Anglo-Czechoslovak Credit Bank v Janssen

• Jurisdiction: Victoria
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judgment Date: 23 August 1943
• Docket Number: Case No. 11
• Date: 23 August 1943

Australia, Supreme Court of Victoria.

Case No. 11

Anglo-Czechoslovak & Prague Credit Bank

and

Janssen.

Recognition of Acts of Foreign States — De facto Occupation — Decrees Affecting Occupied Territory — Effect on Corporation in Occupied Territory.

Recognition — Implied — Continued Recognition of Consuls — Effect of.

Consuls — Continued Recognition of Consul — Whether Evidence of Recognition of Consul's Government — De jure and de facto Recognition.

Trading with the Enemy — Licence to Trade — Limits of — Whether Constituting Licence to Sue in Courts as Plaintiff — Whether Licence Operates Retrospectively.

War — Enemy Character — Enemy Corporation with Licence to Trade — Whether Enemy Corporation can give Valid Retainer or Appear as Plaintiff.

Recognition — Of Annexation — German Occupation of Czechoslovakia — De facto and de jure Recognition — De facto Occupation — Decrees of Occupying Government — Effect on Corporation in Occupied Territory — Certificate of Minister of State — Judicial Notice of Notorious Occupation — Recognition of Consul — Whether Enemy Corporation can give Valid Retainer or Appear as Plaintiff — Licence to Trade.

The Facts.—The plaintiff Bank, which claimed to be a body corporate under the law of Czechoslovakia, brought an action to recover the amount of certain bills of exchange, of which it was the holder, against Joseff Janssen, as acceptor of the bills. The Bank had a branch in England, and was registered as a foreign corporation under the Companies Act, 1929 (19 & 20 Geo. 5, c. 23). The present summons was taken out by the defendant for an order staying or dismissing the action on the ground, inter alia, that the plaintiff Bank no longer existed as a corporate entity. Affidavits filed by the defendant stated: “(a) That on the 15th March 1939 Germany invaded and occupied, and since that time had remained in occupation, of the whole of Czechoslovakia, and had taken and retained effective control of the administration of that country. (b) That, in or about October 1940, the German authorities in control of Czechoslovakia made a decree or law for that country whereby the plaintiff corporation was dissolved, and that a consequence of that decree or law was that the plaintiff no longer had any corporate existence under the law of Czechoslovakia.” The defendant argued that, if these facts were established, it followed (i) that Germany having assumed responsibility for the government and administration of Czechoslovakia, it was entitled to do all things within that territory which a sovereign authority in that country could do; (ii) that, when in Australian Courts it was necessary to apply the law of Czechoslovakia to a given matter, the Courts must apply, since March 15, 1939, the law which Germany had decreed should regulate the relations of the inhabitants of the country to one another and to the government; (iii) that as by that law the plaintiff corporation had ceased to be a corporate entity, it could no longer be recognized as such in...