Fine points of international law were involved in the recent lawsuit against the Palestine Potash Company which the judges of the King’s Bench adjudicated in favor of the defendants. In this case a concession granted by the Palestine government to Moses Novomeysky and his associates, organizers of the Palestine Potash Co., to exploit the potash and other mineral deposits of the Dead Sea in Palestine was completely upheld by the court. The suit demanding the vacating of Novomeysky’s concession in favor of the plaintiff was dismissed.
At the first hearing of the suit, on July 11, the plaintiff’s lawyers stated their client’s claims. They declared that in 1910 the Sultan of Turkey, then conquerors of Palestine, had conceded the plaintiff’s sole right to extract salt from the waters of the Dead Sea. The defendants, on the other hand, had obtained a similar concession in 1930 from the High Commissioner of Palestine. Thus the dispute was which of the parties had prior rights to exploit the Dead Sea for mineral deposits.
Representing the plaintiffs were Sir Leslie Scott, Gordon Alchin, Quintin Hogg and Kenneth Diplock. Lawyers for the defendants were Sir William Jowitt, J. W. Morris, Leonard Stein and Patrick Devlin. Attorney – General Sir Thomas Inskip and Kenelm Preedy watched the proceedings for the Crown. Mr. Justice Roche presided.
An adjournment of one week was granted to the plaintiffs when Sir Leslie Scott asked for more time to peruse a number of documents which had just come into his hands.
These documents, Sir Scott stated, were important evidence dealing with the point raised by the defense that the English Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the case. He added that as the case included a claim to real property in a foreign country he must admit that the action could not be maintained in an English court unless the plaintiffs’ lawyers could find in the new documents some contractual or equitable tie between the parties that would give jurisdiction.
TRIAL RESUMED JULY 17
On the resumption of the trial on July 17 Sir Scott declared that, after studying the new documents he had come to the conclusion that he could not resist the plea of no jurisdiction which the defense had raised. Therefore, he added, on behalf of his clients he must consent to judgment.
At this point Sir Jowitt adduced evidence that the defendants had carried on business with success for several years, that it had become desirable for their company to extend their operations to the extent of securing additional capital, and that the claim outstanding against them was clearly detrimental.
Sir Jowett also pointed out that the British government had never recognized the plaintiffs’ concession. Moreover, he stated the defense’s plea of no jurisdiction had been before the plaintiffs since December 1932, yet the latter had persisted in their claim. To defend this lawsuit, the defendants had been obliged to incur great expenses in bringing eminent lawyers from Turkey, Palestine and Paris, Sir Jowett added.
“Now the plaintiffs consent to judgment,” the defense lawyer continued. “But my clients must have the action dismissed generally and not on the narrow ground that there was no jurisdiction to deal with real property abroad. The plaintiffs’ claim was entirely unfounded, and I ask that the action be dismissed generally, with costs on the higher scale declared in favor of the defendants.”
After a brief recess Justice Roche pronounced the decision. He said that as no evidence or argument had been put before him he would simply give judgment for the defendants with costs. Admitting that he did not know enough about the case, since the facts had not been gone into extensively, the justice added that he could not make a definite order himself on the question of costs on the higher scale. However, he directed that the Taxing Master should consider the position and if in his discretion it was found proper to do so the Master should allow costs to the higher scale.
Aside from the final findings by Justice Roche, lawyers here showed deep interest in the points of international law involved. In replying to the plea of “no jurisdiction” at the July 11 hearing, Sir Scott admitted that the concession granted by the Sultan to his clients deal with real property, or what in international law was called “immovables.” In view of this, Sir Scott said, the English courts had no jurisdiction over immovable property situated in another country.
“There was a demise of land contiguous to the Dead Sea for setting up a factory,” Sir Scott continued, “and I am obliged to admit that the court has no jurisdiction unless I can establish a contractual or equitable obligation on the defendants which the plaintiffs are seeking to enforce. No pleading has been put in of such contractual or equitable obligation because my clients had not had enough knowledge of the facts.”
It was then that Sir Scott made a request for a week’s adjournment, so as to study the new documents secured by the plaintiffs and in which he indicated a relationship of equitable obligation might be discovered.
Novomeysky, who is a Jewish chemical engineer, graduated from Russian technical schools and who fled from Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution, has been in Palestine since 1918. After many attempts he obtained the concession in 1930 and organized the Palestine Potash Ltd., of which he is managing director.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
