276:
three-year deal. It signed a very short consulting agreement for the demonstration for £15,000. The parties fell out because the
Secretariat changed internal staff and the new programme office, questioned his predecessor's actions and refused to pay travel expenses and fees for the consulting. Approximately two years later, the Secretariat additionally began to claim ownership of the website developed by the company as well as the software toolkit which Sumukan had used to create its demonstration to the Namibian and South African governments. Sumukan's barrister,
65:
101:
24:
299:
agreed that the matter was one of general public importance. Nevertheless, Justice Colman found that because the
Secretariat's internal rules stated that there was no right of appeal from its tribunal , consequently the company was excluded from bringing the matter up in the UK courts. He gave permission to appeal on this point.
280:
QC of Matrix
Chambers described the situation thus at the hearing of 20 February 2006: 'Imagine that you have engaged a painter to paint your house. When he has finished painting your house, you decide you own his brushes and ladder'. Sumukan values its software toolkit as worth over several hundreds
275:
for expropriating the ownership of its e-commerce software. The
British company said it was asked to demonstrate its software to an African government as part of a Commonwealth aid program. The company said it was told that if the government liked the product they would subsequently license it in a
302:
Sumukan had argued that the internal rules of the
Commonwealth Secretariat, which prevented appeal to the UK courts, combined with the Commonwealth Secretariat Act which granted immunity to the Commonwealth Secretariat was a violation of their Article 6 rights under the European Human Rights Act,
298:
On 20 February 2006, Sumukan's appeal on a point of law relating to ownership of the software was heard in the UK commercial courts. Justice Colman found that the
Commonwealth Secretariat internal tribunal's judgment was indeed open to serious doubt as claimed by the dotcom company. It was also
295:. In February 2005, the three-person panel of Commonwealth jurists found the Commonwealth Secretariat owned all the software used in the demonstration, a decision that UK lawyers have described as 'absurd'.
241:
In this lawsuit, the
Commonwealth Secretariat is being sued in the UK courts by a British dot com company that claims that the Secretariat has expropriated the company's auction and online tender software.
310:
It was also
Justice Colman's view that he did not have substantive jurisdiction to make any ruling on the substantive points of the case. However he went on to say that the judgment of the
118:
37:
291:
The company was forced to take the matter to an internal tribunal set up by the
Commonwealth, all of whose jurists were appointed by the London-born Commonwealth Secretary General
318:
360:
340:
43:
324:
Result of Court of Appeal: Failure to comply with proper procedure in appointing an arbitrator rendered the appointment invalid and the award a nullity.
311:
317:
The company also argued that
Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal exhibits serious irregularities and is not compliant with the requirements of
165:
399:
394:
137:
144:
256:
226:
151:
384:
202:
184:
51:
133:
122:
285:
251:
158:
389:
344:
307:
Article 1 Right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property has been violated by the Commonwealth Secretariat.
304:
222:
272:
111:
284:
Unfortunately for the dotcom company, the diplomatic immunity granted to the Secretariat under the
246:
230:
303:
namely the right to an independent and impartial court. Sumukan has also claimed that their
277:
221:
case was first heard in February 2005 before the internal, administrative tribunal of the
365:
78:
Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.
378:
292:
100:
361:"Power to hear appeal on whether exclusion agreement valid", Times Online
321:, which ensures the right to an independent and impartial tribunal.
259:
has been passed granting it full immunity in the UK. However the
368:
94:
58:
17:
271:
Sumukan Limited, a London-based dot-com start-up, sued the
245:
The Commonwealth Secretariat has in the past relied on its
319:
article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
288:
meant there was no initial access to the UK courts.
225:and on 20 February 2006 an appeal was heard in the
125:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
8:
263:case commenced before this came into force.
52:Learn how and when to remove these messages
312:Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal
218:Sumukan Limited v Commonwealth Secretariat
203:Learn how and when to remove this message
185:Learn how and when to remove this message
255:), but since April 2005, a new act, the
134:"Sumukan Ltd v Commonwealth Secretariat"
332:
366:Sumukan Ltd v Commonwealth Secretariat
7:
257:International Organisations Act 2005
123:adding citations to reliable sources
341:"The Times & The Sunday Times"
14:
286:Commonwealth Secretariat Act 1965
252:Mohsin v Commonwealth Secretariat
33:This article has multiple issues.
99:
63:
22:
400:2006 in United Kingdom case law
395:2005 in United Kingdom case law
110:needs additional citations for
41:or discuss these issues on the
1:
371:188 (Comm) (14 February 2007)
314:was 'open to serious doubt'.
249:to avoid the UK courts (see
416:
233:before Mr Justice Colman.
305:European Human Rights Act
72:This article needs to be
385:Commonwealth Secretariat
281:of thousands of pounds.
223:Commonwealth Secretariat
119:improve this article
247:diplomatic immunity
231:England and Wales
213:
212:
205:
195:
194:
187:
169:
93:
92:
56:
407:
390:English case law
349:
348:
347:on 11 June 2011.
343:. Archived from
337:
227:Commercial Court
208:
201:
190:
183:
179:
176:
170:
168:
127:
103:
95:
88:
85:
79:
67:
66:
59:
48:
26:
25:
18:
415:
414:
410:
409:
408:
406:
405:
404:
375:
374:
357:
352:
339:
338:
334:
330:
278:Rhodri Thompson
269:
239:
209:
198:
197:
196:
191:
180:
174:
171:
128:
126:
116:
104:
89:
83:
80:
77:
68:
64:
27:
23:
12:
11:
5:
413:
411:
403:
402:
397:
392:
387:
377:
376:
373:
372:
363:
356:
355:External links
353:
351:
350:
331:
329:
326:
268:
265:
238:
235:
211:
210:
193:
192:
107:
105:
98:
91:
90:
71:
69:
62:
57:
31:
30:
28:
21:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
412:
401:
398:
396:
393:
391:
388:
386:
383:
382:
380:
370:
367:
364:
362:
359:
358:
354:
346:
342:
336:
333:
327:
325:
322:
320:
315:
313:
308:
306:
300:
296:
294:
289:
287:
282:
279:
274:
266:
264:
262:
258:
254:
253:
248:
243:
236:
234:
232:
228:
224:
220:
219:
207:
204:
189:
186:
178:
175:December 2009
167:
164:
160:
157:
153:
150:
146:
143:
139:
136: –
135:
131:
130:Find sources:
124:
120:
114:
113:
108:This article
106:
102:
97:
96:
87:
84:December 2009
75:
70:
61:
60:
55:
53:
46:
45:
40:
39:
34:
29:
20:
19:
16:
345:the original
335:
323:
316:
309:
301:
297:
293:Don McKinnon
290:
283:
273:Commonwealth
270:
260:
250:
244:
240:
217:
216:
214:
199:
181:
172:
162:
155:
148:
141:
129:
117:Please help
112:verification
109:
81:
73:
49:
42:
36:
35:Please help
32:
15:
379:Categories
328:References
145:newspapers
38:improve it
44:talk page
237:Overview
261:Sumukan
159:scholar
74:updated
161:
154:
147:
140:
132:
166:JSTOR
152:books
369:EWHC
267:Case
215:The
138:news
229:of
121:by
381::
47:.
206:)
200:(
188:)
182:(
177:)
173:(
163:·
156:·
149:·
142:·
115:.
86:)
82:(
76:.
54:)
50:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
