Re Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd (No. 2)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 December 1991 |
| Date | 19 December 1991 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Before Lord Justice Dillon, Lord Justice Stocker and Lord Justice Bingham
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction - conflict - discretion
Where the defendant to proceedings initiated in England whose subject matter came within the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 was domiciled in England but there was a conflict of jurisdiction between the English court and a state which was not a party to the Convention, the English court retained its discretion to stay or strike out the proceedings on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
The Court of Appeal so held in reserved judgments when ruling on a preliminary issue, on an appeal by Intercomfinanz SA, owners of 51 per cent of the issued share capital of Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd from Mr Justice Harman who had dismissed a summons by Intercomfinanz seeking, inter alia, an order that a petition brought under the Companies Act 1985 and the Insolvency Act 1986 by Ladenimor SA, the owners of the remaining 49 per cent of the shares in the company, be stayed on the ground that there was a more appropriate forum for the trial of the issues raised.
The hearing of the appeal on the question of what was the appropriate forum stood adjourned to a later date.
Mr Alan Boyle for Intercomfinanz; Mr Michael Briggs for Ladenimor.
LORD JUSTICE DILLON said that the company was incorporated in England, but its business was exclusively carried on in Argentina and its central management and control was exercised there. Both the shareholder companies were incorporated in Switzerland.
By their petition Ladenimor, who asserted that the affairs of the company were being conducted in a manner unfairly prejudicial to them, sought an order under section 459 of the 1985 Act that Intercomfinanz purchase Ladenimor's shares in the company, alternatively that the company be wound up compulsorily under the 1986 Act. By the relevant statutory rules the company was a necessary party to the proceedings.
The judge held, inter alia, that the English court and not the Argentine court was the appropriate forum for the trial of the action. But in their Lordship's court a preliminary issue of importance had been taken on behalf of Ladenimor.
It was submitted that as a result of the 1968 Convention the English court had no jurisdiction to refuse on the ground of forum non conveniens to decide the issues raised by the petition, since for the purposes of the Convention the company was domiciled in England, albeit also domiciled in Argentina.
The Convention was set out in Schedule 1 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, by section 2 of which it had the force of law in the United Kingdom. With exceptions presently immaterial, the Convention applied in all civil and commercial matters.
Article 2, which was fundamental to the preliminary issue, provided: "Subject to the provisions of this Convention, persons domiciled in a contracting state shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sarrio SA v Kuwait Investment Authority [QBD (Comm)]
...Mohammed Al Sabah [1995] CLC 1,025. Gubisch Maschinenfabrik v PalumboECAS (Case 144/86) [1987] ECR 4861. Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd, ReELR [1992] Ch 72. Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co [1995] CLC 1065; [1995] 1 WLR 1147. Overseas Union Insurance Ltd v New Hampshire Co LtdUNK [1992] 1......
-
I Ltd v A
...& Co., [1915] 2 K.B. 536; [1914–15] All E.R. Rep. 24, dictum of Pickford, L.J. distinguished. (2) Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd., In re, [1992] Ch. 72; [1991] 4 All E.R. 334, distinguished. (3) Insurco Intl. Ltd. v. Gowan Co., 1992–93 CILR 445. (4) Lonrho PLC v. Fayed, [1992] 1 A.C. 448; [1991......
-
Lhasa Invs Ltd v ICIC
...L. Chisholm for the appellants; C. Purle, Q.C. and T.B. Shea for the respondent. Cases cited: (1) Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd., In re, [1992] Ch. 72; [1991] 4 All E.R. 334, distinguished. (2) Morris v. Mahfouz (No. 3), English Chancery Division, May 25th, 1994, dictum of Rattee J. applied. (......
- Lafi Office and International Business S.L. v Meriden Animal Health Ltd
-
ENFORCING ENGLISH JURISDICTION CLAUSES IN BILLS OF LADING
...Game Over or Time for Reflexion”[2006] JBL 157. This decision overturns the earlier decision in Re Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd (No 2)[1992] Ch 72 applied in The Po[1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 206. Although the House of Lords in Re Harrods referred this issue to the European Court of Justice, the cas......
-
A new approach to corporate choice of law.
...on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters does not apply. See In Re Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd., [1991] 3 W.L.R. 397 (Eng. C.A. 1990). Obviously, that decision is relevant to the transatlantic charter market in that it might allow U.S. firms incorporated i......
-
FORUM CONVENIENS
...240 at 244 et sequentes. 18. See “The Albaforth”[1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 91. 19. See inter aliaRe Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd. (No. 2)[1991] 4 All E.R. 348, Credit Chimique v. James Scott Engineering Group Ltd.(1982) S.L.T. 131 and the unreported decision of Lai J. in Originating Summons No. 30......
-
Limitations of Access at the National Level: Forum Non Conveniens
...Rewia, [1991] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 325, 334 (internal quotation marks omitted)). [51]. Id. at 494. [52]. See In re Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd., [1992] Ch. 72, 101-102. [53]. Id. at 103; see also Eli Lilly and Co. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, [2000] I.L.Pr. 73, 74; Ace Ins. S.A.-N.V. v. Zurich Ins. Co. & ......