header-logo header-logo

17 March 2017
Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Conflict of laws

AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and others [2017] UKSC 13, [2017] All ER (D) 06 (Mar)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant company’s appeal against a decision that the English courts did not have jurisdiction to hear its claim against the respondent company for damages and injunctive relief for the tort of inducing breach of contract of an exclusive jurisdiction and applicable law clauses. For the purposes of Art 5.3 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001, which gave jurisdiction in tort claims to the courts for the place in which the harmful event had occurred or might occur, the place where the harmful event had occurred had been Germany.

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

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

Ward Hadaway—Mike Gore

Ward Hadaway—Mike Gore

Firm enhances advisory capability with strategic risk specialist hire

Stewarts—Alexandra Lyons

Stewarts—Alexandra Lyons

Insurance and reinsurance specialist joins policyholder disputes practice as partner

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll