Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Seaconsar Far East Limited V. Bank Markazi Notes

BCL Law Notes > Conflict of Laws BCL Notes

This is an extract of our Seaconsar Far East Limited V. Bank Markazi document, which we sell as part of our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

EACONSAR FAR EAST LIMITED V. BANK MARKAZI S

FACTS By a contract dated 30 June 1986, the plaintiffs agreed to sell a quantity of artillery
shells to the Iranian Ministry of Defence. Payment was to be by letter of credit, and on
15 January 1987 the defendant bank opened a letter of credit in favour of the plaintiffs.
As amended, it was payable at sight on presentation to a London bank of specified
documents and compliance with certain conditions. The plaintiffs made two
shipments of shells pursuant to the contract and made a presentation of documents to
the London bank in respect of each shipment. The defendant bank failed or refused
to make payment in respect of both presentations on the ground that the documents
presented were not in conformity with the requirements of the letter of credit. The
plaintiffs brought proceedings against the defendant bank for damages for breach of
contract, and Hobhouse J. granted them leave ex parte to serve the proceedings on the
bank outside the jurisdiction under R.S.C., Ord. 11.1. Leave to serve the proceedings
on Bank Markazi outside the jurisdiction was granted to Seaconsar ex parte by
Hobhouse J. Bank Markazi then applied to set aside the order of Hobhouse J. in
respect of both presentations. Seaconsar applied for leave to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction under either
paragraph (d) or paragraph (e) of R.S.C., Ord. 11, r. 1(1). The application under
paragraph (d) was made either under sub­paragraph (i), on the basis that the contract
was made within the jurisdiction, or under sub­paragraph (ii), on the basis that the
contract was made by or through Bank Melli, as agent trading within the
jurisdiction, for Bank Markazi, which was outside the jurisdiction. The application
under paragraph (e) was on the basis of breach of contract within the jurisdiction, viz.
refusal to pay at the counters of Bank Melli in London. Bank Markazi has never
disputed that the case fell under either paragraph (d) or paragraph (e), its sole
contention being that Seaconsar had not established a sufficiently strong case on
the merits of its claim ISSUES (1) What is the test of a sufficiently strong case on the merits to justify the grant to a
plaintiff of leave to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction under Order 11?
(2) Whether Seaconsar has satisfied this test in relation to the merits of the following
issues. HOLDING The relevant provisions as it stood then were, Order 11, Paragraphs 1 and 2. They
read: "(1) An application for the grant of leave under rule 1(1) must be supported by
an affidavit stating ­ (a) the grounds on which the application is made, (b) that
in the deponent's belief the plaintiff has a good cause of action, (c) in what
place or country the defendant is, or probably may be found, and (d) where the
application is made under rule 1(1)(c), the grounds for the deponent's belief

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes.

More Conflict Of Laws Bcl Samples