Search results

As a legal concept jurisdiction may be considered the right to exercise state authority. Story says that it may be "laid down as a general proposition that all persons and property within the territorial jurisdiction of a sovereign are amenable to the jurisdiction of himself or his courts; and that the exceptions to this rule are such only as by common usage and public policy have been allowed, in order to preserve the peace and harmony of nations, and to regulate their intercourse in a manner best suited to their dignity and rights." (Santissima Trinidad 7 Wheat. 354) It is fully recognized that all land and the marginal sea, to a distance of a marine league at least, is subject to territorial jurisdiction and that the open sea is not within the jurisdiction of any state though vessels sailing upon such seas are within the jurisdiction of the state whose flag they rightfully fly. As Story says exceptions to this rule of exclusive jurisdiction are such "as by common usage and public policy have been allowed, in order to preserve the peace and harmony of nations, and to regulate their intercourse, in a manner best suited to their dignity and rights."

It is the aim of this collection of reports to establish a basis for comparing various seigneurial courts in pre-modern Europe. The contributors are largely medievalists.To come to terms with the subject, a defintion of courts which were seigneurial, given the variety of legal heritages, had to be set up. One of the first observations made was that on the Continent, where central courts were less prominent, there appears to be a more flexible notion of seigneurial jurisdiction. The contributors then look at the variety of jurisdictions in which lords in medieval and early modern Europe governed the legal relations of their vassals. Also the seigneurial jurisdiction is placed within its national context as one variety of courts which co-existed with other forums. Next the authors observe the origin and nature of substantive law which was implemented in the courts. Finally, focus is put on procedure. In England the medieval period witnessed considerable developments in the way in which cases came before the manorial court and how proof of the compainant's claim was ascertained.The reports provide a framework for further study. They demonstrate similarities and differences between seigneurial jurisdictions in England and on the Continent. One significant observation is that seigneurial jurisdictions seemed to have survived longer on the Continent than in England. Moreover, Continental seigneurial courts seemed to have serviced a broader strata of society. Yet, what is perhaps most striking are the similarities in procedure and in the process of custom making which the collected reports uncover.

This paper surveys tax haven legislation and links the literature on tax havens to the literature on asymmetric information. I argue that the core aim of tax haven legislation is to create private information (secrecy) for the users of tax havens. This leads to moral hazard and transaction costs in non-havens. The business model of tax havens is illustrated by using Mauritius and Jersey as case studies. I also provide several real world examples of how secrecy jurisdictions lead to inefficient market outcomes and breach of regulations in non-haven countries. Both developed and developing countries are harmed, but the consequences seem most detrimental to developing countries.

The well established rule that an overseas company that establishes a place of business in Great Britain and does not provide an address for service can be served with process at that place of business1 was thrown into confusion by the insertion into the 1985 Companies Act of several new provisions including a new section 694A(2) which provides that process may only be served on a branch "in respect of the carrying on of the business of the branch".2 The new rules did not purport to change the situation in relation to a place of business falling short of a branch, and thus created the anomaly that it was apparently easier to serve a place of business than a branch. The proper interpretation of these rules arose in Saab v. Saudi American Bank (Court of Appeal, 2 July 1999).3 Before the case was heard by the Court of Appeal, the new Civil Procedure Rules entered into force on 26 April 1999. Under Part 62(2):A company may be served by any method permitted under this Part as an alternative to the methods of service set out in—(a) section 725 of the Companies Act 1985 (service by leaving a document at or posting it to an authorised place);(b) section 695 of that Act (service on overseas companies); and(c) section 694A of that Act (service of documents on companies incorporated outside the UK and Gibraltar and having a branch in Great Britain).Under Part 6.5(6) where a party has not given an address for service, a document may be served on a company not registered in England and Wales at "any place of business of the company within the jurisdiction."