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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll