Koch v Rossell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1937 |
| Year | 1937 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
-
- 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
30 cases
-
Pavel Karpov v William Felix Browder and Others
...v Rossell et Compagnie Societe des Personnes a Responsibilite Limitee, Kroch v Societe en Commandite par Actions le Petit Parisien [1937] 1 All ER 725 (CA); Berezovsky v Forbes Inc [1999] EMLR 278 (CA) and on appeal to the House of Lords, Berezovsky v. Michaels [2000] 1 WLR 1004. 49 These c......
-
Grehan v Medical Incorporated and Valley Pines Associates
...v. Lockyer and others [1932] I.R. 100. Cordova Land Co. Ltd. v. Victor Brothers Inc. [1966] 1 W.L.R. 793. Kroch v. Russell and Anor. [1937] 1 All E.R. 725. Buttegeig v. Universal Terminal and Stevedoring Corporation [1972] V.R. 626. Anderson v. Nobels Explosive Co. [1906] 12 O.L.R. 644. Dun......
-
Berezovsky and Another v Forbes Inc. and Another
...by the requirement that in order to establish jurisdiction a tort committed in the jurisdiction must be a real and substantial one: Kroch v. Rossell (1937) 1 All E.R. 725. On the findings of fact of the Court of Appeal, which I have accepted, it is clear that jurisdiction under Ord. 11, r.......
-
VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corpn
...decided cases is that the substance of the tort arose within the jurisdiction. In other words the test of substantiality as required by Kroch v Rossell [1937] 1 Al1 ER 725 was in each case satisfied. Counsel for Forbes argued that a prima facie rule that the appropriate jurisdiction is wher......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
Conflict of Laws Through Nigerian Case Law: A Researcher's Critical Comments (Part 1)
...Nigeria and some other states, the court would have regard to the issue of forum conveniens. This was the case in Kroch v Rossel,7171 [1937] All ER 725. where the court refused permission even though there was publication in the UK, on the grounds that the victim had no reputation in the UK......