Sirte Oil Company For Production, Manufacturing Of Oil & Gas v Kreimeia [2002] EWCA Civ 664 (2 May 2002)

Sirte Oil Company For Production, Manufacturing Of Oil & Gas v Kreimeia [2002] EWCA Civ 664 (2 May 2002)

The applicant admitted corrupt and unlawful conduct, and the English court had jurisdiction as he was served within the jurisdiction and failed to object in time. The claimant was properly authorised to bring proceedings. There was no unfairness or breach of human rights, and no risk of double recovery was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 664
Parties
Claimant: Sirte Oil Company for Production, Manufacturing of Oil and Gas; Third Defendant/applicant: Abdullah Kreimeia
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Capacity to Sue, Fiduciary Duty, Dishonest Assistance, Constructive Trust, Bribery and Corruption, Fair Trial, Forum Non Conveniens
Civil Procedure Company Law Fiduciary Law Jurisdiction Capacity to Sue Fiduciary Duty Dishonest Assistance Constructive Trust +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sirte Oil Company for Production, Manufacturing of Oil and Gas

Claimant

Abdullah Kreimeia

Third Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court had jurisdiction over the claim against the applicant
  2. 2 Whether the claimant had capacity under Libyan law to bring proceedings in England
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied a fair trial due to lack of legal representation

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant admitted corrupt and unlawful conduct, and the English court had jurisdiction as he was served within the jurisdiction and failed to object in time. The claimant was properly authorised to bring proceedings. There was no unfairness or breach of human rights, and no risk of double recovery was established. Permission to appeal was refused as there was no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • application for permission to appeal refused
  • no stay of execution granted