 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
Thirdly, in the United Kingdom, interim relief in support of foreign proceedings was
initially introduced by section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (in
this section "the 1982 Act") in respect of proceedings pending in the courts of
parties
to the Brussels and Lugano Conventions which are given legal effect by that
Act.
Then, by statutory instrument,
power to grant this relief was extended
beyond the scope of those Conventions. As Millett LJ has pointed out :-
"The position has now been reached, therefore, that the High Court has power to grant
interim relief in aid of substantive proceedings elsewhere of whatever kind and wherever
taking place."
In other words, the effect of The Siskina in relation to such Mareva injunctions and the
position maintained in the Leiduck case have been swept away in the United Kingdom.
Proposal 17 attracted little specific comment, but those who did respond were
generally in support.
The Bar Association's support was qualified by the comment
that caution is needed in case the jurisdiction is invoked in aid of doubtful foreign
proceedings, for instance, where jurisdiction has been exorbitantly claimed or an
exorbitant jury award obtained in a foreign jurisdiction.
In the light of the abovementioned developments and of the desirability of arming our
courts with the power, where justice so requires, to provide interim relief in aid of
foreign proceedings, the Working Party recommends that Proposal 17 be adopted
subject to the considerations discussed below in the light of the Bar Association's
concerns.
Notes
Presently Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the
Hellenic Republic, Iceland, the Republic of Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway,
Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
See White Book 5-26 (text) and 25.4.2 (commentary).
The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Interim Relief) Order 1997 (SI 1997, No 302) which
entered into force on 1 April 1997.
Crédit Suisse Fides Trust SA v Cuoghi [1998] QB 818 at 825.
Including the Bar Association, the BSCPI, a firm of solicitors and the BCC. It was not considered by
the Law Society.
|
 |
|