITRATIONS - WHEN AND HOW TO TAKE LEGAL ADVICE
LEGAL ISSUES IN ARBITRATIONS - WHEN AND HOW TO TAKE LEGAL ADVICE A paper for the Rural Arbix conference on 15 October 2015 1. The options 1. If a legal issue comes up in an arbitration, there are five
More informationAnti-suit Injunctions: Expanding Protection for Arbitration under English Law
169 Anti-suit Injunctions: Expanding Protection for Arbitration under English Law Jamie Maples and Tim Goldfarb* Introduction Where parties have agreed to resolve a particular dispute through arbitration,
More informationPRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW : CONFLICT OF LAWS
Arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996 Aim: To provide a clear outline of the principal issues relating to the legally binding resolution of conflict of laws disputes via arbitration under the Arbitration
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: SC No 2604 of 2016 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: John Holland Pty Ltd v Adani Abbot Point Terminal Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] QSC 48 JOHN
More informationAppeals by the GMC pursuant to s.40a of the Medical Act 1983 ( s.40a appeals ) Guidance for Decision-makers
Appeals by the GMC pursuant to s.40a of the Medical Act 1983 ( s.40a appeals ) Guidance for Decision-makers Introduction 1 Section 40A of the Medical Act 1983 (as amended by Article 17 of The General Medical
More informationBrexit Paper 4: Civil Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments
1 Brexit Paper 4: Civil Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments Summary The ability to enforce judgments of the courts from one state in another is of vital importance for the functioning of society
More information-and- APPROVED JUDGMENT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT NIMBY Appellant -and- THE COUNCIL Respondent APPROVED JUDGMENT 1.
More informationEnforcement of Foreign Judgments. The Usual Rules Apply (no exception for insolvency)
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments The Usual Rules Apply (no exception for insolvency) The Supreme Court has just given judgment (24 October 2012) in Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and others and New
More informationSee Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, (Application no /04), European Court of Human Rights.
ILPA response to the Department of Education consultation on the draft regulations and statutory guidance for local authorities on the care of unaccompanied asylum seeking and trafficked children The Immigration
More informationPhilip Mead AREAS OF EXPERTISE. International & Travel. Call: 1989
Philip Mead Call: 1989 mead@12kbw.co.uk AREAS OF EXPERTISE International & Travel, Personal Injury, Employment & Discrimination, Insurance, Aviation Philip joins the International and Travel Group of 12KBW
More informationLIMITATION OF LIABILITY BY ACCOUNTANTS
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY BY ACCOUNTANTS Introduction 1. Traditionally, a central plank of an accountant s corporate work has been carrying out the audit. However, over the years the profession s role has
More informationRe Calibre Solicitors Ltd (in administration) Justice Capital Ltd v Murphy and another (Administrators of Calibre Solicitors Ltd)
Page 1 Judgments Re Calibre Solicitors Ltd (in administration) Justice Capital Ltd v Murphy and another (Administrators of Calibre Solicitors Ltd) [2014] Lexis Citation 259 Chancery Division, Companies
More informationJUDGMENT. OB (by his mother and litigation friend) (FC) (Respondent) v Aventis Pasteur SA (Appellants)
Easter Term [2010] UKSC 23 On appeal from: [2007] EWCA Civ 939 JUDGMENT OB (by his mother and litigation friend) (FC) (Respondent) v Aventis Pasteur SA (Appellants) before Lord Hope, Deputy President Lord
More information-and- SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
IN THE SUPREME COURT NIMBY Appellant -and- THE COUNCIL Respondent INTRODUCTION SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT 1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing Nimby
More informationBefore : HIS HONOUR JUDGE ROBINSON Between :
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT SHEFFIELD On Appeal from District Judge Bellamy Case No: 2 YK 74402 Sheffield Appeal Hearing Centre Sheffield Combined Court Centre 50 West Bar Sheffield Date: 29 September 2014
More informationCondemnation Proceedings, a practical synopsis
Page 1 De Voil Indirect Tax Intelligence /2016/Issue 243, August/Articles/A practical synopsis - De Voil Indirect Tax Intelligence, 243 (11) De Voil Indirect Tax Intelligence De Voil Indirect Tax Intelligence,
More informationRESPONSE TO JUDICIAL CONSULTATION
JUDGE BRIAN DOYLE PRESIDENT EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (ENGLAND & WALES) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Judge Shona Simon President 4 September 2017 RESPONSE TO JUDICIAL CONSULTATION Employment Tribunal awards
More informationBefore : LORD JUSTICE MCFARLANE LORD JUSTICE BRIGGS and LORD JUSTICE FLAUX Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWCA Civ 355 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM CARDIFF CIVIL AND FAMILY JUSTICE CENTRE District Judge T M Phillips b44ym322 Before : Case No: A2/2016/1422
More informationA nightmare for social landlords and their tenants?
A nightmare for social landlords and their tenants? Jonathan Manning and Sarah Salmon, Barristers, both at Arden Chambers and Bethan Gladwyn, Senior Associate and Head of Housing Management and Rebecca
More information6. THE ARGUMENT AGAINST A JUDICIAL REVIEW ********************
6. THE ARGUMENT AGAINST A JUDICIAL REVIEW ******************** Skeleton Argument of Philip Sales & Jemima Stratford for the Treasury Solicitor, 5 December 2002 100 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S
More informationOnline Case 8 Parvez. Mooney Everett Solicitors Ltd
125 Online Case 8 Parvez v Mooney Everett Solicitors Ltd [2018] 1 Costs LO 125 Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 62 (QB) High Court of Justice, Queen s Bench Division, Sheffield District Registry 19
More informationB e f o r e: MR JUSTICE OUSELEY. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT Defendant
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 488 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT CO/4082/2014 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Friday, 6 February
More informationBefore: LORD CARLILE OF BERRIEW QC Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court Between:
Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 443 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Case No: CO/8217/2008 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 10
More informationBefore: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SALES (Chairman) CLARE POTTER DERMOT GLYNN BETWEEN: -v- COMPETITION AND MARKETS AUTHORITY Respondent.
Neutral citation [2014] CAT 10 IN THE COMPETITION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Case No.: 1229/6/12/14 9 July 2014 Before: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SALES (Chairman) CLARE POTTER DERMOT GLYNN Sitting as a Tribunal in
More informationBefore : LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE LORD JUSTICE GROSS and LORD JUSTICE FLOYD Between : - and OMAR MAHCHI AGUAD
Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWCA Civ 1742 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION Mr Justice Edis [2016] EWHC 2207 (QB) Before : Case
More informationIN THE LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT (APPEALS) County Court 35 Vernon Street Liverpool HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARKER
IN THE LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT (APPEALS) A23YJ619 County Court 35 Vernon Street Liverpool 28 th April 2016 Before: HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARKER B e t w e e n: BRENDA DAWRANT Claimant/Respondent and PART AND
More informationCase Note. Carty v London Borough Of Croydon. Andrew Knott. I Context
Case Note Carty v London Borough Of Croydon Andrew Knott Macrossans Lawyers, Brisbane, Australia I Context The law regulating schools, those who work in them, and those who deal with them, involves increasingly
More informationJUDGMENT. P (Appellant) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Respondent)
Michaelmas Term [2017] UKSC 65 On appeal from: [2016] EWCA Civ 2 JUDGMENT P (Appellant) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Respondent) before Lady Hale Lord Kerr Lord Wilson Lord Reed Lord Hughes
More informationOVERCOMING IMPEDIMENTS - SIMON PICKLES
OVERCOMING IMPEDIMENTS - SIMON PICKLES 1. The advantage of the title (not my own) to this brief paper is that it provides such a broad, blank canvas. I have chosen to address under it two current topics
More informationChairman s Ruling on Applications by certain persons to withhold their names from a list of core participants
Chairman s Ruling on Applications by certain persons to withhold their names from a list of core participants 1. Some time ago I stated that it was my intention to publish on the Inquiry s website the
More informationBefore: LORD JUSTICE CARNWATH LORD JUSTICE LLOYD and LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN Between:
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Civ 1606 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER) JUDGE EDWARD JACOBS GIA/2098/2010 Before: Case No:
More informationWHERE NOW SUMAL? THE IMPLICATIONS OF BRENT LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL v SANJAY SHAH & OTHERS. and
WHERE NOW SUMAL? THE IMPLICATIONS OF BRENT LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL v SANJAY SHAH & OTHERS and THE AVAILABILITY OF CONFISCATION PURSUANT TO THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 2002 IN RELATION TO VARIOUS CRIMINAL
More information