Law Notes Conflict of Laws Notes
Conflict of Laws notes fully updated for recent exams in the UK. These notes cover all the major conflicts of laws cases and so are perfect for anyone doing a law degree in the UK or, given the international nature of this subject, these notes also make a great supplement for those studying law abroad.
These notes were formed directly from a reading of the cases and main texts and are vigorous, concise and very well written. Everything is conveniently split up by topic as you can see by the l...
The following is a more accessible 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:
RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS
Are three categories into which judgments obtained abroad fall:
Judgments obtained in Member States (Brussels Regulation)
Judgments obtained in non-Member States (common law)
Judgments covered by bilateral treaties
COMMON LAW
RECOGNITION
Recognition is treating claim decided abroad as having been determined once and for all
For foreign judgment to be recognised in England:
Parties to both proceedings must be identical
Proceedings must have same cause of action of same issue
Judgment must be final and conclusive (see below)
Where foreign judgment entitled to recognition, can be:
Cause of action estoppel
i.e. C cannot bring claim in respect of same cause of action litigated abroad
Issue estoppel
i.e. C cannot argue a preliminary issue which has already been decided by foreign court
Relevance
D relies on foreign judgment given in D’s favour as defence to English proceedings
see below
D relies on foreign judgment given in C’s favour to prevent double-recovery by C
CJAA 1982 section 34
no proceedings may be brought by C on a cause of action in respect of which C has obtained judgment in his favour abroad
unless foreign judgment is unenforceable in England
however s.34 is not a mandatory provision
thus D may waive protection of s.34 where:
he consents to English courts’ jurisdiction
or he enters contrary agreement
The Indian Grace [1993]
C relies on issue estoppel from foreign judgment to show D submitted to foreign courts (and thus prevent D contesting enforcement)
e.g. where factual issues determined by foreign court prove that under English conflicts of laws rules D submitted to foreign proceedings, D estopped from arguing that foreign court did not have competent jurisdiction
Desert Sun Loan Corp v Hill [1996]
ENFORCEMENT
For judgment to be enforceable at common law, three conditions must be satisfied:
Judgment must be enforceable
Original court must be one of competent jurisdiction
Must be no defences to enforcement
Enforceable Judgments
To be enforceable, foreign judgment must be:
Final and conclusive
Judgment of a court
For a fixed debt or sum of money
Final and Conclusive
‘final’: i.e. cannot be reopened in the court which made the ruling
However judgment may be ‘final’ even if it can be appealed to a higher court
is simply case here that English courts may stay proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal
Colt Industries v Sarlie (No 2) [1966]
‘conclusive’: i.e. it represents court’s settled conclusion on merits of point adjudicated
no need for this to be the final judgment in case
i.e. judgment on a procedural matter can be ‘conclusive’, provided the view of court is not subject to revision
Judgment of a Court
thus judgements that CANNOT be enforced include:
public judgments (e.g. judicial review);
arbitral awards
For a Fixed Debt or Sum of Money
the foreign judgment must be for a fixed sum of money payable to winner.
orders that are not enforceable include:
Injunctions
Specific performance (e.g. for delivery of goods)
Tax, penalties, or other public law orders
Tax, Penalty or Public Law
Judgment will not be enforced if it enforces State A’s penal, revenue or public law.
even if only indirectly
USA v Inkley [1989]
Punitive damages are enforceable.
even though they are imposed by court to punish D, are in fact compensatory
SA Consortium General Textiles [1978]
Key distinction seems to be whether money awarded goes to a private party or not
if money taken from loser goes to the state, judgment is usually penal
if money goes to a private individual, judgment is usually not penal
Huntington v Attrill [1893]
However not every exercise of a public law power is unenforceable
key question is whether the award sought represents either:
reparation to an aggrieved private party;
or vindication of a government interest
Thus necessary to look at substance of enforcement proceedings, and NOT form.
i.e. even if money is formally payable to the State, judgment is enforceable if it is in substance a claim for damages on behalf of private party
Robb Evans v European Bank [2004] (Australian Case)
Followed in Manterfield [2009] (English Case)
Competent Jurisdiction
Court whose judgment C seeks to enforce must have had competent jurisdiction.
Relevant question is whether foreign court had jurisdiction to hear case under the English conflict of law rules.
whether it had jurisdiction under its own conflict of laws rules is irrelevant
Five-stage test for when courts will enforce foreign judgment laid down
Emmanuel v Symon [1908].
These can be condensed into two headings:
Sufficient territorial connection
Submission
Sufficient Territorial Connection
Foreign courts had proper jurisdiction if there was sufficient territorial connection between D and country of those courts.
Individuals
Probably case that sufficient territorial connection between D and State A can be shown by:
temporary presence of D in State A when proceedings were commenced; or
residence of D in State A when proceedings were commenced
Adams v Cape Industries [1990] considered three alternative scenarios:
D is resident of State A and present in State A
State A has jurisdiction
D is non-resident of State A and present in State A
State A has jurisdiction
D is resident of State A but not present in State A
This possibility expressly left open by court
Clarkson: is probably case, however, that residence without presence suffices.
i.e. would be odd if presence alone sufficed yet residence (which is a stronger connection) did not
Companies
Two alternative tests for whether company is ‘present’ set out in Adams v Cape Industries.
Direct presence; or
Indirect presence
Direct Presence
Company is present in State A if it has:
established and maintained at its own expense a fixed place of business of its own in State A;
and for a more...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Conflict of Laws Notes.
Conflict of Laws notes fully updated for recent exams in the UK. These notes cover all the major conflicts of laws cases and so are perfect for anyone doing a law degree in the UK or, given the international nature of this subject, these notes also make a great supplement for those studying law abroad.
These notes were formed directly from a reading of the cases and main texts and are vigorous, concise and very well written. Everything is conveniently split up by topic as you can see by the l...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started