header-logo header-logo

Practice & procedure

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

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

Bloomsbury Square Employment Law—Donna Clancy

Bloomsbury Square Employment Law—Donna Clancy

Employment law team strengthened with partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Matt Smith

mfg Solicitors—Matt Smith

Corporate solicitor joins as partner in Birmingham

Freeths—Joe Lythgoe

Freeths—Joe Lythgoe

Corporate director with expertise in creative industries joins mergers and acquisitions team

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll