International Litigation in London – September 2013 newsletter
We are pleased to present our annual round up of notable developments in international litigation in London.
- No deemed choice of jurisdiction
The Court of Appeal has decided that, when basing jurisdiction on the Brussels Regulation, it is not possible to deem agreement or consent to jurisdiction from the factual circumstances. [more]
- Sovereign immunity
The meaning of “household” for the purpose of sovereign immunity, and the extent to which there is immunity for commercial activities outside the UK, were considered by the Court of Appeal in Al Saud and another v Apex Global Management  EWCA Civ 642. [more]
- Effect of existing foreign proceedings In MacDermid Offshore Solutions v Niche Products  EWHC 1493 (Ch) the court considered whether the English court should accept jurisdiction when there were existing proceedings in Texas. [more]
- Iranian bank avoids sanctions
Bank Mellat, an Iranian bank, appealed to the Supreme Court in its claim against HM Treasury ( UKSC 39) that sanctions imposed on it under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 were arbitrary, disproportionate and also unlawful because of a failure to give prior notice and any opportunity to make advance representations. [more]
- Disclosure from foreign parties
Two recent cases have involved foreign parties trying to resist orders for the disclosure of documents on the ground that it would be contrary to their local law. [more]
- Corporate domicile
In Flatela Vava & others v Anglo American South African Limited  EWHC 2131 (QB) the defendant employer challenged the English court’s jurisdiction to hear personal injury claims brought by employees. [more]
Developments relating to litigation and arbitration in London.