Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (Directions: Existence of East Germany); Rayner & Keeler Ltd v Courts & Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE PEARSON,LORD JUSTICE SALMON |
| Judgment Date | 27 July 1964 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1964] EWCA Civ J0727-1 |
| Date | 27 July 1964 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1964] EWCA Civ J0727-1
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Pearson and
Lord Justice Salmon
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
From Mr Justice Cross
MR MARK LITTMAN, Q. C., MR T. M. SHELFOKD and MR P. LEWIS (instructed by Messrs Herbert Smith & Co.) appeared as Counsel for the Appellants.
MR GUY ALDOUS, Q. C., MR E. LAUTERPACHT and MR D. W. FALCONER (instructed by Messrs Courts & Co.) appeared as Counsel for the Respondents.
This action is brought in the name, as plaintiffs, of Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung. The defendants are two English Companies and a concern of the same name as the plaintiffs, Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung. The plaintiffs say that the defendants have passed off their goods, namely, optical instruments and glasses, as the defendants' goods. The defendants say that this action is brought without any proper authority and have applied to stay it on that ground. There has been a very long enquiry already before Mr Justice Cross as to the position of the plaintiffs. Are they people who have properly instructed their solicitors to bring this case?
The outline of the facts, as I understand it, is that before the war there was in Germany a very big and important Foundation called the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung, which manufactured cameras, lenses and glass. It had a world wide trade. Its headquarters apparently were at Jena. After the war some people in Jena, which is in East Germany, purport to have been carrying on the business of the Foundation there. These folk in Jena are the plaintiffs. But in West Germany other people have set up a concern at Heidenheim and they say they are carrying on the business of the Carl-Zeiss-Foundation. These folk at Heidenheim are being sued as the defendants in this action.
The question which was debated before Mr Justice Cross was whether the plaintiffs have any locus standi before the Court at all. In order to determine this question, it is necessary to ask and answer these questions: What law governs the institution known as Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung? Has the institution continued at all in the new regime in East Germany? Has it been confiscated? Has it been taken over by some other concern altogether? Does the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung continue to exist? In order to answer those questions, one must know a good deal about the constitutional position in East Germany. Are the laws in East Germany recognised by this country? In the course of the case the defendantsseem to have admitted that there was some legislative authority in East Germany which was able to enact laws which this Court would recognise. It might be the new East German Government or the Russians acting through the people there. But it was accepted that there was a legislative authority there. Mr Justice Cross in the course of his judgment said: "At all events, in some respects the law to which we must look is the law of the German Democratic Republic of East Germany".
In the appeal to this Court the defendants want to raise the question here whether or no Her Majesty's Government have recognised the German Democratic Republic and its Government. They wish to see whether these laws to which the Judge paid attention are to be recognised in this country or not. So they ask that a letter be written on behalf of the Court to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs asking whether Her Majesty's Government has granted recognition to the German Democratic Republic. That is a matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Norway's (State of) Application
...... (JUDGE IN CHAMBERS) Royal Courts of Justice, (Transcript of the ... examination, but subject to certain directions limiting the scope of the questions which they ... to include the assets of a Panamanian company, Continental Trust Company Inc. ("C.T.C."), which ... either witness calculated to elicit the existence or contents of any document; 2. No ......
-
Yukos Capital S.A.R.L (a Company Incorporated in Luxembourg) v Ojsc Rosneft Oil Company (a Company Incorporated in the Russian Federation)
......FOLIO 315 and 316 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL ... during the period of Nazi control in Germany: it had been open to a Jewish refugee to sue his ... to extinguish every vestige of Kuwait's existence as a separate state. An expropriatory decree made ... has crossed the Atlantic in both directions, we do not agree that that doctrine applies to ...In this connection see Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2) ......
-
Good Challenger Navegante SA v Metalexportimport SA
...... (MR MICHAEL CRANE QC) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL ... the English proceedings: see, in particular Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner C Keeler Ltd (No 2) ... omitted to disclose either the existence of the Romanian proceedings or their intention ... instruct lawyers to enforce the debt in Germany where the judgment debtor had moved to shortly ......
-
Leeward Islands Resorts Ltd Appellant v Charles Hickox Respondent [ECSC]
...ruling of the mediator as confirmed by the New York bankruptcy court. This ground of appeal accordingly fails. Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner and Keeler Ltd. (No. 2) [1967] 1 AC 853 , applied. 2. The court must seek to ascertain the parties' intentions having regard to the express words use......