Return to Contents Solvalub And Black Holes - A Postscript Paul Matthews Readers will be interested to learn that the High Court of the Isle of Man in September last year followed the Jersey Court of Appeal case of Solvalub v Mark Invents Ltd. [4]in imposing an interlocutory injunction in aid of proceedings pending in England, but where there was no substantive ca of action in the Isle of Man: see Securities and Investment Board v Braff. [5] Previously the Manx courts - like the Jersey courts - had folle English House of Lords’ decision in The Siskina [6], but felt able to take a different course in light of Solvalub. As to territorial jurisdiction, it seems that the terms of the rules on service out of the jurisdiction are framed more widely than in Jersey (and England), so that the litigation in Krohn Gmbh v Varna Shipyard (No.2) [7] probably needs sle of Man counterpart to establish the point. Curiously, it also appears that, at the same time that Solvalub was decided in December 1996, the High Court of the British Virgin Islands reaffirmed its adherence to The Siskina doctrine by refusing to grant a Mareva injunction in aid of a claim to a constructive trust based on a Califodgment, as this was not a claim that could be made in the British Virgin Islands: Koch v Chew [8] . Of course, the judgment of the Jersey Court of Appeal in Solvalub was not available to the British Virgin Islands’ court at the time it made its decision. It remains to be seen how many other of the Commonwealth territories change their practice in light of the statutory changes in England and the caselaw changes in Jersey and the Isle of Man. Paul Matthews is a solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales and a consultant with the firm of Withers, 12, Gough Square, London EC4A 3DE |