Archive for the 'foreign jurisdictions' Category

Abuse claims against surgeon could not be prosecuted in UK – The Independent

“Police investigating allegations that a heart specialist who worked at London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital had sexually abused children in Kenya found they would have been unable to bring a prosecution because the alleged offences occurred before May 2004, a spokesman for Scotland Yard said yesterday.”

Full story

The Independent, 8th April 2011

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Goluboviv v Golubovic – WLR Daily

“Refusal to recognise a decree of divorce pronounced by a court in another jurisdiction within the Council of Europe, in the absence of a breach of natural justice, was a truly exceptional course.”
WLR Daily, 15th July 2010
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Agbaje v Agbaje – WLR Daily

Agbaje v Agbaje [2010] UKSC 13; [2010] WLR (D) 71

“An English court considering under Pt III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 whether it would be appropriate to make an order for financial relief on the application of a party to a foreign divorce was not required to apply a forum non conveniens test and decide which of two jurisdictions was the appropriate one. The whole basis of Pt III was that it might be appropriate for two jurisdictions to be involved, one for the divorce and the other for ancillary relief.”

WLR Daily, 10th March 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Ruling confirms London as divorce payout capital – The Independent

“London’s reputation as the divorce payout capital of the world was reinforced by the Supreme Court today.”

Full story

The Independent, 10th March 2010

Source: www.independent.co.uk

In re Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) – WLR Daily

In re Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) [2010] EWCA Civ 137; [2010] WLR (D) 55

“The centre of main interest of a company, for the purposes of recognition of a foreign main proceeding in cross-border insolvency proceedings, was to be identified by reference to factors which were both objective and ascertainable by third parties, not by applying the head office functions test.”

WLR Daily, 1st March 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina (Amro International SA and another) v Financial Services Authority and others – WLR Daily

Regina (Amro International SA and another) v Financial Services Authority and others [2010] EWCA Civ 123; [2010] WLR (D) 50

“Co-operation between national financial regulators was of the greatest importance, particularly where there were suspicions or allegations of fraud. The Financial Services Authority was entitled to assist the US Security and Exchange Commission in a share fraud investigation without subjecting its request for help to critical examination. The FSA was required only to comply with the requirements of statute, and the terms of memoranda of understanding were immaterial. There was no requirement to provide notice under s 170(2) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.”

WLR Daily, 24th February 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

High Court relieves hosting firm of duty to hand domain name to Kentucky – OUT-LAW.com

“The High Court has said that a UK hosting company does not have to comply with a US state court’s order demanding that it hand over a gambling company’s domain name.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 4th November 2009

Source: www.out-law.com

 

Rubin and another v Eurofinance SAand others – WLR Daily

Rubin and another v Eurofinance SAand others [2009] WLR (D) 282

“The Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, which gave effect to the UNCITRAL Model Law relating to cross-border insolvency, applied where the foreign bankruptcy proceedings related to a debtor which, according to English law, had no legal personality either as an individual or as a body corporate.”

WLR Daily, 6th August 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

King v Director of Serious Fraud Office – WLR Daily

King v Director of Serious Fraud Office [2009] UKHL 17; [2009] WLR (D) 100

The Crown Court’s jurisdiction, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005, to make a restraint and disclosure order following a request by a foreign prosecutor was restricted to property located within England and Wales.”

WLR Daily, 18th March 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in once of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

King v Serious Fraud Office – Times Law Reports

King v Serious Fraud Office

House of Lords

“The crown court’s jurisdiction to make a restraint and disclosure order following a request by a foreign prosecutor under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order (SI 2005 No 3181) was restricted to property located within England and Wales.”

The Times, 19th March 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

United States Securities and Exchange Commission v Manterfield – Times Law Reports

United States Securities and Exchange Commission v Manterfield

Court of Appeal

“A regulatory body in the United States seeking to enforce disgorgement of proceeds of alleged fraud could be granted a freezing order over assets in the United Kingdom.”

The Times, 18th March 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Masri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Others (No 2) – Times Law Reports

Masri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Others (No 2)

Court of Appeal

“The court had the power to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution over future receipts from a defined asset.”

The Times, 22nd April 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online fro 21 days from the date of publication.

Masri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and others (No 2) – WLR Daily

Masri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and others (No 2) [2008] EWCA Civ 303; [2008] WLR (D) 97

“There was no reason why the court should not exercise a power to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution over future receipts from a defined asset. Applications for the appointment of a receiver over foreign debts and ancillary orders did not constitute proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments within the meaning of article 22(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001.”

WLR Daily, 7th April 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.


July 2020
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Categories