Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 is an English decision on the conflict of laws in tort. The Court developed a two limbed test for determining whether a tort occurring outside of the court's jurisdiction can be actionable. [1] In time this came to be referred to as the "dual-actionability test" (or "double actionability test").
HRH the Maharanee of Baroda v Wildenstein, [1] was a decision of the English Court of Appeal relating to the conflict of laws, and specifically whether the English courts should take jurisdiction in relation to a claim which had no substantial connections with England on the basis that the defendant was served with proceedings during a brief visit to the country.
The Rome Regulations: Commentary on the European Rules of the Conflict of Laws. Kluwer. CILE Studies (Center for International Legal Education – University of Pittsburgh School of Law) Private Law, Private International Law, and Judicial cooperation in the EU-US Relationship. Clarkson, C.M.V.; Hill, Jonathan (2006). The Conflict of Laws ...
The Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 (c. 16) [1] is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom applicable only to England and Wales.. The Act broadly provides that where any substantive matter falls to be determined by a foreign law under the English conflict of laws, then the limitation period applicable under that foreign law shall apply to it rather than the applicable period of ...
Capacity (law) Characterisation (law) Choice of law; Choice of law clause; Comity; Conflict of divorce laws; Conflict of nullity laws; Conflict of property laws; Conflict of succession laws; Conflict of tort laws; Conflict of contract laws; Convention on the Exercise of Liberal Professions of 1889; Convention on the Exercise of Liberal ...
Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 is a UK company law case on separate legal personality and limited liability of shareholders. [1] The case also addressed long-standing issues under the English conflict of laws as to when a company would be resident in a foreign jurisdiction such that the English courts would recognise the foreign court's jurisdiction over the company.
If you’re stuck on today’s Wordle answer, we’re here to help—but beware of spoilers for Wordle 1272 ahead. Let's start with a few hints.
The appeal was not actually an appeal on the full decision, but an appeal to determine a preliminary issue: specifically whether the proper law to determine the issue was English law or New York law. Macmillan argued that the main issue was a claim in restitution, and so the proper law to determine the issue was English law.