Tallina Laevauhisis v Estonian State Steamship Line
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 October 1946 |
| Date | 23 October 1946 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 6 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
(Scott, Tucker and Cohen, L.J.J.)
Recognition — Of Governments — Effect of — Decrees and Executive Acts of Government Recognized de facto — Nationalization of Merchant Vessels — Effect on Claim to Insurance Moneys — Proof of Foreign Law.
Recognition of Acts of Foreign Governments — Extra-territorial Effect of — Jurisdiction — Penal Legislation — Decrees and Executive Acts of de facto Recognized Government — Nationalization of Merchant Vessels — Effect on Claim to Insurance Moneys — Proof of Foreign Law.
The Facts.—“These were appeals from a judgment of Mr. Justice Atkinson on a summons and in an interpleader issue to decide the title to £135,564 policy moneys paid in respect of the loss through war risk of the Estonian steamship Vapper in July, 1940. The money, which had been paid into Court by underwriting members of Lloyd's, was claimed by A/S Tallinna Laevauhisus and individual shareholders in the Association owning the vessel. They were the plaintiffs in the issue, and the effective defendants were the Estonian State Steamship Line, who contended that, as the Vapper was among vessels which were nationalized under Estonian law in July, 1940, the plaintiffs had been divested of their rights, which were now vested in the Estonian State Steamship Line, who were accordingly entitled to receive the policy moneys. The Estonian State Steamship Line contended, moreover, that the plaintiff company had been dissolved by decrees issued by the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, and was therefore incapable of maintaining the claim.
Certain questions raised in the trial were submitted by Atkinson, J., to the British Foreign Office, who stated in reply:
“1. His Majesty's Government recognize the Government of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic to be the de facto Government of Estonia, but do not recognize it as the de jure Government of Estonia.
“2. His Majesty's Government recognize that Estonia has de facto entered the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but have not recognized this de jure.
“3. His Majesty's Government recognize that the Republic of Estonia as constituted prior to June, 1940, has ceased de facto to have any effective existence.
“4. His Majesty's Government recognized the Republic of Estonia as constituted prior to June, 1940, to be neutral; and after the 22nd June, 1941, recognized the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to be belligerent. The territory of Estonia came under German military occupation early in July, 1941, and terminated towards the end of September, 1945.”
In the course of the trial the plaintiffs called expert evidence on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glencore International AG v Metro Trading International Inc. (formerly Metro Bunkering and Trading Co) [QBD (Comm)]
... ... Sandeman & Sons v Tyzack & Branfoot Steamship CoELR [1913] AC 680 ... Tallinna Laevauhisus A/S v Estonian State Steamship LineUNK (1947) 80 Ll L ... 16. The line of authority which establishes the lex situs rule ... ...
-
Sheikh Abdullah Ali Alhamrani Appellant v [1] Sheikh Mohamed Ali Alhamrani [2] Sheikh Siraj Ali Alhamrani [3] Sheikh Khalid Ali Alhamrani [4] Sheikh Mohamed Ali Alhamrani (as representative of the late Sheikh Abdulaziz Ali Alhamrani) [5] Sheikh Ahmed Ali Alhamrani [6] Sheikh Fahad Ali Alhamrani Respondents
...and others v Binnie and others (1988) 18 Con LR 1 applied; A/S Tallinna Laevauhisus v Estonian State Steamship Line and Another (1947) 80 Ll L Rep 99 applied; Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA (The Ocean Frost) [1985] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1 applied. Civil appeal — Private international law — Sharia law ......
-
Sheikh Abdullah Ali Alhamrani Appellant v [1] Sheikh Mohamed Ali Alhamrani [2] Sheikh Siraj Ali Alhamrani [3] Sheikh Khalid Ali Alhamrani [4] Sheikh Mohamed Ali Alhamrani (as representative of the late Sheikh Abdulaziz Ali Alhamrani) [5] Sheikh Ahmed Ali Alhamrani [6] Sheikh Fahad Ali Alhamrani Respondents
...and others v Binnie and others (1988) 18 Con LR 1 applied; A/S Tallinna Laevauhisus v Estonian State Steamship Line and Another (1947) 80 Ll L Rep 99 applied; Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA (The Ocean Frost) [1985] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1 applied. Civil appeal — Private international law — Sharia law ......
-
Mark Byers v The Saudi National Bank
...evidence and as a help to decide between conflicting expert testimony: see A/S Tallinna Laevauhisus v Estonian State Steamship Line (1946) 80 Ll L Rep 99 at 107; Lazard Brothers & Co v Midland Bank Ltd [1933] AC 289 at 298; and Dallah Estate and Tourism Holding Company v Ministry of Religio......