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

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

DWF—11 appointments

DWF—11 appointments

DWF strengthens North West teams with 11 newly qualified solicitors

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