Lowenthal v Attorney General
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 January 1948 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 71 |
| Date | 29 January 1948 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
(Romer, J.)
Acts of Foreign States — Recognition of — Non-recognition of Denationalization Decrees of Enemy Government made in Time of War.
Aliens — Position of — Non-recognition of Denationalization Decrees of Enemy Government made in Time of War — Alien Enemy.
War — Effect of — Non-recognition of Enemy Denationalization Decrees Made in Time of War.
Nationality — Loss of — Denationalization Decrees of Enemy Government — Non-recognition in Time of War — Detention — Habeas Corpus.
The Facts.—The personal plaintiffs were Jews of German origin who left Germany in 1933 and 1934 and went to England, where they received permission to reside permanently and where they promoted the plaintiff company, Colibri Lighters, Ltd., in which they held all the issued share capital equally. In 1939 war broke out between the United Kingdom and Germany. In 1941, by a decree of the German Government, both plaintiffs were deprived of their status and rights as German nationals. In 1946 both plaintiffs were granted British nationality by naturalization.
In 1944 the company applied by summons under the Patents and Designs Acts, 1907 to 1946, s. 18, for an order extending a patent owned by it. The objection was taken that the plaintiffs were at the material time to be considered still German nationals, as the courts of this country would not recognize the decrees of an enemy Government made in time of war, and that therefore the plaintiffs were caught by s. 18 (b) of the Act which provides:
“Where by reason of hostilities between His Majesty and any foreign state, the patentee as such has suffered loss or damage … an application under this section may be made by originating summons … and the court in considering its decision may have regard solely to the loss or damage so suffered by the patentee: Provided that this sub-section shall not apply if the patentee is a subject of such foreign state as aforesaid, or is a company the business whereof is managed or controlled by such subjects or is carried on wholly or mainly for the benefit or on behalf of such subjects, notwithstanding that the company may be registered within His Majesty's dominions.”
The present action was then brought for declarations that the plaintiffs had been since 1941 stateless persons, and that the company was not one managed or controlled or carried on wholly or mainly for the benefit of subjects of a foreign...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oppenheimer v Cattermole (HM Inspector of Taxes)
...of the Appellant: (2) That, on the authority of Rex v. Home Secretary(ex parte L) [1945] K.B. 7 and Lowenthal v.Attorney-General [1948] 1 All E.R. 295, the Appellant's loss or purported loss of German citizenship under the said decree (exhibit A) cannot be recognised by the English courts a......
-
Oppenheimer v Cattermole
...disregard changes of status made by the enemy state during the war: c.f. R. v. Home Secretary Ex parte "L" [1945] K.B. 7, Lowenthal v. Attorney-General [1948] 1 All E.R. 295. But I agree with the Court of Appeal that this particular doctrine no longer applies after the end of hostilities. 6......
-
Habib v Australia [Australia, Federal Court]
...Chelsea, at AC 2823; All ER 5712 per Lord Salmon; R v. Home Secretary; Ex parte LELR[1945] KB 7 at 10; Lowenthal v. Attorney-GeneralUNK[1948] 1 All ER 295 at 299. More recently it has been held that the lex situs does not apply where it arises from an invasion in undoubted breach of public ......
- Habib v Commonwealth of Australia
-
`I do not Attach Great Significance to it': Taking Note of `The Holocaust' in English Case Law
...v Adjudication Panel for England [2006] All ER (D) 230.Loudon v Ryder (No.2) [1953] 1 All ER 1005.Lowenthal v Attorney-General [1948] 1 All ER 295.Mandla v Dowell Lee [1982] 3 All ER 1108.May v May [1943] 2 All ER 146.McFarlane v EE Caledonia Ltd. [1994] 2 All ER 1.Meyer v Meyer [1971] 1 Al......