Connelly v RTZ Corporation Plc and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE WAITE,LORD JUSTICE SWINTON-THOMAS,LORD JUSTICE NEILL |
| Judgment Date | 02 May 1996 |
| Neutral Citation | [1995] EWCA Civ J0818-2 |
| Date | 02 May 1996 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Sir Thomas Bingham, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Evans and Lord Justice Ward
Jurisdiction - interests of justice - conditional fee arrangement
Where a plaintiff had no prospect of ever funding the prosecution of his action in a foreign jurisdiction, which was the most natural forum for its trial, but could do so in England, which was not an inappropriate forum, by means of a conditional fee arrangement with his solicitors, the interests of justice weighed in favour of the English forum where he could assert his rights.
The Court of Appeal so held, allowing an appeal by the plaintiff, Edward Connelly, from Mr David Steel, QC, who, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, had refused his application for removal of the stay of his action imposed by Sir John Wood and upheld by the Court of Appeal (The Times October 20, 1995; [1996] QB 361) on the ground that the most natural forum to pursue his personal injuries claim against the defendants, RTZ Corporation plc and RTZ Overseas Services Ltd, allegedly arising out of his exposure to ore dust during employment with a subsidiary of the defendants, was Namibia.
On the previous appeal the plaintiff, while accepting that Namibia was prima facie the natural forum for the dispute, save for his inability, through lack of funds, ever to prosecute his claim there, had argued that in view of the availability of legal aid in England, the interests of justice required trial in England.
The Court of Appeal had held that section 31(1)(b) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 precluded the court from taking account of the legal aid factor and had accordingly declined to lift the stay imposed by the judge.
The plaintiff's present application was made on the basis of changed circumstances, namely, that he and his solicitors proposed to make a conditional fee arrangement for conduct of the proceedings in England.
Mr Graham Read for the plaintiff; Mr Brian Doctor and Mr Charles Gibson for the defendants.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS said that it was necessary for the court to be satisfied that the present proposal to enter a conditional fee arrangement was not a mere subterfuge.
However, the fact was that the plaintiff's previous legal aid certificate had now been discharged; if any future application were to be made, it would be the plaintiff's duty to serve notice on the defendants of the grant of a certificate; and undertakings had been proffered, in particular by the plaintiff's solicitor, an officer of the court whose good faith was not in doubt. He had deposed on oath to his intention to enter into such an arrangement to cover, subject to necessary qualifications, the remaining conduct of the action.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sibir Energy Plc v Gregory Trading SA and Others
...15, 17 and 18 of 2001—Cayman Islands. 18. Lubbe v Cape plc [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1545. 19. The Abidin Daver [1984] A.C. 398. 20. Connelly v R.T.Z. Corporation plc [1998] A.C. 854. 21. Amchem Products Inc. v (British Columbia) Workers' Compensation Board (1993) 102 D.L.R. (4th) 96. Summary Judgme......
-
889457 Alberta Inc. v Katanga Mining Ltd
...proof lies, that justice requires that a stay should not be granted (or that permission to serve out should not be set aside) – see Connelly v. RTZ Corp. plc [1998] AC 854 at pages 871–872. However if I did have to consider the second stage of the inquiry I would conclude that justice requ......
-
Chandler v Cape Plc
...sub-contractor was held to owe a duty of care to an employee of his employer. 41 Mr Weir also relies on the decision of Wright J in Connelly v RTZ Corporation, (1999) CLC 533 in which Wright J had refused to strike out a case brought by the employee of a subsidiary against the subsidiary's ......
-
Innovia Films Ltd v Frito-Lay North America, Inc.
...satisfied that substantial justice will be done in the available appropriate forum." 44 Lord Goff returned to this point in Connelly v R.T.Z. Corporation plc (No 2) [1998] AC 854 at 872G – 873A: "From the discussion [in Spiliada v Cansulex], a general principle may be derived, which is that......