- Cited — Crane Bank Limited & Ors v DFCU Bank Limited & Ors 2023-07-26
“…ational law, or are contrary to English principles of public policy, as well as where there is a grave infringement of human rights”. (Oppenheimer v Cattermole [1976] AC 249, 277–278, per Lord Cross; Kuwait Airways Corpn v Iraqi Airways Co(Nos 4 and 5) [2002] 2 AC 883; Yukos Capital (No 2), paras 69-72.)”…”
- Cited — Crane Bank Limited & Ors v DFCU Bank Limited & Ors 2023-07-26
“… law of this sort was so grave an infringement of human rights that the courts of this country ought to refuse to recognise it at all: Oppenheimer v Cattermole [1976] AC 249, 277-278. When deciding an issue by reference to foreign law, the courts of this country must have residual power, to be exercised exceptionally and with the g…”
- Cited — Koza Ltd & Anor. v Koza Altin Işletmeleri AS 2022-10-07
“…He went on to say at [101] that there may be circumstances in which the English court would take a different view, citing Oppenheimer v Cattermole [1976] AC 249 (which concerned the Nazi race discrimination laws depriving Jewish citizens of their nationality) but said, citing a passage from Briggs: Private Internationa…”
- Cited — Koza Ltd & Anor. v Koza Altin Işletmeleri AS 2022-10-07
“…national law, or are contrary to English principles of public policy, as well as where there is a grave infringement of human rights” (Oppenheimer v Cattermole [1976] AC 249, 277-278, per Lord Cross of Chelsea; Kuwait Airways (Nos 4 and 5) [2002] 2 AC 883 and Yukos Capital (No 2), paras 69–72).…”
- Cited — Koza Ltd & Anor. v Koza Altin Işletmeleri AS 2022-10-07
“…ferred to by Lord Lloyd-Jones in [135(2)], Oppenheimer concerned the Nazi laws depriving Jewish citizens of their nationality and as Lord Cross of Chelsea said [1976] AC 249 at 278C: “To my mind a law of this sort constitutes so grave an infringement of human rights that the courts of this country ought to refuse to recognise it as…”
- Applied — Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office 2022-03-16
“…ion in proceedings here will necessarily be contrary to public policy. The example commonly given is Nazi laws against Jewish citizens (Oppenheimer v Cattermole[1976] AC 249). However, section 14 is not limited to such inherently objectionable laws. It applies to any foreign law whose application would be contrary to English public…”
- Applied — Ukraine v The Law Debenture Trust Corporation Plc (Rev 1) 2018-09-14
“…gislation will not be recognised if it is inconsistent with what are currently regarded as fundamental principles of public policy—see Oppenheimer v Cattermole [1976] AC 249, 277–278, per Lord Cross of Chelsea. This exception also applies where the legislation in question is a serious violation of international law—see Kuwait Airwa…”