Mousaka Inc. v Golden Seagull Maritime Inc. [QBD (Comm)]

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeDavid Steel J
Judgment Date30 July 2001
Date30 July 2001
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
7 cases
  • CGU International Insurance Plc v AstraZeneca Insurance Company Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 16 Octubre 2006
    ...said that we could only remit the case to the judge to enable him to give further reasons, which was the relief claimed in Mousaka Inc v Golden Seagull Maritime Inc [2002] 1 WLR 395. 14. We accept Mr Plender's submissions on the question of jurisdiction. If, as is accepted, there is a resid......
  • R (Tagoe-Thompson) v Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 12 Marzo 2003
    ...there is no distinct Convention point here. Counsel has cited the recent decision of David Steel J in Mousaka v Golden Seagull Maritime [2002] 1 WLR 395. I need not, with respect, set it out. It is enough to say that the judge, in summarising the principles to be deemed from the Strasbourg ......
  • North Range Shipping Ltd v Seatrans Shipping Corpn
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 26 Marzo 2002
    ...been enjoined against giving reasons in this way. In fact over the years the practice of commercial judges has varied. In Mousaka Inc.v Golden Seagull Maritime. Inc. [2002] 1 WLR 395 David Steel J. at p. 404 said that his practice was: "To go further than merely refusing leave (with or with......
  • CDLA 3432 2001
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
    • 19 Agosto 2002
    ...v United Kingdom, 2 March 1987. I also drew attention to the recent judgment of David Steel J in Mousaka v Golden Seagull Maritime [2002] 1 WLR 395. The submission of the Secretary of State’s representative accepts that Article 6(1) is engaged in this application. He adopts the arguments of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • ‘Australian Exceptionalism’ in Judicial Review
    • United Kingdom
    • Federal Law Review No. 36-1, March 2008
    • 1 Marzo 2008
    ...1 WLR 1538, 1541–2. 90 See, eg, English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd [2002] 3 All ER 385; Mousaka Inc v Golden Seagull Maritime Inc [2002] 1 WLR 395; Lewis v Wilson and Horton Ltd [2000] 3 NZLR 546, 567 (Elias CJ). 91 One of the recommendations of the Donoughmore Committee (UK) in 1932 w......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT