Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Seminar 5 Notes

BCL Law Notes > Conflict of Laws Notes

This is an extract of our Seminar 5 document, which we sell as part of our Conflict of Laws Notes collection written by the top tier of University Of Oxford students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Conflict of Laws Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:



1. Where a decision was given by a foreign court that is not within Brussels regime or other acts eg. Honk Kong, USA, Ruritania


1. Owens Bank (ECR): proceedings to enforce non-member state judgment are outside Article 1, including ancillary or incidental procedures from those proceedings SO

2. If it's a non-MS judgment it doesn't fall within Brussels I

3. Then consider other treaties


1. A foreign judgment will be recognised at common law if (Arden LJ in Aeroflot Russian Airlines): a) the judgment was final and conclusive according to foreign law b) the foreign court had 'international jurisdiction' according to English private international law (which was a restatement of it being a court of competent jurisdiction (ie. Nouvion v Freeman)) c) there are no defences to recognition

2. If these are all satisfied, judgment will be recognised. The person relying on the judgment can also bring English proceedings for enforcement if these three elements are satisfied. The judgment should also be for a fixed sum of money where enforcement.


1. To have a judgment JUST recognised, just need to plead it as res judicata

1 2. TO ENFORCE: Judgment creditor can bring proceedings on the claim at CL, in which the judgment is sued upon as a debt. This is original proceedings in the English courts. Permission for service out of the jurisdiction may be necessary if D is not present.

3. The proceedings are brought on the judgment, rather then the underlying cause of action

4. Once proceedings have been commenced, then apply for summary judgment under CPR 24 (so apply test of: D has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim or issue and there is no other compelling reason why it should be disposed of at a trial).

5. Godard v Gray - so judgment creditor gets a judgment out of this that he then enforces - so he's only ever enforcing the English judgment

6. English court can grant interest on the judgment, even if foreign court couldn't

7. LIMITATION: 6 years from date of foreign judgment

8. Miliangos (UK case) - judgment can be in foreign currency


1. Buchana v Rucker - whether foreign court had jurisdiction is determined by reference to English 'private international' law (so doesn't matter what the foreign court thought of this)

2. Foreign court will be regarded as being competent/having international jurisdiction in two situations: I. SUBMISSION where the judgment-debtor submitted to the II.

jurisdiction of the foreign court (Feyerick v Hubbard) OR SUFFICIENT TERRITORIAL CONNECTION where there is sufficient territorial connection between the judgment-debtor and the

country of origin

3. Other types of connection or factors are irrelevant


2 1. CONTRACT/CONSENT: I. This will often be by virtue of a contractual clause providing for the II.

exclusive or non-exclusive jurisdiction of the foreign court Adams v Cape Industries - Scott J - doesn't need to just be a contractually binding agreement though. For example, if judgment debtor orally consents to foreign court, that may suffice, as long as judgment creditor acts on this before judgment-debtor withdraws his

III. consent Briggs - he says that an implied agreement will only apply in the

clearest of cases

a) Desert Sun Loan Corp - it must be shown that judgment-debtor voluntarily took part in the foreign proceedings in a way accepted by English law as amounting to a voluntary appearance BUT b) Eurofinance v Rubin (SC) - The court emphasised that its approach should not be simply to consider whether steps taken abroad would have been submission in English proceedings, nor whether the foreign court would or would not have regarded the steps taken as submission. The international context requires a broader approach and all the facts need to be considered. c) Adams v Cape Industries - if it doesn't amount to submission in the law of the foreign court, won't be submission (despite it being II.

so in England) Statutory Test For This a) Section 33(1) CJJA 1982 (Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act

III. 1982) means challenging jurisdiction is not submitting What is or isn't submitting a) AES UKH v AES - if D is required, strictly or as a matter of good practice or to make the jurisdictional defence appear genuine, to plead to the merits at the same time as making his jurisdictional

3 challenge, or finds that he is compelled to participate in other procedures to keep his jurisdictional challenge alive, the statutory protection under s.33(1)(a) CJJA 1982 is not lost SIMILARLY b) Marc Rich - as long as clear from D's first defence, rather then in some subsequent one, that he is contesting the foreign court's jurisdiction, his conduct does not amount to submission even if the first defence contains some additional material which constitutes a plea to the merits of the case c) Multiple Parties i. Adams v Cape Industries - submitting to C1 in a foreign country is not implied submission to related proceedings ii.

commenced by C2 in the same court CONTRAST Murthy v Sivajothi - held that it could be where though where joinder would have been permissible between C1 and C2 according to the rules of the foreign court; have to

iii. consider how similar the claims are Rubin v Eurofinance - where a judgment is in personam against D1, it can't be used for enforcement against D2 (ie.

a third party d) Henry v Geoprosco (EWCA)
- asking a foreign court to exercise its discretion to stay proceedings on the basis of forum non conveniens wassubmitting (this is a dated authority pre-CJJA). One view is that if you ask a court not to exercise it's discretion, you're accepting that it does have jurisdiction over


3. INVOKING THE JURISDICTION OF THE ORIGINAL COURT I. Means a) Where judgment-debtor took part in the proceedings as a claimant II.

in some form. Examples

4 a) Emanuel v Symon - taking part in proceedings as a claimant or counterclaiming D means submission b) Murthy v Sivasjothi* - whether a claimant is taken to submit to any and every counterclaim raised against him will depend on whether the counterclaim arises out of the same facts or transaction as his claim or out of facts which are reasonably connected: broad commonsense test applies. Sufficient Territorial Connection

1. INDIVIDUALS a) Adams v Cape Industries (CA)
- D resident + present = foreign state has jurisdiction
- D non-resident + present = foreign state has jurisdiction
- D resident + not present = CA expressly left this open
- BUT NEXT CASE SUGGESTED THIS WOULD BE OKAY b) State Bank of India (CA) - seemed to suggest that either presence or residence on the material date will suffice, either/or will do - Briggs thinks this is a bad idea as 'Residence lacks hard edges' and it too uncertain c) Clarkson - thinks it would odd if presence alone suffices yet not residence d) ME: this is particularly odd when one considers that under 1920 Act and 1933 Act presence alone wouldn't suffice

2. COMPANIES a) CL test is physical presence, which can be either direct or indirect presence (ie. through a representative)
- Direct Presence I. Adams v Cape Industries - company has direct presence in country of origin if 'it has established and maintained at its own expense (whether as owner or lessee) a fixed place of business of its own in the other country and for more than a minimal period of time has carried on its own business at or from such premises by its servants or agents


Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Conflict of Laws Notes.