Orenstein & Koppel - Arthur Koppel (A.G.) v. Egyptian Phosphate Co., Ltd [1914] ScotLR 54 (06 November 1914)

Orenstein & Koppel - Arthur Koppel (A.G.) v. Egyptian Phosphate Co., Ltd [1914] ScotLR 54 (06 November 1914)

The pursuers' London office was not a 'branch' within the meaning of article 6 of the Proclamation, but merely an agency; payment under the contract was not a 'transaction' as contemplated by the Proclamation. The Court was precluded from granting decree for payment to an enemy corporation during wartime, absent express licence. The proper course was to sist the action.

Citation
[1914] ScotLR 54
Parties
Pursuer: Orenstein & Koppel - Arthur Koppel (A. G.); Defender: Egyptian Phosphate Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 November 1914
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court Interlocutor, Motion for Hearing During Wartime
Outcome
note refused; process sisted hoc statu
Legal Topics
Trading With the Enemy, Enemy Corporation, Branch Vs Agency, Prohibition of Payments, Court Discretion During War
Commercial Law International Law Wartime Law Trading With the Enemy Enemy Corporation Branch Vs Agency Prohibition of Payments Court Discretion During War

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Orenstein & Koppel - Arthur Koppel (A. G.)

Pursuer

Egyptian Phosphate Company, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court Interlocutor, Motion for Hearing During Wartime

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a German company with a London office constitutes a 'branch' under Trading with the Enemy Proclamation No. 2, 1914, article 6
  2. 2 Whether payment under a pre-war contract is a 'transaction' within the meaning of the Proclamation
  3. 3 Whether the Court is precluded from granting decree for payment to an enemy corporation during wartime

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' London office was not a 'branch' within the meaning of article 6 of the Proclamation, but merely an agency; payment under the contract was not a 'transaction' as contemplated by the Proclamation. The Court was precluded from granting decree for payment to an enemy corporation during wartime, absent express licence. The proper course was to sist the action.

Court Disposition

note refused; process sisted hoc statu

Orders

  • prayer of the note refused
  • process sisted hoc statu