Sentences with phrase «domiciled defendants»

At present, an EU domiciled defendant can only be joined as a co-defendant to English proceedings where an English - domiciled anchor defendant has been sued here: see Article 8 (1) of the Recast.

Inspiration is found especially in Erste Group Bank [2015] EWCA Civ 379, a case in which forum non conveniens was applied even against an England - domiciled defendant because there had already been submission to Russian jurisdiction.

Not exact matches

-- that regulation does not preclude the application of a provision of national procedural law of a Member State which, with a view to avoiding situations of denial of justice, enables proceedings to be brought against, and in the absence of, a person whose domicile is unknown, if the court seised of the matter is satisfied, before giving a ruling in those proceedings, that all investigations required by the principles of diligence and good faith have been undertaken with a view to tracing the defendant.

Having re-established that the centre of interests is a possible place of jurisdiction, without addressing the other potential places of jurisdiction (namely the domicile of the defendant and all other Member States where the infringing material was accessible — admittedly, this was not the subject of the preliminary reference), the Court addresses the question of where the centre of interest of a legal person is located.

In a useful reminder for parties who might not otherwise consider themselves to be subject to English jurisdiction, in the recent case of Bestolov v Povarenkin, the High Court confirmed that, where a defendant is domiciled in England, the courts of this country have jurisdiction and moreover no discretion to decline jurisdiction.

At first sight, this seems at odds with the restrictive interpretation that should be given to any deviation from the principle rule laid down in Article 2 Brussels I Regulation: defendants should as a rule be sued for the Courts in the Member State in which they are domiciled.

«The basic principles by which the Regulation allocates jurisdiction, giving priority (subject to exceptions) to the domicile of the defendant, are entirely unsuited to arbitration, in which the situs and governing law are generally chosen by the parties on grounds of neutrality, availability of legal services and the unobtrusive effectiveness of the supervisory jurisdiction.

Would the defendants» domicile (s) play into it in the absence of evidence of where the crime took place?

Derogations, including art 5.3, from the general rule under art 2 which confers jurisdiction on the courts of the defendant's domicile must be restrictively interpreted to achieve this aim.

Since Art 23 was a provision that allowed a defendant to be sued in a member state other than that of his domicile, the defendants placed particular reliance on the second of those principles of interpretation.

The Brussels I Regulation (recast) foresees as its general rule of jurisdiction that a defendant should be sued in the courts of the Member state where he is domiciled (Article 4 (1)-RRB-.

As stated in Briggs and Rees Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (2005) 4th edition at paras 2.02 to 2.07 & 2.105: (i) The fundamental rule was that if a case fell within the Brussels Regulation, the Regulation alone allocated jurisdiction over the defendant; (ii) There were three overriding principles of interpretation: (i) the wording of the regulation should so far as possible be given a meaning which was common and uniform across the various member states; (ii) provisions which allowed a defendant to be sued against his will in a member state other than his domicile were to be construed narrowly; (iii) the risk of inconsistent decisions should be kept to a minimum.

As a general rule, under article 68 (1) of the Québec Code of Civil Procedure («C.C.P»), a personal action must be instituted before the competent court of the defendant's real or elected domicile.

For civil lawsuit, if the civil lawsuit brought against a citizen shall be under the jurisdictionof the people's court located in the place where the defendant has hisdomicile, if the defendant's domicile is different from his habitual residence, the lawsuit shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court located inthe place of his habitual residence.

Accordingly if the defendant is a Chinesecitizen and has a domicile in China, the people's court in the place of hisdomicile has the jurisdiction of the case.

Because the accident occurred outside the jurisdiction, and the defendant was domiciled outside the jurisdiction, the only basis upon which the claimant could argue for service out of the jurisdiction was that the damage was sustained within the jurisdiction (CPR 6.20 (8)(a)-RRB-.

The English Court will automatically have jurisdiction over a defendant who is domiciled outside the European Union if the defendant can be served with the claim form while in England.

Under the Recast Brussels Regulation, the English Courts will have jurisdiction to determine a dispute involving a defendant that is domiciled in another European Union member state in certain defined circumstances.

If a dispute involves a number of defendants based in different European Union member states, the English Court will have jurisdiction to determine the matter against all defendants if (a) one defendant is domiciled in England and (b) the claims against the various defendants are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments.

We note that this will also be the case even if neither the claimant nor the defendant is domiciled in this jurisdiction.

Lord Sumption also drew an analogy between this position and that under EU law involving a defendant domiciled in the EU.

Defendants with a mere (including fleeting) presence in the jurisdiction would be liable to be served here, even if domiciled elsewhere.

as an alternative to jurisdiction based on the defendant's domicile.

In Universal v Schilling (Case C - 12 / 15), published last week, the court ruled that jurisdiction belongs to the member state in which the defendant is domiciled, as a general rule.

First defendant is clearly domiciled in the UK and the Brussels I Regulation clearly applies to it.

Somewhat exceptionally, worldwide freezing order relief was granted in Republic of Haiti v Duvalier [1989] 1 All ER 456, [1989] 2 WLR 261, a case in which the defendants neither were domiciled nor had assets in England.

Subject to the claimant's domicile and financial status, as well as the amount of the freezing order, the undertaking may need to be fortified by a bank guarantee (see Al - Rawas v Pegasus Energy Ltd and others [2007] EWHC 2427 (QB), [2007] All ER (D) 329 (Oct) where damages were awarded to a defendant after freezing / search and seizure orders were set aside).

If Mr Abramovich was domiciled in England when served, Yugraneft would be able to rely on an European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgment to the effect that if a defendant is domiciled in a member state of the EU the court has no power to stay proceedings against him on the grounds that there is an alternative more appropriate forum for the trial of the action.

Such an order is most likely to be made in cases where the defendant is amenable to the in personam jurisdiction of the English court — such as where the defendant is domiciled in England (see Credit Suisse Fides Trust SA v Cuoghi [1997] 3 All ER 724, [1997] 3 WLR 871).

Uncertainty In the light of the Owusu v Jackson decision an enormous amount can turn on the defendant's place of domicile.

At para. 90 of Van Breda, LeBel J. established four presumptive connecting factors («PCFs»), any one of which would, if present, entitle a provincial superior court to take jurisdiction over a legal dispute in tort law: (1) the defendant is domiciled or resident in the province; (2) the defendant carries on business in the province; (3) the tort was committed in the province; or (4) a contract connected with the dispute was made in the province.

Damages Dating Violence Decision Declaratory Statute Decree Decree of Adoption De Facto Defamation Default Judgment Defeasance Defendant De Jure Delinquency Demurrer De Novo Dependent Deposition Descendants Dictum Direct Examination Directed Verdict Discovery Disinheritance Dismissal Disposable Income Dissenting Opinion Dissipation of Assets Dissolution Divorce Divorce A Mensa Et Thoro Divorce A Vinculo Matrimonii Docket Doli Incapax DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act of 1996) Domestic Partners Domestic Relations Court Domestic Relations Order Domicile Donatio Mortis Causa Dower DPPA (Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act) Due Process Duty of Support