- Cited — Nokia Technologies OY & Anor. v OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co, Ltd & Ors. 2022-07-11
“…efinition prejudge the outcome of the forum conveniens analysis, as the Court of Appeal decided had occurred at first instance in Re Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd [1992] Ch 72. Harman J had characterised ‘the case’ as a petition under the English Companies Act for relief for unfair prejudice in the conduct of the affairs of an Englis…”
- Distinguished — Nokia Technologies OY & Anor. v OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co, Ltd & Ors. 2022-07-11
“…e based on different patents. But in this part of Floyd LJ’s judgment he was distinguishing the facts of Conversant from those in Re Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd [1992] Ch 72. As I understand the judgment, Floyd LJ was making the point that in Harrods (Buenos Aires) the underlying dispute between the parties would be the same whethe…”
- Cited — Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co Ltd v Celgard, LLC (Rev 1) 2020-10-09
“…In support of this argument, counsel for Senior relied upon the decision of this Court in Re Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd [1992] Ch 72. In that case Ladenimor SA, a company incorporated in Switzerland, owned 49% of the shares in the subject company, which was incorporated in England, but whose…”
- Cited — Huawei Technologies Co, Ltd v Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. 2019-01-30
“…aracterised in a way which does not risk pre-judging the analysis of where the appropriate forum lies. The appellants relied heavily on re Harrods Buenos Aires [1992] Ch 72 to illustrate this point. In that case, a company registered under the English Companies Act, having its registered office in England, had carried on business …”
- Cited — Orexim Trading Ltd v Mahavir Port And Terminal Private Ltd & Ano 2018-07-13
“…HHJ Waksman QC answered the first question “No” on the authority of the decision of this court in Re Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd [1992] Ch 72. In reaching that conclusion he held that Flaux J was wrong to have arrived at the contrary conclusion in Erste Group Bank AG (London) v JSC (VMZ Red October) …”