The House of Lords’ Decision in Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2)
1. Introduction
This essay will analyse the case of Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2). In this case, it was alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendant had been involved in a plot to cheat. The question for the court was whether the English court had jurisdiction to try the case. The House of Lords held that the English court did not have jurisdiction and that the case should be tried in Germany.
2. Facts of the case
The facts of the case are as follows:
The plaintiffs were a group of companies based in Canada. The defendant was a German national who resided in England. The defendant owned a company called Universal General Insurance Co, which was based in England.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had been involved in a plot to cheat them out of money. They claimed that the defendant had set up a fraudulent scheme in which he would sell insurance policies to people who did not need them. The plaintiffs claimed that they had been tricked into buying these policies and that they had lost money as a result.
The plaintiffs brought a claim against the defendant in the High Court of England. They argued that the English court had jurisdiction to hear the case because the defendant was domiciled in England.
The defendant denied that he was domiciled in England and argued that the English court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. He argued that the case should be tried in Germany, where his company was based.
3. Issue
The issue in this case is whether the English court has jurisdiction to hear the case.
4. Decision of the House of Lords
The House of Lords held that the English court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case and that it should be tried in Germany.
5. Reasoning of the House of Lords
The House of Lords gave two reasons for its decision. Firstly, they held that the defendant was not domiciled in England. They said that a person can only be domiciled in one country at a time and that, although the defendant may have been resident in England, he was not domiciled there.
Secondly, the House of Lords held that even if the defendant had been domiciled in England, the English court would not have had jurisdiction to hear the case. They said that, although some of the events giving rise to the claim may have taken place in England, most of them took place in Germany. They said that, as a result, it would be more appropriate for the case to be tried in Germany.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, this essay has analysed the case of Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2). The question for the court was whether the English court had jurisdiction to try the case. The House of Lords held that it did not have jurisdiction and that it should be tried in Germany instead.