by tubby » Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:54 pm
7.32pm: At least there are some law-talking guys reading this, one of whom has responded to Colin Prudhoe's earlier digging (7:13pm) ...
I'm afraid it's not as simple as in your para at 7.13. The link you show refers to the district court's jurisdiction as between itself and other domestic courts. The complex rules that govern whether the Dallas court should have seised itself of jurisdiction is covered by private international law. The Dallas court granted its TRO in an ex parte hearing – which means Liverpool didn't have a chance to put their case forward. If they were there, Liverpool would have argued that Dallas should decline jurisdiction or stay its action on the grounds on forum non conveniens, that is, the English Court was much more suitable than the Dallas court and had, in any case, been first seised of the proceedings. Sorry for the latin, they still use it sometimes in law.