Metall Und Rohstoff A.G. (Respondents (Plaintiffs) v Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Inc. and Another (Appellants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SLADE |
| Judgment Date | 14 February 1989 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1989] EWCA Civ J0214-7 |
| Docket Number | 89/0160 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 14 February 1989 |
[1989] EWCA Civ J0214-7
Lord Justice Slade
Lord Justice Stocker
and
Lord Justice Bingham
89/0160
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
GATEHOUSE J.
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. SAMUEL STAMLER Q.C., and MR. T.P.G. IVORY (instructed by Messrs D.J. Freeman & Co.) appeared on behalf of the First Appellants (First Defendants).
MR. ANTHONY GRABINER Q.C., and MR. NICHOLAS STADLEN (instructed by Messrs Freshfields) appeared on behalf of the Second Appellants (Second Defendants).
MR. MARK WALLER Q.C., MR. RAYMOND JACK Q.C., MR. IAN GEERING, and MISS LOUISE EDWARDS (instructed by Messrs Herbert Smith) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Plaintiffs).
(as to costs and ancillary matters)
This is the judgment of the court.
On 27th January 1989 we gave judgment on this appeal, but at the request of the parties stood over all questions relating to costs and to possible appeals to the House of Lords to be dealt with at a later date.
As to costs, we have been told that it has now been agreed between all parties that there should be no order as to costs in this court and in the court below. We so direct, and accordingly discharge the order of Gatehouse J. relating to costs.
We have also been told that since the argument on the appeal was concluded in November last, M & R. have issued two further sets of proceedings. First, on 8th December 1988, they commenced a new action in this country (which we will call "the new English action") which includes claims which were referred to during the course of the argument before us, but were held by us not to be open to them on their points of claim as they now stand.
Secondly, M & R. on 12th January 1989 commenced a new action in the United States of America (which we will call "the new U.S.A. action") pleading certain causes of action which M & R. contend are not time barred in the United States of America.
D.L.J. and A.C.L.I. now both apply for leave to appeal from our judgment to the House of Lords. Mr. Stamler on behalf of D.L.J., and Mr. Stadlen on behalf of A.C.L.I., have each identified certain particular parts of our decision which they would seek to challenge. The principal parts are those sections dealing with the rule in Boyes v. Chaplin, the place where the relevant torts were committed, and the application of the Spiliada test. We think that these are all points fit for their Lordships consideration and, subject to certain matters urged on us by Mr. Waller on behalf of M & R., would be minded to give D.L.J. and A.C.L.I. leave in general terms to appeal from our decision.
In this context, however, Mr. Waller has made two submissions with which we will deal in the reverse order in which he advanced them. First, he submitted that D.L.J. and A.C.L.I. should not be given leave to appeal to the House of Lords unless a condition is imposed on such leave requiring them to give an undertaking in effect to use their best endeavors to co-operate in ensuring the speedy progress of the new English action, so that those issues may be considered by the House of Lords together with the issues raised by M & R.'s proceedings issued in this country in 1987. As to this submission, we would say shortly that we can see no sufficient grounds for imposing any such condition.
Mr. Waller's second submission which, in our judgment, has more substance is that D.L.J. and A.C.L.I. should be given leave to appeal only on the basis that they both agree that the new U.S.A. action shall be stayed, pending final determination by the House of Lords of the appeal from this court's judgment.
Mr. Waller's submission is in brief this. The new U.S.A. action was begun in case this court or (on further appeal)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lonrho Plc (Original Respondents and Cross-Appellants) v Fayed and Others (Original Appellants and Cross-Respondents) (First Appeal); Lonrho Plc (Original Respondents and Cross-Appellants) v Fayed and Others (Original Appellants and Cross-Respondents) (Second Appeal)
... ... interlocutory appeal and cross-appeal is another instalment of the long-running dispute about the ... were bound by their own decision in Metall und Rohstoff A.G. v. Donaldson Lufkin and e Inc. [1990] 1 Q.B. 391 ("the Metall case") to ... But in the many cases where plaintiffs have asserted a conspiracy to injure, but have ... ...
-
JSC Bta Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov and Others
...will be the consequence of properly prosecuting a legitimate claim." 12 In Metall und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Inc. [1990] 1 QB 391 the question was whether adducing false evidence and presenting false case to sustain or defeat a claim in legal proceedings amounted to the t......
-
[1] Royal Westminster Investments S.A. [2] Bhagwan Mahtani [3] Sunder Dalamal [4] Nari Dalamal Appellants v [1] Nilon Ltd [2] Manmohan Varma Respondents
... ... Mr. Sydney A. Bennett, QC Justice of Appeal [Ag.] ... HCVAP 2010/034 AND HCVAP ... - Oral joint venture agreement made in another jurisdiction - Rectification of share register - ... Metall und Rohstoff A.G. v Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette ... v Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Inc. and Another ... 61 ... ...
-
Sagicor Ins v Crawford
...[1995] 3 All E.R. 918; [1995] 2 BCLC 116; [1995] BCC 942, applied. (30) Metall & Rohstoff A.G. v. Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Inc., [1990] 1 Q.B. 391; [1989] 3 W.L.R. 563; [1989] 3 All E.R. 14; (1989), 133 Sol. Jo. 1200, applied. (31) Miazga v. Kvello Estate, [2010] 2 LRC 418; [2009] SCC 51......
-
2021 Year in Review - Civil Fraud
...for permission to serve outside the jurisdiction, without careful analysis of the facts. 1 [2021] EWCA Civ 624. 2 [2021] EWCA Civ 625.3 [1990] 1 QB 391. 4 [1990] 1 QB 391. © 2022 Akin Gum p Strauss Hauer & Feld 132021 Year in Review - Civ il FraudKing and ors v Stiefel and ors [2021] EWHC 1......
-
The Weekly Roundup: The Establishing Jurisdiction Edition
...the jurisdiction', and the pre-CPR 'substantial and efficacious act' gloss from Metall und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lutfin & Jenrette Inc [1990] 1 QB 391. On all questions of fact, the Judge found that the Claimants had done enough to satisfy the interlocutory requirements. He dismissed the ......
-
High Court Orders Stay Of English Proceedings Brought By Bank On Grounds Of Forum Non Conveniens
...resulted from an act committed within the jurisdiction. In relation to paragraph 3.1(9)(b), as per Metall und Rohstoff A.G. v Donaldson [1990] 1 QB 391, the claimant must show that the damage has resulted from "substantial and efficacious acts" committed within the jurisdiction, whether or ......
-
Conflict of Laws in Bermuda
...171 and 172; Philips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1; Boys v Chaplin [1971] AC 356. 116 Metall & Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Inc [1990] 1 QB 391, 446. 117 Lisa SA , n 13, above, para 49. 496 Offshore Commercial Law in Bermuda expert evidence, this Court is entitled to rely on the pres......
-
Table of Cases
...AG v Leiduck [1996] AC 284, [1995] 3 WLR 718, [1995] 3 All ER 929, PC 22.47 Metall & Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Inc [1990] 1 QB 391, [1989] 3 WLR 563, [1989] 3 All ER 14 22.62 MFP-2000 v Viking Capital Ltd and Misa Investments Ltd [2014] Bda LR 73, Bermuda CA 10.54, 10.56 Mil......
-
Filling the Gaps Between Colonial Legal Heritage and Prevailing Local Customs in Family Relations: the Place of Secret Trust
...are substantive claims in equity and are subjected to very rigid rules. See Metall und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Inc. [1990] 1 QB 391, 42. But equally, White the law recognizes that a man is acting legitimately and properly in making provision for a partner in an improper re......
-
The Regulation of Shadow Directors
...NV v Export Credits Guarantee Department [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 563 (CA); Metallund Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Inc [1990] 1 QB 391 (CA) at 481.65OBG Ltd v Allan [2008] 1 AC 1; Lumley v Gye (1853) 2 E&B 216, 118ER 749, discussed in detailin Philip Sales ‘The Tort of Conspiracy a......