Results: 35

• UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC (G v R)

  22 Sep 2023 [2023] EWHC 2365 (Comm), KBD (Sir Nigel Teare Sitting as a High Court Judge)

  02 Feb 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 64; [2024] 1 Lloyd's Rep 350, CA (Bean, Males, Lewis LJJ)

  23 Apr 2024 Decision summary (Video); Case details; [2024] UKSC B1, SC(E)

  18 Sep 2024 [2024] UKSC 30; [2025] AC 1177; [2024] 3 WLR 659; [2025] 2 All ER 125; [2025] 2 All ER (Comm) 1; [2024] 2 Lloyd's Rep 466; [2024] WLR(D) 412, SC(E) (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt, Lord Burrows, Lady Rose JJSC)

  11 Feb 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 99; [2025] 1 WLR 2321; [2025] 2 All ER (Comm) 33; [2025] 1 Lloyd's Rep 264; [2025] WLR(D) 86, CA (Sir Geoffrey Vos MR, Asplin, Phillips LJJ)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; most recently considered: 2025. Subsequent citations: 20.
  INJUNCTION — Anti-suit injunction — Restraint of foreign proceedings

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Contract — Arbitration agreement

  INJUNCTION — Anti-suit injunction — Discharge
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INJUNCTION — Anti-suit injunction — Restraint of foreign proceedings — Guarantee issued by claimant in favour of Russian defendant containing English choice of law clause and providing for arbitration seated in Paris — Defendant in apparent breach of arbitration agreement commencing action in Russia — Claimant applying for permanent anti-suit injunction to restrain defendant from pursuing Russian proceedings — Whether English court having jurisdiction to grant injunction — Whether relevant arbitration agreement governed by English law — Whether England proper place in which to bring claim — Whether final injunction to be granted — Senior Courts Act 1981, s 37 — CPR r 6.37(3) — CPR PD6B

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Contract — Arbitration agreement — Bond contracts containing choice of English law clauses and arbitration agreements with Paris seat — Claimant alleging proceedings brought by defendant in Russia in breach of arbitration agreements and seeking anti-suit injunction — Whether English courts having jurisdiction — Whether arbitration agreements governed by English law — Whether England and Wales proper place to bring claim — Arbitration Act 1996 (c 23), s 2(3)

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Contract — Arbitration agreement — Bond contracts containing choice of English law clauses and arbitration agreements with Paris seat — Claimant claiming anti-suit injunction in High Court to restrain defendant from continuing proceedings in Russia in breach of arbitration agreements — Whether English courts having jurisdiction over claim for anti-suit injunction — Whether arbitration agreements governed by English law — Whether England and Wales proper place to bring claim — CPR rr 6.36, 6.37(3), PD 6B, para 3.1(6)(c)

  INJUNCTION — Anti-suit injunction — Discharge — Bond contracts containing choice of English law clauses and arbitration agreements with Paris seat — Claimant claiming anti-suit injunction in High Court to restrain defendant from continuing proceedings in Russia in breach of arbitration agreements — Court of Appeal granting final anti-suit injunction against defendant — Russian court granting defendant ruling requiring claimant to refrain from initiating or continuing proceedings against defendant in respect of bonds other than in Russian courts and to take all measures to cancel order of Court of Appeal or pay court-imposed penalty — Claimant applying to discharge final anti-suit injunction granted by Court of Appeal — Whether court having jurisdiction to revoke or vary final anti-suit injunction — Whether application to discharge final anti-suit injunction to be granted and if so whether injunction to be revoked or varied

  INJUNCTION — Anti-suit injunction — Discharge — Claimant obtaining final anti-suit injunction from English court restraining defendant from bringing certain claims in Russia — Defendant obtaining order from Russian court requiring claimant to take all measures within its control to cancel English injunction or pay large penalty — Whether English court empowered to revoke or vary final anti-suit injunction — Whether injunction to be revoked or varied — CPR r 3.1(7)

  18 Case(s) considered

  2 Statutes considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• R (Imam) v Croydon London Borough Council (R (Ross) v Birmingham City Council, R (Ahmed) v Birmingham City Council, R (Al-Shameri) v Birmingham City Council, R (Imam) v Croydon London Borough Council, R (Elkundi) v Birmingham City Council)

  26 Mar 2021 [2021] EWHC 739 (Admin); [2021] HLR 44, QBD (Matthew Gullick QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge)

  23 Apr 2021 (sub nom R (Elkundi) v Birmingham City Council) [2021] EWHC 1024 (Admin); [2021] 1 WLR 4031; [2021] WLR(D) 235, QBD (Steyn J)

  04 May 2022 (sub nom R (Elkundi) v Birmingham City Council) [2022] EWCA Civ 601; [2022] QB 604; [2022] 3 WLR 71; [2022] 4 All ER 302; [2022] WLR(D) 198, CA ( Underhill, Peter Jackson, Lewis LJJ)

  13 Dec 2022 (app all) [2023] 1 WLR 710, SC(E) (Lord Reed PSC, Lady Rose, Lord Richards JJSC)

  28 Nov 2023 [2023] UKSC 45; [2025] AC 335; [2023] 3 WLR 1178; [2024] 2 All ER 93, SC(E) (Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt, Lord Richards JJSC, Lord Burnett of Maldon)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 2 neutral; most recently considered: 2024. Subsequent citations: 53.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless persons — Council’s duty

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless persons — Suitability of accommodation
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless persons — Council’s duty

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless persons — Suitability of accommodation — Local housing authority accepting duty to secure that suitable accommodation available for homeless applicants — Authority housing applicants in unsuitable accommodation until suitable accommodation found — Whether authority discharging duty to secure suitable accommodation — Housing Act 1996 (c 52), s 193(2)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless persons — Suitability of accommodation — Local housing authority accepting duty to secure that suitable accommodation available for homeless applicants — Authority housing applicants in unsuitable accommodation until suitable accommodation found — Whether authority discharging duty to secure suitable accommodation — Whether appropriate to grant mandatory order requiring authority to comply with duty — Housing Act 1996 (c 52), ss 193(2), 206

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless persons — Suitability of accommodation — Local housing authority breaching duty to secure that suitable accommodation available for homeless applicant — Whether appropriate to grant mandatory order requiring authority to comply with duty — Housing Act 1996 (c 52), s 193(2)

  12 Case(s) considered

  2 Statutes considered

• Hirachand v Hirachand

  07 May 2020 [2020] EWHC 1134 (Fam); [2020] 2 FLR 561, Fam D (Cohen J)

  15 Oct 2021 [2021] EWCA Civ 1498; [2022] 1 WLR 1162; [2021] WLR(D) 534, CA (King, Singh LJJ, Sir Patrick Elias)

  25 Aug 2022 (appn all) [2023] 1 WLR 105, SC(E) (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Sales, Lord Hamblen JJSC)

  18 Dec 2024 [2024] UKSC 43; [2025] AC 599; [2025] 2 WLR 51; [2025] 2 All ER 281; [2025] 1 FLR 653; [2024] WLR(D) 565, SC(E) (Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Leggatt, Lord Burrows, Lord Stephens, Lord Richards JJSC)

  Subsequent citations: 12.
  FAMILY PROVISION — Child — “Reasonable financial provision”

  PRACTICE — Hearing — Attendance of debarred party
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  FAMILY PROVISION — Child — “Reasonable financial provision” — Daughter making claim for reasonable financial provision out of deceased father’s estate — Whether such provision capable of including amount referable to daughter’s liability to pay conditional fee agreement success fee — Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (c 63), s 3(1)(a) — Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c 41), s 58A(6)

  PRACTICE — Hearing — Attendance of debarred party — Defendant debarred from taking part in hearing following failure to file acknowledgment of service — Whether court obliged proactively to manage defendant’s attendance at hearing

  FAMILY PROVISION — Child — “Reasonable financial provision” — Daughter making claim for reasonable financial provision out of deceased father’s estate — Whether such provision capable of including amount referable to daughter’s liability to pay conditional fee agreement success fee — Whether order for reasonable financial provision “costs order” — Whether payment towards litigation costs capable of being reasonable financial provision for “maintenance” — Whether claim for reasonable financial provision analogous to financial remedy proceedings — Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (c 63), ss 1(2)(b), 3(1)(a) — Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c 41), s 58A(6)

  FAMILY PROVISION — Child — “Reasonable financial provision” — Daughter making claim for reasonable financial provision out of deceased father’s estate — Whether such provision capable of including amount referable to daughter’s liability to pay conditional fee agreement success fee — Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (c 63), ss 1(2)(b), 3(1)(a) — Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c 41), s 58A(6)

  9 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered

• Darwall v Dartmoor National Park Authority

  13 Jan 2023 [2023] EWHC 35 (Ch); [2023] Ch 141; [2023] 2 WLR 877; [2023] WLR(D) 21, Ch D (Sir Julian Flaux C)

  31 Jul 2023 [2023] EWCA Civ 927; [2024] Ch 107; [2024] 2 WLR 397; [2023] WLR(D) 338, CA (Sir Geoffrey Vos MR, Underhill, Newey LJJ)

  20 Dec 2023 Permission to appeal to Supreme Court given

  21 May 2025 [2025] UKSC 20; [2025] AC 1292; [2025] 2 WLR 1075; [2025] WLR(D) 276, SC(E) (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Sales, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose, Lady Simler JJSC)

  Subsequent citations: 7.
  COMMONS — Common land — Right to roam

  COMMONS — Common land — Right of access

  STATUTE — Construction — Hansard
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  COMMONS — Common land — Right to roam — Statute giving public “right of access” to areas of Dartmoor Commons on foot and on horseback for purpose of “open-air recreation” — Whether conferring right to wild camp — Whether wild camping included in open-air recreation or ancillary to right of access — Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 (c xxxvii), s 10(1)

  COMMONS — Common land — Right of access — Statute giving public right of access to areas of Dartmoor Commons on foot and on horseback for purpose of “open-air recreation” — Whether conferring right to wild camp — Whether wild camping included in open-air recreation — Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 (c xxxvii), s 10(1)

  STATUTE — Construction — Hansard — Use of statements in Parliament to identify background, purpose or mischief at which Act aimed — Whether admissible other than pursuant to rule in Pepper v Hart

  STATUTE — Construction — Hansard — Use of statements in Hansard to identify background and purpose of Act or mischief at which Act aimed — Whether permissible if Act neither ambiguous, nor obscure, nor leading to absurdity

  7 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered

• LA Micro Group (UK) Ltd v Frenkel (Frenkel v La Micro Group (UK) Ltd)

  27 May 2022 [2022] EWHC 1304 (Ch), Ch D (Judge Jarman QC Sitting as a judge of the High Court)

  28 Feb 2023 [2023] EWCA Civ 214; [2024] Ch 1; [2023] 3 WLR 767; [2023] WLR(D) 111, CA (Males, Arnold, Nugee LJJ)

  30 Jun 2023 Permission to appeal to Supreme Court given, , SC(E)

  11 Dec 2024 [2024] UKSC 42; [2025] AC 1442; [2025] 2 WLR 1; [2025] 3 All ER 347; [2025] 2 BCLC 573; [2024] WLR(D) 556, SC(E) (Lord Hodge DPSC, Lord Briggs, Lord Sales, Lord Burrows, Lord Richards JJSC)

  Subsequent citations: 4.
  TRUSTS — Constructive trust — Disposal of shares
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  TRUSTS — Constructive trust — Disposal of shares — Beneficial owner of shares agreeing for valuable consideration to dispose of beneficial interest in shares to shares’ legal owner — Whether disposition invalid for lack of writing — Whether agreement giving rise to constructive trust so as to be effective notwithstanding lack of writing — Law of Property Act 1925 (15 & 16 Geo 5, c 20), s 53(1)(c)(2)

  TRUSTS — Constructive trust — Disposal of shares — Beneficial owner of share agreeing for valuable consideration to dispose of beneficial interest to share’s legal owner — Whether disposition invalid for lack of writing — Whether agreement giving rise to vendor-purchaser constructive trust so as to be effective notwithstanding lack of writing — Whether beneficial interest destroyed upon disposition of share to legal owner — Law of Property Act 1925 (15 & 16 Geo 5, c 20), s 53(1)(c)(2)

  9 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered
• QX v Secretary of State for the Home Department

  21 Sep 2020 [2020] EWHC 2508 (Admin), QBD (Farbey J)

  07 Apr 2022 [2022] EWHC 836 (Admin), QBD (Farbey J)

  22 Nov 2022 [2022] EWCA Civ 1541; [2023] KB 472; [2023] 2 WLR 1103; [2022] WLR(D) 465, CA (Coulson, Nugee, Elisabeth Laing LJJ)

  13 Apr 2023 (appn all) [2023] 1 WLR 1812, SC(E) (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt JJSC)

  05 Aug 2024 [2024] UKSC 26; [2025] AC 995; [2024] 3 WLR 547; [2025] 1 All ER 209; [2024] WLR(D) 376, SC(E) (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Hamblen, Lord Burrows, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose, Lady Simler JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral; most recently considered: 2023. Subsequent citations: 14.
  TERRORISM — Counter-terrorism — Temporary exclusion order
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  TERRORISM — Counter-terrorism — Temporary exclusion order

  TERRORISM — Counter-terrorism — Temporary exclusion order — Secretary of State making temporary exclusion order in respect of claimant and imposing obligations on claimant on return to United Kingdom — Claimant applying for statutory review of Secretary of State’s decision that conditions for making order met — Whether Convention right to fair trial applying on review so as to entitle claimant to certain level of disclosure — Whether claimant to be permitted to cross-examine Secretary of State’s national security witness — Whether Secretary of State to be ordered to tender witness for cross-examination on other aspects of challenge — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), s 3(1), Sch 1, Pt I, arts 6, 8 — Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (c 6), ss 2, 9, 11(2) — CPR rr 3.1(2)(m), 88.25(4)

  TERRORISM — Counter-terrorism — Temporary exclusion order — Secretary of State imposing temporary exclusion order in respect of claimant and imposing obligations on claimant on return to United Kingdom — Claimant applying for statutory review of Secretary of State’s decision to impose order — Whether Convention right to fair trial applying on review so as to entitle claimant to certain level of disclosure — Whether right of abode in United Kingdom constituting “civil right” within meaning of Convention — Whether outcome of review having substantial influence or effect on determination of civil rights involved in related review of obligations — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), s 3(1), Sch 1, Pt I, arts 6, 8 — Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (c 6), ss 2, 9, 11(2)

  14 Case(s) considered

  2 Statutes considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• United Utilities Water Ltd v Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd (United Utilities Water Ltd v Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd)

  15 Jun 2021 [2021] EWHC 1571 (Ch); [2021] 1 WLR 5871; [2021] WLR(D) 343, Ch D (Fancourt J)

  27 Jun 2022 [2022] EWCA Civ 852; [2023] Ch 1; [2022] 3 WLR 1193; [2023] 1 All ER 633; [2022] WLR(D) 276, CA (Asplin, Arnold, Nugee LJJ)

  01 Nov 2022 (appn all) [2023] 1 WLR 592, SC(E) (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Kitchin, Lord Richards JJSC)

  02 Jul 2024 [2024] UKSC 22; [2025] AC 761; [2024] 3 WLR 356; [2024] 4 All ER 825, SC(E) (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Hodge DPSC, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Burrows, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose, Lord Richards JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; most recently considered: 2024. Subsequent citations: 15.
  WATER — Sewerage — Discharge
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  WATER — Sewerage — Discharge — Sewerage undertaker having implied statutory right to discharge surface water and treated effluent into canal — Unauthorised discharge of untreated effluent occurring following heavy rainfall and overload of sewerage system — Whether canal owner having private right of action against sewerage undertaker — Whether owner only having statutory remedy — Water Industry Act 1991 (c 56), ss 94, 117(5), 186(3)

  WATER — Sewerage — Discharge — Agreement between canal owner and sewerage undertaker giving sewerage undertaker right to discharge water from its outfalls into canal — Right terminable on notice from canal owner — Whether agreement ultra vires and void — Whether sewerage undertaker having continuing statutory right to discharge following termination of agreement — Public Health Act 1875 (38 & 39 Vict c 55), ss 16, 18 — Public Health Act 1936 (26 Geo 5 & 1 Edw 8, c 49), ss 15, 22

  WATER — Sewerage — Discharge — Untreated effluent discharged into canal from sewerage undertaker’s outfalls following heavy rainfall — Whether canal owner having private right of action against sewerage undertaker — Whether such action inconsistent with statutory scheme for enforcement of sewerage undertakers’ duties — Water Industry Act 1991 (c 56), ss 117(5), 186(3)

  6 Case(s) considered

  3 Statutes considered
• Zavarco plc v Nasir

  20 Mar 2020 [2020] EWHC 629 (Ch); [2020] Ch 651; [2020] 3 WLR 98; [2020] WLR(D) 236, Ch D (Birss J)

  05 Aug 2021 [2021] EWCA Civ 1217; [2022] Ch 105; [2022] 2 WLR 261; [2022] 2 All ER 388; [2021] WLR(D) 440; The Times, 28 October 2021, CA (Henderson, Warby LJJ, Sir David Richards)

  12 May 2022 (appn all) [2022] 1 WLR 2971, SC(E) ( Lord Hodge DPSC, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt JJSC)

  19 Feb 2025 [2025] UKSC 5; [2025] AC 738; [2025] 2 WLR 340; [2025] 3 All ER 1; [2025] WLR(D) 105, SC(E) (Lord Hodge DPSC, Lord Hamblen, Lord Leggatt, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; most recently considered: 2021. Subsequent citations: 8.
  DEBT — Cause of action — Merger in judgment

  JUDGMENT — Doctrine of merger — Declaratory judgment
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  DEBT — Cause of action — Merger in judgment — Court granting declaration that shares allotted to defendant unpaid for — Company exercising right to forfeit shares — Defendant remaining liable under articles of association to pay for shares — Company bringing claim in debt to recover sum payable — Whether company’s cause of action in debt extinguished by declaratory judgment — Whether doctrine of merger capable of applying to declarations

  DEBT — Cause of action — Merger in judgment — Court granting declaration that shares allotted to defendant unpaid for — Company bringing claim in debt to recover sum payable — Whether company’s cause of action in debt extinguished by merging in declaration — Whether doctrine of merger capable of applying to declarations

  JUDGMENT — Doctrine of merger — Declaratory judgment — Court granting claimant’s application for declaration that shares allotted to defendant unpaid for — Claimant bringing claim in debt to recover sum payable — Whether claimant’s cause of action in debt extinguished by merging in declaration — Whether doctrine of merger capable of applying to declarations — Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (c 27), s 34

  10 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered
• Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust (Purchase v Ahmed, Polmear v Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust)

  04 Nov 2019 [2019] EWHC 2893 (QB), QBD (Master Cook)

  04 Jun 2020 [2020] EWHC 1415 (QB), QBD (Chamberlain J)

  13 Jan 2022 [2022] EWCA Civ 12; [2023] QB 149; [2022] 2 WLR 917; [2023] 1 All ER 140; [2022] WLR(D) 47; The Times, March 21, 2022, CA (Sir Geoffrey Vos MR, Underhill, Nicola Davies LJJ)

  11 Jan 2024 [2024] UKSC 1; [2025] AC 459; [2024] 2 WLR 417; [2024] 2 All ER 681; [2024] WLR(D) 34, SC(E) (Lord Briggs, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt, Lord Burrows, Lady Rose, Lord Richards JJSC, Lord Carloway)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; most recently considered: 2025. Subsequent citations: 5.
  NEGLIGENCE — Psychiatric injury — Legal proximity
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  NEGLIGENCE — Psychiatric injury — Legal proximity — Defendant failing to diagnose primary victim’s life-threatening condition — Secondary victim suffering psychiatric injury after witnessing primary victim’s death from life-threatening condition or its immediate aftermath — Whether legal proximity between defendant and secondary victim

  NEGLIGENCE — Psychiatric injury — Legal proximity — Defendant medical practitioner failing to diagnose primary victim’s life-threatening condition — Close family member suffering psychiatric injury after witnessing primary victim’s subsequent death from condition — Whether legal proximity between defendant and family member so as to give rise to duty of care — Whether analogy with psychiatric injury caused by witnessing death or injury in accident

  13 Case(s) considered
• Argentum Exploration Ltd v The Silver (Argentum Exploration Ltd v Republic of South Africa)

  16 Dec 2020 [2020] EWHC 3434 (Admlty); [2021] QB 585; [2021] 2 WLR 613; [2021] 2 All ER (Comm) 1397; [2021] 2 Lloyd's Rep 1; [2021] WLR(D) 24, QBD (Sir Nigel Teare)

  11 Oct 2022 [2022] EWCA Civ 1318; [2023] KB 195; [2023] 2 WLR 209; [2023] 1 All ER (Comm) 879; [2023] 1 Lloyd's Rep 405; [2022] WLR(D) 395, CA (Popplewell, Andrews, Elisabeth Laing LJJ)

  01 Feb 2023 (appn all) [2023] 1 WLR 988, SC(E) (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Burrows, Lord Stephens JJSC)

  08 May 2024 [2024] UKSC 16; [2025] AC 555; [2024] 2 WLR 1259; [2024] 4 All ER 353; [2024] 2 All ER (Comm) 931, SC(E) (Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs, Lord Hamblen, Lord Leggatt, Lord Richards JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; most recently considered: 2025. Subsequent citations: 10.
  INTERNATIONAL LAW — State immunity — Statutory exception
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INTERNATIONAL LAW — State immunity — Statutory exception — Ship sinking while carrying cargo belonging to foreign government — Claimant salvaging cargo and bringing action in rem against cargo seeking salvage reward — Whether government immune as respects such action — Whether statutory exception to immunity applying by reason of cargo and ship being “in use … for commercial purposes” when cause of action arising — State Immunity Act 1978 (c 33), s 10(4)(a)

  INTERNATIONAL LAW — State immunity — Statutory exception — Ship sinking while carrying cargo belonging to foreign government — Claimant salvaging cargo and bringing action in rem against cargo seeking salvage reward — Whether government immune as respects such action — Whether statutory exception to immunity applying by reason of cargo and ship being “in use … for commercial purposes” when cause of action arising — Whether Receiver of Wreck having power to determine salvage “due” — State Immunity Act 1978 (c 33), s 10(4)(a) — Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (c 21), ss 226, 239

  INTERNATIONAL LAW — State immunity — Statutory exception — Ship sinking while carrying cargo belonging to foreign state — Claimant salvaging cargo and bringing action in rem against cargo seeking salvage reward — Whether foreign state immune as respects such action — Whether statutory exception to immunity applying by reason of cargo and ship being “in use or intended for use for commercial purposes” when cause of action arising — State Immunity Act 1978 (c 33), s 10(4)(a)

  11 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered