'Conflicts of Law Course Outline\r'

'2011 CONFLICT OF LAWS COURSE specify AND READING MATERIALS Books: Morris, The affair of natural laws (3 ed. ) 1984 Cheshire and North, common soldier internationa tip practice of law (11 ed. ) 1987 collier, Conflict of rightfulnesss (1988) Reference: Dicey and Morris, Conflict of impartialitys (11 ed. ) 1987 standard: Morris and North, Cases and Materials on cloak-and-dagger transnational practice of law (1984) new(prenominal) works: Anton, esoteric multinational fairness (of Scotland) 1967. Cook, licit and Legal Bases of the Conflict of honors (1942) ; Graveson, The Conflict of natural laws (7 ed. ) 1974; Wolff, Private international impartiality (2 ed. ) 1950. INTRODUCTION 1.\r\nNature and Scope of the undecided Morris Ch. 1 (and 34), Cheshire Ch. 1 Collier, Ch. 1, 2, 21, 22 Anton Ch. 2. Mehrunnissa v Parves (1981) KLR 547 2. Reasons for the bum of the Conflict of Laws: Theories: Territoriality, Vested Rights, Comity, Local Law; mark off Davies (1937) 18 BYI L 49. Slater v Mexican guinea pig Rly 194 US 120, 126 (1904) Loucks v Standard Oil Co. of NY. 224 N. Y. 99 (1918). jurisdiction 1. Preliminary Issues Patel v Singh (No 2) (1987) KLR 585 2. super C Law eyeshot Morris Ch. 6; Cheshire, Chs. 10,11; Collier Ch. 6; Dicey, Ch. 11. (a)Presence, conformity, Effectiveness Colt Industries v Sarlie (No. ) (1966) 1 W. L. R. 440; maharanee of Baroda v Wildenstein (1972) 2 Q. B. 282; Re Dulles (1951) Ch. 842; Manta Line v Sofianites (1984) 1 L1. R. 14. Union edge of M. E. v Clapham (1981) â€Å" generation”, 20 July. Obikoya v Silvernorth (1983) â€Å"Times” 6 July The Messianiki Tolmi (1984) 1L1. R. 266 impartiams & Glyn`s v Astro Dinamico (1984) 1 each E. R. 760. Kanti v South British Ins. Co. Ltd. (1981) K. L. R. 1 (b)Limitations Cheshire Ch. 13 British South Africa Co v Companhia de Mocambique (1893) A. C 602 Mackinnon v Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette Securities potn. (1986) 1 whole E.\r\nR. 563 Ministry of demur of the Govt of UK v Ndegwa (1983) K. L. R 68 (c)Staying of Actions Morris, Ch. 8; Cheshire Ch. 12; Collier Ch. 7; Dicey Ch. 13. (i) ecumenic St. capital of South Dakota v South American Stores (1936)1 K. B. 382, at 398; Logan v buzzword of Scotland (No. 2) (1906) 1 K. B. 141; Egbert v Short (1907) 2 Ch 205; Re Norton`s Settlement (1908) 1 Ch. 471. Maharanee of Baroda v Wildenstein (1972) 2 . Q. B. 283; The Atlantic mavin (1974) A. C. 436; McShannon v Rockware Glass (1978) A. C. 795; The Wladslaw Lokictek (1978) 2 L1. R. 520. The Wellamo (1980) 2 L1. R. 229.\r\nEuropean Asian patois v Punjab & Sind Bank (1981) 2 L1. R. 65. Coupland v Arabian Gulf Petroleum (1983) 2 each(prenominal) E. R. 436 (1983) 1 W. L. R. 1136 The Abidin Daver (1984) A. C. 398 The Jalakrishna (1983) 2 L1. R. 628. The Traugutt (1985) 1 L1. R. 76; The assemblage Craftsmen (1985) 1 L1. R. 291. Spiliada v Cansulex (1987) A. C. 460. E. I. Pont de Nemours v Agnew (1987) 2 L1. R. 585; De Dampierre v de Dampie rre (1988) A. C. 92. Ocean Sun v Fay (1988) 29 A. L. R. 9. The Francois Vieljeux (1982-88) 1 KAR 398, (1984) K. L. R.. 1 United India indemnification Company and Kenindia restitution Companyv E.\r\nA Underwriter &Anor (1982-88) 1 KAR 639, ((1985) K. L. R 898 (ii)Lis alibi Pendens St . Pierre v South American Stores (above); McHenry v Lewis (1882) 22 Ch. D. 397; Cohen v Rothfield (1919) 1 K. B. 410; Ionian Bank v Coouvreur (1969) 1 W. L. R. 781; The Christianborg (1885) 10 P. D. 141; The Atlantic Star (1974) A. C. 436. Bushby v Munday (1821) 5 Madd. 297; Orr-Lewis v O-L (1949) P. 347; Sealy (orse. Callan) v Callan (1953) P. 135. The Tyllie Lykes (1977) 1 L1. R. 436 Castanho v dark-brown & Root (1981) A. C. 557; The Abidin Daver (1984) A. C. 398; Metall und Rohstoff v ACLI Metals (1984) 1 L1.\r\nR. 598; Societe N. I. Aerospitiale v Lee Kui Jak (1987) A. C. 871; South Carolina v Ass. de Zeven Provincien (1987) A. C. 24; Meadows Insurance v Ins. Corp. of Ireland (1989) 2 L 1. R. 298; Pont de Nemours v Agnew (1988) 2 L1. R. 240; A-G v Arthur Anderson (1988) `Independent` 31 butt on (iii)Submission to extraneous Arbitration or Foreign romance Arbitration Act (Act N0. 4 of 1995)); Law v Garret (1878) 8 Ch. D. 26 ; The Fehmarn (1958) 1 W. L. R. 159; Mackender v Feldia (1967) 2 Q. B. 590; The Eleftheria (1970) P. 94; Evans Marshall v Bertola (1973) 1 W. L. R. 349.\r\nThe Vishva Prabha (1979) 2 L. 1. Rep. 286. Carvalho v Hull Blyth (1979) 1 W. L. R. 1228. The El Amria (1980) 1 L1. R. 39; The Kislovodsk (1980) 1 L1. R. 183; Trendex v computer address Suisse (1982) A. C. 679; The Biskra (1983) 2 L1. R. 59; The Hollandia (1983) A. C. 565; The Benarty (1985) Q. B. 325. The Atlantic Song (1983) 2 L1. R. 394. Kisumuwaalla Oil Industries and PanAsiatic Commodities Pte Ltd v E. A. Storage Company Ltd cultured Appeal No 100 of 1995 Naizsons (K) Ltd v chinaware Road and Bridge Corp (Kenya) (2001) 2 E. A. 502 knowledge Container Manufacturers Ltd. v Mitchell Cot ts (K) Ltd (2001 2 E. A. 38 Tononoka Steels Ltd v The eastern ans Souther Africa Development Bank 2 (2000) E. A. 536 Indigo E. P. Z. Ltd v. The P. T. A Bank (2002) 1K. L. R. 811 Raytheon Aircraft Credit Corpn & Anor v Air Al-Faray Ltd (2005) eKLR (iv)Proceedings abroad Settlement Corpn. v Hochschild (1966) Ch. 10; metalworker Kline & French v Bloch (1983) 1 W. L. R. 730; Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak (1987) 3 wholly. E. R. 510 British Airways v Laker Airways (1985) A. C. 58; smith Kline & Bloch (No. 2) (1984) `Times` 14 Nov; midland Bank v Laker Airways (1986) 1 All E.\r\nR. 526. 3. statutory Position Service out of the jurisdiction beneath Civil Procedure Rules only with leave of the romance: Order V Rule 21 a) General Principles: The Hagen (1908) P. 189; GAF v Amchen (1975) 1 L1. R. 601: Amin Rasheed v capital of Kuwait Insurance (1984) A. C. 50: Spiliada Maritime v Cansulex (1987) A. C. 460. Mackender v Feldia (1967) 2 Q. B. 590; E vans Marshall v Bertola (1973) 1 W. L. R. 349; Attock Cement v Romanian Bank (1989) 1 W. L. R. 1147; Matthews v Kuwait Bechtel (1959) 2 Q. B. 57. b) Domicile: Re Liddell`s ST (1936) Ch. 365. (Ord 11, traffic pattern 4) c) Injunction: Rosler v Hilbery (1925) Ch. 250:\r\nThe Siskina (1979) A. C. 210(CJ and J Act 1982 s. 25 ). X v Y and Y land of Haiti v Duvalier (1990) Q. B. 202. d) Necessary or proper political party: Chancy v Murphy (1948) W. N. 130 Witted v Galbraith (1949) A. C. 326; The Brabo (1949) A. C. 326 Multinational ball up v M. G. Services (1983) 3 W. L. R. 492. Qatar Petroleum v Shell (1983) L1. R. 35. e) Contract: Finnish Marine v Protective Ins. (1990) 2 W. L. R. 914; Hutton v Moffarij (1989) 1 W. L. R. 488; Entores v Miles Far East potentiometer (1955) 2 Q. B. 327: Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl (1982) 2 A. C. 34 Islamic Arab Insurance v Saudi Egyptian (1987) 1 L.\r\nR. 315; National Mortgage Co of NZ v Gosselin (1922) 38 T. L. R. 382; See cases on proper law of contr act, esp. Amin Rasheed v Kuwait Insurance (1984) A. C. 50; The Magnum (1988) 1 L1. R. 47; The Chapparal (1968) 2 L1. R. 158; Johnson v Taylor (1920) A. C. revenue: f) Tort: Handelskwerkerij be Bier v Mines de Potasse. (1978) Q. B. 708 Metall u Rohstoff v Donaldson Lufkin (1990) Q. B. 391. g) disgrace: Agnew v Ussher (1884) 14 Q. B. D. 78; Kaye v Sutherland (1887) 20 Q. B. D. 147: Tassel v Hallen (1892) 1 Q. B. 321: Official Reciever v Stype (1983) 1 W. L. R. 214. (h)Trusts: i)Administration of estates, probate: (j)Enforcement of judgement and awards 4. Brussels Convention (a)Objectives; par with common law: Berisford v New Hampshire (1990) 2 All E. R. 321; Arkwright v Bryanston (1990) 2 All E. R 335. Owusu v Jackson and Others Case C-128/01 Cheshire, Chs. 14, 16; Collier Ch. 9; Dicey, Chs. 11, 14. Part I. b) Interpretation: (Reference to European cost: arts 2, 3) LTU v Eurocontrol (1976) ECR 1561; Bavaria & Germania v Eurocontrol (1977) ECR 1517; Netherlands v Ruffer (1980) ECR 3807; Gourdain v Nadler (1979) ECR 733; Bertrand v Ott (1978) ECR 1431;\r\nSomafer v Saar-Ferngas (1978) ECR 2183; Industrial Diamond Supplies v Riva (1977) ECR 2175; Duijnstee v Goderbauer (1983) ECR 3663; . Tessili v Dunlop (1976) ECR 1473. c) Sphere of application: genteel and commercial matters (art. 1): LTU v Eurocontrol; Bavaria and Germania v Eurocontrol; Netherlands v Ruffer. Exceptions: De cavel v De C. (No. 1) (1979) ECR 105; (No. 2) (1980) ECR 731; W v H (1982) ECR 1189; see also The Deichland (1990) Q. B. 361. d) Jurisdiction (Arts 2-23): i) General rule: dwell of defendant (art 2); definition: (arts 2-3 The Deichland (1989) 3 W. L. R. 478 i) Special (concurrent) jurisdiction (Arts. 5-6) oddly 1. Contract: place of performance of agreement: Effer v Kantner (1982) ECR 825; De Bloos v Bouyer (1976) ECR 1473; Ivenel v Schwab (1982) ECR 1891 Zelger v Salinitri (1980) ECR 89; Martin Peters v Zuid Nederlandsche (1983) ECR 987; Shenavai v Kreischer (1987) 3 C. M. L. R. 782 Tesam v Shuh dash (1989) `Times` 24 October; Medway v Meurer (1990) `Times` 7 may 2. Tort: where the harmful event occurred: Netherlands v Ruffer (1980) ECR 3807 at 3833; Kalfelis v Schroder (1988) `Times` 5 October; Bier v Mines de Potasse (1976) ECR 1735, (1978) Q. B. 708.\r\nMinister Investments v Hyundai (1988) 2 L1. R. 621 3. Branch, agency etc: Somafer v Sarr-Ferngas (1978) ECR 2183; De Bloos v Bouyer; Blanckaert & Willems v Trost (1981) ECR 819; Sar Schotte v Parfums Rothschild (1988) `Times`12 January. 4. Insurance (arts. 7-12); Consumer Contracts (arts. 13-15); Bertrand v Ott (1978) ECR 1431. iii) Exclusive jurisdiction (art 16) especially: 1. Immovables: sandpaperers v Van der Putte (1977) ECR 2383 Roessler v Rottwinkel (1985) CMLR. 806; Scherrens v Maenhout (1988) `Times` 5 September. 2. Companies or Legal Persons 3. Enforcement of judgment iv) Submission v) Contractual agreement (art 17).\r\nElefanten Schuh v Jacqmain (1981) 1671;. Meeth v Glacetal (1978) EC R 2133; Salotti v Ruwa (1976) ECR 1831; Segoura v Bonakdarian, 1976 ECR 1851; Iveco Fiat v Van Hool (1988) 1 CMLR. 5757; Anterist v Credit Lyonnais (1987) 1 CMLR 333. National Law: Sanicentral v Collin (1979) ECR 3423 ; Ms Tilly Russ v Haven (1985) 3 W. L. R. 179; Other submission (art. 18) Elefanten Schuh v Jacqmain; Rohr v Ossberger (1981) ECR 2431; W v H (1982) ECR 1189; Gerling v Tesoro (1983) ECR 2503; Berghoefer v A. S. A. (1986) 1 CMLR 13; The Sidney Express (1988) 2 L1. R. 257. vi) Scrutiny of jurisdiction and admissibility (arts. 19-20) ii) Lis pendens †related action (arts. 21-23) The Nordglimt (198) Q. B. 183; The Linda (1988) 1 L1. R. 175; Gubisch Maschinenfabrik v Palumbo (1988) `Times` 12 January; Kloeckner v Gatoil (1990) 1 L1. R. 177; Berisford v New Hampshire; (1990) 2 All E. R. 335. viii) Provisional and overprotective measures (art. 24) CHOICE OF LAW 1. General Considerations Reading list: Kahn-Freund, General Problems of Private International Law Leyden, 19 76 and 1980, 89-101 Wolff, Private International Law, 2nd ed, 96ff. Forsyyth, Private Interational Law, (first edition) Juta & co, 1981, 5-7. (2nd edition, 1989, pages 4-8) a)The History of the pickax of law rule Lipstein, `Principles of the conflict of laws, National and International’ 1981, 1-46. Cheshire, op cit, chapter 2. Kahn-Freund, op cit, 97-101 Forsyth, 20-57. (b)Pleading Foreign Law The Evidence Act, section 60 A. G. of New Zealand v Ortiz (1984) A. C. 1 Vervaeke v Smith (1983) 1 A. C. 145 (c) Renvoi Kahn-Freund, op cit, 285-291. Anton, 55ff Morris, 469-480 Cheshire, 57ff Forsyth, 68-78. Munro, `The Magic Roundabout of Conflict of Laws’ 1978 Juridicial rpmiew 65 Hicks, `The Lair Paradox in Legal Reasoning’ 1971 CLJ 275 at 284 and 289.\r\nIn re Annesley: Davidson v Annesley [1926] ch 692 In re Ross, Ross v Waterfield [1930] 1 ch 377 Collier v Rivaz (1841) 2 Curt 855 Re Askew [1930] 2 ch 259 Re O’Keefe [1949] ch 124 Re Trufort (1887) 36 ch D 600 R v Brentwood overseer Registrar of Marriages, ex parte Arias [1968] 2 QB 956 Amin Rasheed Shipping passel v Kuwait Insurance Co [1984] AC 50 (d)The incidental question Kahn- Freund, op cit, 291-294. Morris, op cit, 489-492. Cheshire, Private International Law, 53ff. Forsyth, op cit, 2nd ed, 78-81. Gotlieb, `The incidental question revisited- theory and do in the conflict of Laws’ (1977) 26 ICLQ 734.\r\nSchwebel v Ungar (1926) 42DLR (2d) 622 affd (1964) 48 DLR (2d) 644 Lawrence v Lawrence [1985] Fam 106 (e) Characterisation Kahn-Freund, op cit, 223-241 Cheshire, op cit, 43-52. Morris, op cit, 481-488 Falconbridge `Conflicts Rule and Characterization of headway’ (1952) 30 Canadian Bar Review 103 and 264. Anton,op cit 43ff Forsyth, op cit. , 59-69 Forsyth, `Extinctive prescription(prenominal) and the Lex Fori’ (1982)99 SALJ 16 Forsyth, `Characterization etc’ (1987) 104 SALJ 4 Bennett, `Cumulation and Gap: argon they systemic defects in the confli ct of Laws? ’ (1988) 105 SALJ 444 Ogden v Ogden [1908] p 46\r\nHuber v Steiner (1835) 2 Bing NC 202 Re Maldonado [1954] p 223 Re Cohn [1945] ch 5 In re State of Norway’s Application (No 2) [1989] 1 every ER 701 (CA) and 745 (HL) (f)Domicile and abode Morris, Ch. 2; Cheshire Ch. 9; Collier, Ch. 5; Dicey Ch. 7. Law of Domicil Act Cap 37 (i)Definition Whicker v Hume (1858) 7 H. L. C. 124; Gatty v A-G. (1951) P. receipts; Udny v Udny (1869) L. R. 1 Sc. & D. 441; Re Annesly (1926) Ch. 692. (ii)Domicile of Origin Udny v U. ; Urquhart v Butterfield (1887) 37 Ch. D. 357; Re McKenzie (1951) 51 S. R. N. S. W. 293; Henderson v H (1967) P. 77; Re Jones 192 Iowa 78 (1921). (iii)Domicile of picking\r\nSchiratti v Schiratti (1978) K. L. R 128; White v Tennant 31 W, Va. 790 (1888) ; Re Fuld (No. 3) (1968) P. 675; Bell v Kennedy (1868) L. R. 1 Sc. Div. 307; Winans v A-G (1904) A. C. 287; Ramsey v Royal Liverpool Infirmary (1930) A. C. 588; Ross v Ross (1930) A. C. 1; Buswell v I. R. C. (1974) 1 W. L. R. 1631; I. R. C. v Bullock (1976) 1 W. L. R. 1178. Puttick v A. G. (1980) Fam. 1. Re Furse (1980) 3 All E. R. 838. Brown v B. (1982) 3 F. L. R. 212; Re Clore (1984) S. T. C. 609; Cramer v C (1987) 1 F. L. R. 116; IRC v Plummer (1988) 1 W. L. R. 292; Re Lloyd Evans (1947) Ch 695; golf tee v Tee (1973) 3 All. E. R. 1105 iii) Special Cases 1.\r\nnaturalization: Wahl v A-G. (1932) 147 L. T. 382; Re Fuld. 2. Deportees: Boldirini v B. (1932) P. 9; May v May (1943) 2 All E. R. 146; Szechter v S. (1971) P. 286; Zanelli v Z (1948) 64 T. L. R. 556; Cruh v C (1945) 2 All E. R. 545. 3. Fugitives and Refugees: Re Martin (1900) P. 211; De Bonneval v D. B. (1838) 1 Curt. 856; Re Lloyd-Evans (1947) Ch. 695; May v M. 4. Invalids: Hoskins v Matthews (1855) 8 D. M. & G. 13; Re James (1908) 98 L. T. 438. 5. Servicemen: Sellars v S. 1942 S. C. 206; Donaldson v D. (1949) P. 363; Cruishanks v C. (1957) 1 All E. R. 889; play off v S. (1958) 1 W. L. R. 1287. 6. Abandonment: In b. Raffenel (1863) 3 S.\r\nW. & Tr. 49; Zannelli v Z. ; b (1968) 1 altogether E. R. 49; Tee v Tee (1974) 1 W. L. R. 213. (iv)Domicile of Dependancy (see 37 M. L. R. 179) 1. Married Women: A-G. for Alberta v Cook (1926) A. C. 444; Re Scullard (1957) Ch. 107; Domicile and Matrimonnial Proceedings Act 1973, s. 1. Puttick v A-G (1980) Fam. 1. Oundian v O. (1980) Fam. L. R. 198. IRC v Portland (1982) Ch. 314. 2. Children: Johnstone v Beattie (1843) 10 Cl. & F. 42; Harrison v H. (1953) 1 W. L. R. 865; Potinger v Wightman (1817) 3 Mer. 67; Re Beaumont (1893) 3 Ch. 490; Hope v H. (1968) N. Ir. 1; Shanks v S. 1965 S. L. T. 330; Domicile Act, 1973 ss. 3, 4. 3.\r\nInsane Persons: Urquhart v Butterfield; Crumpton`s discriminatory Factor v Finch-Noyes 1918 S. C. 378; Sharpe v Crispin (1860) L. R. 1 P. D. 611 (v)Residence 1. public Residence: Cruse v Chittum (1974) 2 All E. R. 940; 24 I. C. L. Q. 1. ; Kapur v K. (1984) F. L. R. 920. 2. Ordinary Residence: Levene v I. R. C. (1928) A. C. 217; Hopkins v H. (1951) P. 116; Stransky v S. (1954) P. 248; Lewis v L. (1956) 1 W. L. R. 200. Re P (GE) (An Infant) (1965) Ch. 568. R v Barnet L. B. C. ex. P. Nilish Shah (1983) 2 A. C. 309. (vi)Corporations 1. Status National Bank of Greece and Anthens v Metliss (1958) A. C. 509; Adams v National Bank of Greece S.\r\nA. (1961) A. C. 225. 2. Domicile and Residence Ridsdon Iron and Locomotive whole kit and boodle v Furness (1906) 1 K. B. 49; Cesena Sulphur Co. v Nicholson (1876) 1 Ex. D. 428; De Beers Consolidated v Howe (1906) A. C. 455; Egyptian Delta Land & Co. v Todd (1929) A. C. 1; Swedish Central Rly v Thompson (1925) A. C. 495; Unit Construction Co. v Bullock (1960) A. C. 351; Gasque v I. R. C. (1940) 2 K. B. 80;. Shah v Barnet London Borough Council (1983) 1 All. E. R. 226; Kapur v Kapur (1985) Fam Law. Rep. 22 2. Substantive alternative of Law Rules (a)Marriage Bishop, `Choice of Law of Impotence and Wilful Refusal`, (1978) 41 MLR 512.\r\nCarter, ` talent to Re marry After Foreign divorce`, (1985) 101 LQR 496. Fentiman, `The robustness of marriage and the Proper Law`, (1985) CLJ 256. Hartley, `Polygamy and Social insurance policy`, (1969) 32 MLR 155; `The insurance Basis of the position Conflict of Laws of Marriage`, (1972) 35 MLR 571. Jaffey, `The Essential Validity of Marriage in the slope Conflict of Laws`, (1978) 41 MLR 38; `The Incidental scruple and Capacity to Remarry`, (1985) 48 MLR 465. North, `Development of Rules of Private International Law in the Field of Family Law`, (1980) I Recueil des Cours 17. Poulter, `Hyde v Hyde †A inspection` (1976) 25 ICLQ 475.\r\nSmart, `Interest Analysis, False Conflicts and the Essential Validity of Marriage`, (1985) 14 Anglo-Amer L Rev 225. Stone, ` around Aspects of Fundamental Rights in the English Conflict of Laws` in Bridge et al (eds) Fundamental Rights (1973) London, Sweet & Maxwell, pp 232, 246-7; `Capacity for Polygamy †Judicial Rectification of Legislative Error` (19 83) Fam Law 76. Brook v Brook (1861) 9 HL Cas 193 De Reneville v de Reneville (1948) P 100 Cheni v Cheni (1965) P 85 Lawrence v Lawrence (1985) 2 All E. R. 733 Re Paine (1940) Ch 46 Sottomayer v De Barros (No 2) (1879) 5 PD 94 Ogden v Ogden (1908) P 46 Vervaeke v Smith (1981) 1 All ER 55\r\nMohammed v Knott (1969) 1 QB 1 Pugh v Pugh (1951) P 482 Radwan v Radwan (No 2) (1972) 3 All ER 1026 R v Brentwood Marriage Registrar (1968) 3 All ER 279 Schwebel v Ungar (1964) 48 DLR (2d) 644 Breen v Breen (1964) P 144 Schezter v Schezter (1971) P 286 dash v Way (1950) P 71 Ponticelli v Ponticelli (1958) P 204 Berthiaume v Dastous (1930) A C 79 Starkowski v AG (1954) AC 155 stay put v Lodge (1967) 107 sol Jo. 437 Tackzanowska v Tackzanowski (1957) P 301 (b)Matrimonial Causes Forsyth, ` comprehension of Extra-Judicial Divorces: The transnational Divoce`, (1985) 34 ICLQ 398. Jaffey, `Vervaeke v Smith`, (1983) 32 ICLQ 500.\r\nKarsten, ` actualization of Non-Judicial Divorces`, (1980) 43 MLR 202. McClean, Recognition of Family Judgements in the Commonwealth (1983) London, Butterworths. North, The Private International Law of Matrimonial Causes in the British Isles and the Republic of Ireland (1977) Amsterdam, North-Holland create Co. Stone, `The Recognition in England of Talaq Divorces`, (1985) 14 Anglo-Amer L Rev 363. Young, `The Recognition of Extra-Judicial DIvorces`, (1987) 7 LS 78. Schiratti v Schiratti (1978) K. L. R 128 Le Mesurier v Le Mesurier (1895) AC 517 Armitage v AG (1906) P 135 Indyka v Indyka (1969) 1AC 33 Re Meyer (1971) P 298\r\nSalvesen v Australian Propety Administrator (1927) AC 641 Re Edgertons Wills Trust (1956) Ch 593 Duke of Malborough v AG (1945) Ch 78 barrel maker v Cooper (1888) 13 App Cas 88 Callwood v Callwood (1960) AC 659 Harvey v Farnie (1882) 8 App Cas 43 Travers v Holley (1953) P 246 Quazi v Quazi (1980) AC 794 Bater v Bater (1906) P 209 Kendall v Kendall (1971) 1 All ER 378 Merker v Merker (1963) P 283 Re Bankes (1902) 2 Ch 333 Re De Nic hols (1900) 2 Ch 410 De Nichols v Curlier (1900) AC 21 (c) Contracts Cheshire, International Contracts (1948). Fletcher, Conflict of Law and European Community Law, Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing Co, Chapter 5.\r\nJaffey, `Essential Validity of Contracts in the English Conflicts of Laws`, (1974) 23 ICLQ 1; `Offer and word meaning and Related Questions in the English Conflict of Laws` (1975) 24 ICLQ 603; `The English Proper Law Doctrine and the europium Convention`, (1984) 33 ICLQ 531. Lasok and Stone, Conflict of Laws in the European Community (1987) Abingdon, Professional Books, Chapter 9. Libling, `Formation of International Contracts`, (1979) 42 MLR 169. Mann, `The Proper Law of the Contract`, (1950) 3 ICLQ 60 and 597; `Proper Law and Illegality in Private International Law` (1973) 18 BYIL 97.\r\nMorris, `The Proper Law of a Contract: a Reply`, (1950) 3 ILQ 197. North, ` alter the Proper Law`, in Multum non Multa, Festschrift for Kurt Lipstein (1980), Heidelberg, Muller, p 205. Pierce, `Post-Formation Choice of Law in Contract`, (1987) 50 MLR 176. Karachi Gas Ltd. v Issaq (1965) E. A. 42 Bonython v Commonwealth of Australia (1951) AC 201 Amin Rasheed Case (Supra) Campagnie DArmement Maritime SA v Cie Tunisienne de Navigation SA (1971) AC 572 Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd v Xenakis (1982) 2 Ll Rep 304 Royal Exchange Assurance Corp v Sjofarsakrings Akt Vega (1902) 2 KB 384 The Adriatic (1931) P 241\r\nSayers v International Drilling Co NV (1971) 3 All ER 163 Rossano v Manufactures Life Assurance Co (1963) 2 QB 352 Coast Lines Ltd v Hudig and Veder Chartering (1972) 2 QB 34 Vita Food Products Inc v Unus Shipping Co Ltd (1939) AC 277 The Iran Vojdan (1984) 2 Ll Rep 380 The Mariannina (1983) 1 Ll Rep 12 De Dampierre v De Dampierre (1987) 2 All. E. R. 1 (d)Torts Briggs, `What Did Boys v Chaplin get back? `, (1983) 12 Anglo-Amer L Rev 237. Carter, `Torts in English Private International Law`, (1981) 52 BYIL 9. Fawcett, `Policy Considerations in Tort Choice of Law `, (1984) 47 MLR 650.\r\nJaffey, `Choice of Law inTort: A Justice-Based Approach`, (1982) 2 LS 98. Karsten, `Chaplin v Boys: Another Analysis`, (1970) 19 ICLQ 35. Kahn-Freund, `Delictual obligation and the Conflict of Laws`, (1968) II Recueil des Cours, 5. Law complaint Working Paper No 87, `Choice of Law in Tort` (1984). Lasok and Stone, Conflict of Laws in European Community (1987) Abingdon, Professional Books, Chapter 9. McGregor, `The International Accident task`, (1907) 33 MLR 1. Morris, `Torts in the Conflicts of Laws`, (1949) 12 MLR 248; `The Proper Law of a Tort` (1951) 64 Harv L Rev 881.\r\nMorse, Torts in Private International Law (1978) Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing Co. North, `Contract as a Tort demurrer in the Conflict of Laws`, (1977) 26 ICLQ 914. Clarence Smith, `Torts and the Conflict of Laws`, (1957) 20 MLR 447. The Halley (1868) LR 2 PC 193 Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 Machado V Fontes (1897) 2 QB 231 Mclean v Pettigrew (1945) 2 DLR 65 Mackinnon v Ibe ria Shipping Company (1954) 2 Ll 372 Babcock v Jackson 12 NY 2d 473 Reich v Purcell 432 P 2d 727 Chaplin v Boys (1971) AC 356 Church of Scientology of atomic number 20 v Metropolitan Police Commr (1976) 120 Sol Jo 690 Coupland v Arabian Gulf Petroleum Co. 1983) 2 All E. R. 434 (e)Succession Re Annesley (1926) Ch 692 Re Ross (1930) 1 Ch 377 Re Cunnington (1924) 1 Ch 68 Re Fergusson’s Will (1902) 1 Ch 483 Re Price (1900) 1 Ch 442 Re Lewal’s Settlement Trust (1918) 2 Ch 391 Re Fuld’s Estate (No 3) (1968) P 675 Re Schnapper (1928) Ch 420 Re Hellman’s Will (1866) LR 2 Eq. 363 Re Martin (1900) P 211 Re Miller (1914) 1 Ch 511 Phillip- Stow v IRC (1961) AC 727 Re Collens (1986) Ch 505 Re O’ Keefe (1940) Ch 124 Law of Succession Act, section 16 (f) Transfer of blank space Inter Vivos Davis, `Conditional Sales and Chattel Mortgages in the Conflict of Law`, (1964) 13 ICLQ 53.\r\nWinkworth v Christie, Manson & woodland Ltd (1980) Ch 496 Adams v Clutterb uck (1883) 10 QBD 403 Re Smith (1916) 2 Ch 206 Bank of Africa Ltd v Cohen (1909) 2 Ch 129 Bank voor Handel en Scheepvart NV v Slatford (1953) 1 QB 248 Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Agricultural and Poultry Producers Association (1966) 1 All ER 306 RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGEMENTS Morris, Ch. 9; Cheshire Ch. 15; Collier Ch. 8; Dicey, Ch. 14; Anton, Ch. 26; . 1. Recognition /Enforcement 2. Enforcement of Judgements in personam a) Action of judgement at Common Law Grant v Easton (1883) 13 Ch. D. 302 (GA) (b)Registration down the stairs Statute\r\nForeign Judgements Reciprocal Enforcement Act (Cap 43) Trepca Mines (1960) 1 W. L. R. 1273 at 1282; Rossano v Manufacturers Life Ins. Co. (1963) 2 Q. B. 352; Sidmetal v Titan (1966) 1 Q. B. 828; Black-Clawson v Papierwerke (1975) A. C. 591. 3. Jurisdiction of Foreign Court Buchanan v Rucker (1808) 9 East 193; Sirdar Gurdyal Singh v Rajah of Faridkote (1894) A. C. 670; Emanuel v Symon (1908) 1 K. B. 302, 309. (a)Presence or Res idence at time of service of process Carrick v Hancock (1895) 12 T. L. R. 59; Blohn v Desser (1962) 2 Q. B. 116; 1933 Act s. 4 (2) (a) (iv). b) Residence of companies\r\nLittauer Glove Co. v F. W. Millington (1928) 44 T. L. R. 746; Sfier v National Ins. Co. of N. Z. (1964) 1 L1. R. 330; Vogel v Kohnstamm Ltd. (1973) Q. B. 133; Adams v mantelpiece Industries (1990) 2 W. L. R. 657. (c)Submission to Foreign Courts i) As Plaintiff: Schibsby v Westenholtz (1870) L. R. 6 Q. B. 155, 161, or as counterclaimant: Cap 43s. 4 (2) (a) (ii). ii) Contract of Agreement to buckle under: Feyerick v Hubbard (1902) 71 L. J. K. B. 509; Cap 43 s. 4 (2) (a) (iii); Copin v Adamson (1874) L. R. 9 Ex. 345; Emanuel v Symon; Blohn v Desser; Vogel v Kohnstamn. iii) As defendant pleading to the merits: Cap 43 s. (2) (a) (iii); Copin v Adamson (1874) L. R. 9 Ex. 345; Emanuel v Symon; Blohn v Desser; Vogel v Kohnstamn. (d)Office or Place of Business Cap 43 s. 4 (1) (e) Italframe Ltd vs Mediterranean Shipping Co (1986) KLR 54 Gathuna v African Orthodox Church of Kenya (1982) KLR 356 4. Defence when Foreign Court has Jurisdiction d. (a)Fraud: Ochsenbein v Papelier (1893) L. R. 8 Ch. App. 695; Abouloff v Oppenheimer (1882) 10 Q. B. D. 310; Syal v Heyward (1948) 2 K. B. 443; pitchy Holdings v Patel (1990) Q. B. 335; House of Spring Gardens v Waite (1990) 3 W. L. R. 347; Cap 43 s. 10(1) (h) . (b)Natural Justice\r\nPrice v Dewhurst (1837) 8 Sim. 279; Scarpetta v Lowenfield (1911) 27 T. L. R. 424; Jacobson v Franchon (1927) 138 L. T. 386; colorise v Formosa (1963) P. 259; Lepre v Lepre (1965) P. 52; Adams v Cape Industries (1990) 2 W. L. R. 657; Cap 43 s. 10 (1) (g) c) macrocosm Policy Re Macartney (1921) 1 Ch. 522; Armitage v Nanchen (1983) 4 F. L. R. 293; Phrantzes v Argenti (1960) 2 Q. B. 19; Mayo-Perrot v M-P (1958) Ir. R 336. Cap 43. 4 (1) (a) (v). Israel Discount Bank of N. Y. v Hadjipateras (1983) 3 All E. R. 129. Vervaeke v Smith (1983) 1 A. C. 145; Cap 43 s. 10 (1) (n) 5. Requirements for and rule of Enforcement a)Must be â€Å"final and conclusive” Nouvion v freewoman (1889) 15 App. Cas 1; Colt Industries v Sarlie (No. 2) (1966) 1 W. L. R. 1287; Berliner Indusrie Bank v Jost (1971) 2 Q. B. 463; Cap 43 s. 3 (2) (b) (b)Must be for debt or fixed sum: Sadler v Robins (1808) 1 Camp. 253. Harrop v H. (1920) 3 K. B. 386; Beatty v B (1924) 1 K. B. 807; Cap 43 s. 3 (2) (a) (c)Must not be for taxes or a penalty: Huntington v Attril (1893) A. C. 150; Raulin v Fischer (1911) 2 K. B. 93; Schemmer v Property Resources (1975) Ch. 273; SA Consortium v Sun and Sand (1978) Q. B. 279; U. S. A. v Inkley (1989) Q. B. 255; Cap 43 s. 3 (3) (a)\r\n'