This issue involves what court has jurisdiction to hear the case, which involves an English person and an America. The American has been served a claim notice while on a visit to England. The American however, wants to question the Jurisdiction of the high court in London and want to know what European rules apply on allocation of Jurisdiction and their relevance since she is an American.
If anyone is willing to assist, I can give the summary of the case details, so that it case be understandable from your perspective.
You're faced with a difficulty in Contract law and Private International Law.
You need to specify the challenge to enable us give you a useful answer. Be precise, please.
Please read the English Conflict of Law rules on Forum non Convenience. The American can make a claim for stay of the proceedings to the effect of Forum non Convenience citing English precedent Mac Shannon v. Rockware Glass Ltd. [1978] A.C. 795. Read Lord Diplock's decision. This precedent may be helpful if the facts of the case are tilted in favour of the American. For example the defendant (american) may be required to satisfy that there is another Forum to whose jurisdiction he was amenable in which justice could be done between the parties at substantially less inconvenience or expense.
Ranjan Kumar Thank you for your response. Could you check your inbox please? I sent you a message to get further clarity regarding this issue.
Ranjan Kumar
sovereign(s) know no duty to another, without a clear contract for duties and obligations (binding a lien against sovereignty) to the other party must be the basis of a challenge. ask for a contract that show duties (an allegiance) or obligations, by which jurisdictions that apply. most courts will fail to provide these and will fail in their prosecutions once asked, because of it. Asking for these pieces of info is not construed as an answer as a defendant but a sovereign
The Kaefer Claim
The Kaefer case is important because it considers the meaning of the “good arguable case” test and the jurisdictional standard of proof that must be met when bringing proceedings against a foreign defendant.
In Kaefer the claimant brought proceedings in England against a number of defendants claiming sums allegedly due under a contract. The claimant contended that two of the defendants, “AT1” and “Ezion”, were party to the agreement as undisclosed principals of the first two defendants and argued that the English court had jurisdiction pursuant to Article 25 of the Brussels Convention (Recast) because the relevant contract contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause. AT1 and Ezion were served with the proceedings in Singapore. AT1 and Ezion challenged the court’s jurisdiction on the ground that neither was a party to the alleged contract and so they could not be sued in the English courts.
It was agreed between the parties that the question of whether the court had jurisdiction or not depended solely on whether there was a “good arguable case” that AT1 and Ezion were parties to the alleged contract and therefore bound by the jurisdiction agreement.
The Kaefer Decision
Following a review of relevant authorities the Commercial Court concluded that:
Pursuant to the Kaefer decision, a claimant is therefore subject to a twofold test in which they must establish (a) a good arguable case that the relevant gateway has been satisfied and (b) they have the better of the relevant jurisdictional argument. Applying these above principles to the facts, the Judge held that:
a. the English courts did not have jurisdiction over Kaefer’s claim against Ezion because Kaefer did not have a sufficiently arguable case that Ezion was a party to the contract (ie Kaefer did not meet the “absolute standard” required); and
b. even though there was a sufficiently arguable case that AT1 was a party to the contract, the English courts did not have jurisdiction over the claim because AT1 nevertheless had the better of the arguments on the evidence available (ie AT1 succeeded on the “relative plausibility” test).
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=adc6cdb3-3c9c-44dd-b804-305e827f150a
The Brownlie Case
Since the Kaefer decision the Supreme Court has reviewed the meaning of the “good arguable case” test. In the case of Brownlie v Four Seasons [2017] UKSC 80, the Supreme Court considered a case in which the claimant and her family went on holiday to Cairo. Tragically, during an excursion the family’s chauffeur driven car came off the road and the Claimant’s husband and her daughter were killed. The Claimant sought to serve a claim on what she believed was the foreign owner/operator of the hotel out of the jurisdiction under relevant jurisdictional gateways.
Argument in the Brownlie case was heard before Kaefer but judgment was handed down after Kaefer. Consequently the Brownlie judgment does not refer to Kaefer. The Brownlie judgment, however, does materially correspond with the decision in Kaefer.
In Brownlie Lord Sumption referred to the “much better argument” test as a “serviceable test, provided that it is correctly understood”. In Lord Sumption’s opinion the “much better argument” test meant that:
Lady Hale expressed the view that the correct test was whether a claimant had a ‘good arguable case’, and that “glosses should be avoided”. Her Ladyship also said that she did not see Lord Sumption’s formulation as further glossing the test.
It would appear that the formulation of the “much better argument” test set out by the Supreme Court corresponds with Kaefer in the sense that it contemplates jurisdiction being taken over a foreign defendant where the claimant satisfies both an absolute test (“plausible evidence”) and a relative test. The relative test involves the court “taking a view” on the available material if there is some doubt about whether a jurisdictional threshold is available to the claimant.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=adc6cdb3-3c9c-44dd-b804-305e827f150a
i hope you got your answer. if you need clarification please ask me.
general search terms : whether uk court has jurisdiction to try foreigner ?
thank you
Is the issue/case before the court a violation of international law? if NO it may be in favour of the American. The American could also use the approach of forum non-convenience.
"European rules" no longer apply in the UK. Your American is a bit late for that to apply... So, as the previous commentators recommend - it is common law rules on forum non conveniens. Unless you want to embark on a discussion of whether or not Rome Convention/Brussels Convention are still in force? Ultimately up to the courts.