- Cited — Vale SA v BHP Group (UK) Ltd & Anor 2023-11-24
“… for the Part 20 claim. The leading authorities are Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex [1987] AC 460 (“Spiliada”), AK Investment CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Limited [2011] UKPC 7, [2012] 1 WLR 1804(“Altimo”), and Vedanta Resources Plc v Lungowe UKSC 20, [2020] AC 1045 (“Lungowe”). All are referred to and analysed in the judge’s judgment…”
- Cited — Crane Bank Limited & Ors v DFCU Bank Limited & Ors 2023-07-26
“…ion in a developing area, and accordingly was not suitable for determination on a summary basis: see Altimo Holdings and Investments Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7; [2012] 1 WLR 1804 per Lord Collins at [84]. At the hearing of the appeal Lord Pannick KC, for the appellants, advanced that contention only in relation to the…”
- Applied — Dr Craig Steven Wright & Ors v BTC Core (a partnership) & Ors 2023-07-20
“…laim. This means that the claim must have a real (as opposed to a fanciful) prospect of success: see Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobile Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7, [2012] 1 WLR 1804 at [71] (Lord Collins of Mapesbury). This requirement applies to each cause of action asserted in the claim.…”
- Cited — Tulip Trading Limited (a Seychelles company) v Wladimir Jasper van der Laan & Ors. 2023-02-03
“…as opposed to fanciful prospect of success, and is the same as the test for summary judgment (see e.g. AltimoHoldings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7, [2012] 1 WLR 1804 at paragraphs 71 and 82, Vedanta Resources v Lungowe [2019] UKSC 20, [2020] AC 1045 at paragraph 42).…”
- Cited — Koza Ltd & Anor. v Koza Altin Işletmeleri AS 2022-10-07
“…statement of the principle enunciated by Lord Collins giving the judgment of the Privy Council in Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Limited [2011] UKPC 7; [2012] 1 WLR 1804 (“Altimo Holdings”) at [83] to [86], in particular at [84]:…”
- Cited — Koza Ltd & Anor. v Koza Altin Işletmeleri AS 2022-10-07
“…[2011] UKPC 7…”
- Cited — Nokia Technologies OY & Anor. v OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co, Ltd & Ors. 2022-07-11
“…a to show that England is “clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for the trial of the dispute” (Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7,[2012] 1 WLR 1804 at [71] (Lord Collins of Mapesbury)). In the case of the English Defendants, the burden lies upon OPPO to show that another forum is more app…”
- Cited — Município de Mariana v BHP Group (UK) Ltd & Anor. 2022-07-08
“…[2011] UKPC 7, [2012] 1 WLR 1804,…”
- Explained — London Steam-Ship Owners' Mutual Ins Assoc Ltd v Kingdom of Spain 2021-11-04
“…The applicable principles are not in dispute. As explained in Altimo Holdings & Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd[2011] UKPC 7, [2012] 1 WLR 1804 at [71], a claimant must satisfy three requirements. First, there must be a serious issue to be tried on the merits of the claim. This is eq…”
- Cited — Manek & Ors v IIFL Wealth (UK) Ltd & Ors (2) 2021-05-04
“… is generally an inappropriate approach for this Court to take on grounds of both comity and caution: see Konamaneni, AK Investment CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7 at [97]and more recently, Fraser J in HRH Okpapi v Royal Dutch Shell Plc [2017] EWHC 89 (TCC) at [121].…”
- Cited — Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co Ltd v Celgard, LLC (Rev 1) 2020-10-09
“…Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7, [2012] 1 WLR 1804 at [71] (Lord Collins of Mapesbury).…”
- Cited — E D & F Man Capital Markets Ltd v Straits (Singapore) PTE Ltd 2019-11-26
“…ge itself) is limited to a contention that the third requirement for grant of permission to serve out restated by Lord Collins in AK Investments v Kyrgyz Mobil [2011] UKPC 7 has not been met, in other words the requirement that England is the proper place in which to bring the claim. It is accepted by Straits that the first two req…”
- Cited — E D & F Man Capital Markets Ltd v Straits (Singapore) PTE Ltd 2019-11-26
“…[2011] UKPC 7…”
- Explained — Airbus S.A.S. v Generali Italia S.P.A. & Ors 2019-05-14
“…hether it is sufficiently arguable. This is well established, as Lord Collins of Mapesbury explained in Altimo Holdings & Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7, [2012] 1 WLR 1804 at [81]:…”
- Explained — Eurasia Sports Ltd v Aguad 2018-07-24
“…) that in all the circumstances England is clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for the trial of the dispute: see Altimo Holdings v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7; [2012] 1 WLR 1804 at [71] as explained in Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Inc [2017] UKSC 80; [2018] 1 WLR 192 at [7]. Each of those requirements remains in …”
- Cited — Iiyama (UK) Limited & Ors. v Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2018-02-16
“…me. Further, the principles applicable to paragraph 3.1 of Practice Direction 6B were restated by the Privy Council in AK InvestmentCJSC v KyrgyzMobile Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7, [2012] 1 WLR 1804, at [71], [81] and [88], as summarised by the Court of Appeal in VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp [2012] EWCA Civ 808, [2012] 2…”
- Followed — Iiyama (UK) Limited & Ors. v Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2018-02-16
“…ee basic principles were recently restated by Lord Collins of Mapesbury in giving the advice of the Privy Council in AK Investment CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobile Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7, 1 CLC 205 at paragraphs 71, 81 and 88. They can be summarised as follows: first, the claimant must satisfy the court that, in relation to the foreign defendan…”
- Cited — Okpabi & Ors v Royal Dutch Shell Plc & Anor (Rev 1) 2018-02-14
“…ay be fundamental to the court’s jurisdiction was addressed by Lord Collins giving the judgment of the Privy Council in Altimo Holdings v. Kirgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7, and was not in issue before us.…”