Of course it's just a tree.  What does it look like ?
RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives
  
 
 

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

 
<== Previous message       Back to index       Next message ==>
Sender:
Lionel Smith
Date:
Wed, 22 Jan 1997 14:56:48 +0000
Re:
Polly Peck

 

Greetings to all,

Re Polly Peck is now available from the list. Thanks to Peter Birks for the transcript and to the Tutors' Secretary for scanning it.

The case involves an application to begin proceedings against a company in administration (ie Polly Peck). The judge had to be satisfied that there was a seriously arguable case being put forward.

The essence of the claim was an argument that PP's subsidiaries trespassed on land in Northern Cyprus belonging to the plaintiffs. The background of course is that the subs were occupying the land pursuant to "expropriation" by the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which has not been recognized by any state except Turkey. PP profited on the sale of its shares in the subs. The argument now was that the profits were held on constructive trust for the plaintiffs. The wrong alleged to have been committed by PP was in the nature of encouraging or procuring the trespass.

Of course there is a jurisdictional issue deriving from the Mocambique rule (no adjudication of title to foreign land).

Rattee J allowed the application. The decision it is seriously arguable that the English courts would have jurisdiction seems questionable to me, and I would be interested to know what someone who (unlike me) actually has a clue about conflicts thinks about this. The stuff about the claim itself is all very interesting too, weakened of course by the fact that all Rattee J had to do was decide whether there was a seriously arguable case. But he thought it was seriously arguable that a remedial constructive trust could be established in an English court as a way of securing the disgorgement of such a gain, even though he rejected any argument that there was a fiduciary relationship.

If you want your very own copy, send an email to ‹majordomo@maillist.ox.ac.uk›, leave the subject blank, and in the body of the message put

get restitution polly.txt

Cheers,

 

Lionel

Lionel Smith
St. Hugh's College
Oxford, U.K.
OX2 6LE
Tel (0)1865 274 966; Fax (0)1865 274 912
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lawf0014/lionel.html


<== Previous message       Back to index       Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "


     
Webspace provided by UCC   »
»
»
»
»
For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.
only search restitution site

 
 Contact the webmaster !