CASE LAWS IN FOREIGN TORTS

MACHADO V. FONTES

The plaintiff sued the defendant for libel alleged to have been published against him in Brazil and it was held to be no defence to the action that in Brazil libel is a crime but not a civil injury.

THE HALLEY

• A British vessel, while under the navigation of a Belgian pilot in Belgian waters, collided owing to the pilot's negligence with a Norwegian barge. The owner of the barge claimed damages in England against the Halley.
• According to Belgian law even though the Halley was compelled to accept the services of the pilot still it was not exempted from liability for negligence.
• According to English law, there was no liability. The court, therefore, held that the Halley was not liable.
• This concludes that even though the defendant's conduct is not justifiable by foreign law if it justifiable by the state law where the action is brought no action would lie.
• A rule which is right within a state should not become wrong simply because it is considered wrong elsewhere.

PHILLIPS V. EYRE (1870)

Edward John Eyre, the governor of Jamaica ordered a forceful response, which led to the deaths of numerous Jamaicans.

When he returned to England, several Jamaicans sued him for trespass to the person and false imprisonment.

The court held that Eyre could not be sued for his conduct in Jamaica.

KOOP V. BESS 

• The action was brought before a court in the state of Victoria in Australia claiming damages under the Fatal Accidents Act for the death of an individual.
• The injury which caused the death was negligently inflicted in another state in Australia viz. South Wales.
• The trial judge in the Victorian Supreme court dismissed the action, holding that the words of the Victorian Act:  " whenever the death of a person is caused by a wrongful act, neglect or default in Victoria".
• Accordingly, he held that no action lay under the Victorian Act.
• This decision was reversed by the High court which disagreed with the construction of the Victorian Act.
• Thus, these were the English common law rules laid down in Phillips V. Eyer.
• that the act must not be justifiable according to lex loci delicti commissi ( where was the wrongful act done)
• actionable by lex fori 
• That is, the negligent act of this case was actionable by the law of Victoria, the lex fori. And by New South Wales being the lex loci delicti commissi.
• In the above case, it is South Wales.

BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA CO. V. COMPANHIA DE MOCAMBIQUE

The plaintiff company sued the defendant in England for trespass on their mines in South Africa but the House of Lords dismissed the action.

But if the defendant is in England and is subject to some personal obligation arising out of contract; fraud, the court would then entertain the action.

PENN V. BALTIMORE

• Penn was the owner of land in Pennsylvania and Lord Baltimore was the owner of land in Maryland.
• The dispute between them arose and they settled it by an agreement.
• It was held that Lord Baltimore can be sued in England for specific performance of the agreement for it is a personal remedy available in England against him.

CHAPLIN V. BOYS

• The respondent, the plaintiff in the action, was injured in a road accident in Malta caused by the admitted negligence of the appellant - defendant in the action.
• The respondent sustained serious injuries and sued for damages before an English court.
• Both were British servicemen temporarily posted in Malta.
• Under the Maltese law, the plaintiff could recover only financial loss directly suffered.
• No damages could be recovered for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities whereas under English law could be recovered.
• Applying the law of lex loci delicti, the place where the tort took place, no damages should be awarded for pain and suffering.
• The House of Lords, rejecting that contention, allowed the claim for pain and suffering as well.

In short, the modern rule with regard to Foreign torts deduced from leading cases can be stated thus:

As a general rule, an act done in  a foreign country is a tort and actionable as such in the mother state only if it is both:

• actionable as a tort according to the law of the mother state or, in other words, is an act which if done in the mother state would be a tort, and
• actionable according to the law of the foreign country where it was done.

COUPLAND V. ARABIAN GULF PETROLEUM CO.

• The Plaintiff was a maintenance technician living and domiciled in Scotland.
• The defendants were a Nationalized oil company in Libya which was registered in England under Part X of the Companies Act,1948.
• In January 1978, the plaintiff was employed by the defendants through agents in London to work for them in Libya.
• The contract of employment having been duly made in London, the plaintiff worked in Libya until December 1978, when he had a serious accident at work.
• As a result of his injuries, he returned to Scotland and was thereafter paid certain sums under the Libyan Social security and labor laws, and also a sum of money under an insurance policy against accidental injury taken out by the defendants.
• The plaintiff began proceedings against the defendants in England for damages for personal injuries.
• By their defence the defendants claimed that the proper law applicable to the contract or obligation owed by the defendants to the plaintiff was Libyan law.
• The court refused the defendant's application to strike out the claim but ordered that a preliminary issue be tried whether the plaintiff's claim was governed by Libyan law.
• Under the Libyan Civil Code, the law as to tortious liability was the same as English law except as to damages, in respect of which Libyan law provided that social security and labor payments made to a plaintiff by the state were not to be deducted in the assessment of damages.