英语论文网

see 8(1) Halsbury's Laws (4th edn reissue) para 1092, and for cases on the subject, see 11(2) Digest 423–521 3185–3223.
Cases referred to in opinions
2 April 1998. The following opinions were delivered.

LORD GOFF OF CHIEVELEY.
The reasoning of the Court of Appeal
The submissions of the defendants before the Appellate Committee
Conclusion
For the reasons I have given, I would allow the appeal on the first issue, and set aside the injunction ordered by the Court of Appeal. It follows that the question of oppression does not arise. Had it done so the result would have been that the appeal would have been allowed on the terms of the undertakings offered by the defendants at the end of the hearing, with the effect that Airbus would have had the benefit of the undertakings, and there would have been an order for costs against the defendants. On the conclusion I have reached, however, that stage in the argument is not reached, and in my opinion the appeal should be allowed with costs, both before your Lordships' House and in the courts below. It should not however be inferred from the mere fact that your Lordships have not reviewed the decision of the Court of Appeal to interfere with Colman J's exercise of his discretion that, had the point arisen, your Lordships would necessarily have approved of the decision of the Court of Appeal in this respect.
Postscript
I have no doubt that it will be of some comfort to your Lordships, though of none to Airbus, that the State of Texas has now, like other common law jurisdictions, adopted the principle of forum non conveniens, so that the situation which has arisen in the present case is unlikely to arise again. The principle is now so widespread that it may come to be accepted throughout the common law world; indeed, since it is founded upon the exercise of self-restraint by independent jurisdictions, it can be regarded as one of the most civilised of legal principles. Whether it will become acceptable in civil law jurisdictions remains however to be seen.

LORD SLYNN OF HADLEY.
My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Goff of Chieveley. For the reasons he gives I would allow the appeal.

LORD STEYN.
My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Goff of Chieveley. For the reasons contained in his speech I would also allow the appeal.

LORD CLYDE.
My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Goff of Chieveley. For the reasons which he has given I would also allow the appeal.

LORD HUTTON.
My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Goff of Chieveley. For the reasons留学生论文which he has given I also would allow the appeal.
Appeal allowed.
Celia Fox Barrister.

 

本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。