header-logo header-logo

09 January 2015
Issue: 7635 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Conflict of laws

Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd and others [2014] EWHC 3704 (Comm), [2014] All ER (D) 106 (Nov)

An English arbitration tribunal had granted an award in favour of the claimant against the first defendant, Unitech Ltd, for in excess of US$350m. The claimant obtained permission to join Unitech’s foreign subsidiaries to the proceedings and to serve an amended claim form seeking a worldwide freezing order against them out of the jurisdiction. The subsidiaries applied for an order for service outside the jurisdiction to be set aside. The Commercial Court, in granting the application, held that the English court had no jurisdiction over the subsidiaries. They could not be treated as having agreed to the supervisory jurisdiction of the English court merely by virtue of their status as subsidiaries.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll