Frans Maas Logistics (UK) Ltd v CDR Trucking BV
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1999 |
| Year | 1999 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
9 cases
-
Andrea Merzario Ltd v Internationale Spedition Leitner Gesellschaft mbH
... ... (James) & Co Ltd v Babco Forwarding and Shipping (UK) LtdELR [1978] AC 141. Cummins ... Frans Maas Logistics (UK) Ltd v CDR Trucking BVUNK [1999] ... ...
-
British American Tobacco Switzerland S.A. and Others (Claimants) Exel Europe Ltd and Others (Defendants) British American Tobacco Denmark A/S and Others (Claimants) Exel Europe Ltd and Another (Defendants)
...to recover. An analysis of the issues raised in this action was not there required. 35 As Colman J pointed out in Frans Maas Logistics (UK) Ltd v CDR Trucking B.V. [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep 179, Brandon LJ's analysis is not entirely full nor accurate, though he did not comment on the particular......
-
British American Tobacco Denmark A/S and Others v Kazemier Transport BV; British American Tobacco Switzerland SA v H Essers Security Logistics BV and another
...otherwise no like provision, there is a lacuna, which falls to be filled by article 6(1) of the Brussels Regulation. In Frans Maas Logistics (UK) Ltd v CDR Trucking BV [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 737; [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep 179, Colman J held article 31.2 of CMR to be limited to proceedings brou......
-
British American Tobacco Switzerland SA v Exel Europe Ltd
...treated with the greatest respect. 46 Brandon LJ's passage from Cummins was considered again, by Mr Justice Colman, in Frans Maas Logistics (UK) Ltd v. CDR Trucking BV [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep 179. That case was concerned with the lis pendens provisions of article 31.2, and resulted in a stay ......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
ENFORCING ENGLISH JURISDICTION CLAUSES IN BILLS OF LADING
...their antipathy to this remedy: see eg, Boss Group Ltd v Boss France SA[1996] 4 All ER 970; Maas Logistics (UK) Ltd v CDR Trucking BV[1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 179; Messier-Dowty Ltd v Sabena SA[2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 428; Phillips v Symes[2001] CLC 1673 at [38] and Bristow Helicopters Ltd v Sikorsk......