The High Commissioner for Pakistan in the United Kingdom v Prince Mukarram Jah, His Exalted Highness the 8th Nizam of Hyderabad
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Marcus Smith |
| Judgment Date | 02 October 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWHC 2551 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Claim No.: HC-2013-000211 |
| Date | 02 October 2019 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
5 cases
-
Asturion Foundation v Aljawarah Bint Ibrahim Abdulaziz Alibrahim
...entered into, but they are clear, on the authority of High Commissioner for Pakistan in the United Kingdom v. Prince Muffakham Jah [2019] EWHC 2551 (Ch), [2020] 2 WLR 699 at [247], that it has no operation where the issue is whether a gift has been validly made. They say: “ The doctrine c......
-
Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) v The Law Debenture Trust Corporation P.L.C.
...Ukraine also relies on the recent decision of Marcus Smith J in High Comr for Pakistan in the United Kingdom v Prince Muffakham Jah [2019] EWHC 2551 (Ch); [2020] Ch 421, where the judge addressed the question which law governed the actual authority of the Nizam of Hyderabad in 1948. The j......
-
Joanna Lemos v Church Bay Trust Company Ltd
...the “three certainties” were satisfied (see Lewin on Trusts 20 th edn para 5-003; High Commissioner for Pakistan v Prince Muffakham Jah [2020] Ch 421 at [244]): Christos, as settlor, had a sufficiently certain intention to create a trust; the subject-matter of the trust, namely the interes......
-
Jonathan Paul Thielmann v Galina Besharova
...– a point illustrated by the decision of Marcus Smith J in High Commissioner for Pakistan in the UK v Prince Muffakham Jah and Others [2020] Ch 421, which I consider below at paragraph 43 Fourth, determining whether proceedings are an abuse of process is not an exercise of discretion; it i......
Request a trial to view additional results