header-logo header-logo

14 August 2013
Issue: 7573 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Practice & procedure

Joint Stock Company VTB Bank v Skurikhin and others [2012] EWHC 3916 (Comm), [2012] All ER (D) 270 (Dec)

The connection or lack of it with the UK was to be considered under s 25(2) of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 under the heading of “inexpediency”. First the court had to consider whether the facts would warrant the relief sought if the substantive proceedings had been brought in England. If the answer to that question was in the affirmative then the second question arose; whether in the terms of s 25(2) the fact that the court had no jurisdiction made it inexpedient to grant the interim relief sought. The statutory test expressly provided for how the approach was to be taken; namely that the court could grant the order but might refuse it within s 25(2). Although s 25 was an exorbitant jurisdiction, it was intended to assist foreign proceedings and foreign courts. However, the court would, obviously, proceed with caution.

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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
A child’s views can be taken into account during international child abduction proceedings, the Supreme Court has held
Small and medium-sized law firms have urged regulators to pause plans to exclude owner-managers from compliance officer roles
Lawyers have raised the alarm on employment tribunal delays and backlogs, with some cases facing a three-year wait for a hearing
The controversial assisted dying Bill has drawn to a halt after MPs defeated it by 286 votes to 270
MPs have called for legislation to protect against the human rights risks of artificial intelligence (AI)
back-to-top-scroll