Podgorica v Bishopscourt (BB&Co) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1468 (10 October 2002)

Podgorica v Bishopscourt (BB&Co) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1468 (10 October 2002)

The defendant's expert evidence on Yugoslav law was insufficient to demonstrate a real prospect of defending the claim under the indemnity. There was no compelling reason for a trial, and summary judgment was appropriate.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1468
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Montenegrobanka AD Podgorica; Defendant/applicant: Bishopscourt (BB&CO) Limited (In Liquidation)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Indemnity, Guarantee, Summary Judgment, Foreign Law, Finality of Judgment
Commercial Law Banking Law Indemnity Guarantee Summary Judgment Foreign Law Finality of Judgment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Montenegrobanka AD Podgorica

Claimant/respondent

Bishopscourt (BB&CO) Limited (In Liquidation)

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant had a real prospect of defending the claim under the indemnity based on Yugoslav law
  2. 2 Whether there was a compelling reason for a trial despite summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's expert evidence on Yugoslav law was insufficient to demonstrate a real prospect of defending the claim under the indemnity. There was no compelling reason for a trial, and summary judgment was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • Summary judgment stands