Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:58:18.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The HCCH Judgments Convention in Australian Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Michael Douglas ,
Mary Keyes ,
Sarah McKibbin  and
Reid Mortensen
Michael Douglas*
Affiliation:
UWA Law School, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
Mary Keyes*
Affiliation:
Griffith Law School, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Sarah McKibbin*
Affiliation:
School of Law and Justice, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
Reid Mortensen*
Affiliation:
School of Law and Justice, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
*
The author may be contacted at michael.c.douglas@uwa.edu.au.
The author may be contacted at m.keyes@griffith.edu.au.
The author may be contacted at sarah.mckibbin@usq.edu.au.
The author may be contacted at reid.mortensen@usq.edu.au.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In May 2018, the Hague Conference on Private International Law (‘HCCH’) produced a draft convention for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. A Diplomatic Session of the HCCH is expected to take place in 2019 at which this draft ‘Judgments Convention’ will be presented. If a multilateral convention emerges from the Diplomatic Session, Australia is likely to be an early adopter: the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department conducted a public consultation on the draft Judgments Convention in 2018. Against that background, this article considers the impact of implementation of the Judgments Convention in Australia. It is argued that domestic legislation that emerges from the Judgments Convention will deliver an overdue refurbishment of the Australian law relating to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Australia’s adoption of the Judgments Convention ought to be welcomed.

Type
Articles
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 420 - 443
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Author(s)

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The HCCH Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, the proposed version of which is the subject of this article, was concluded at the 22nd Diplomatic Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law on 2 July 2019. This article was accepted for publication in November 2018, well before the HCCH Judgments Convention was concluded, and therefore the discussion in this article refers to the future possibility of its conclusion and to the proposed version of the Convention. The major difference between the Convention as concluded, and the proposal discussed in this article, is that the Convention as concluded does not address intellectual property matters. As at July 2019, the Convention is yet to enter into force. The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for their helpful comments. Any errors are ours.

References

Notes

1. The Conference’s usual acronym reflects its English and French names: ‘The Hague Conference’ and ‘Conférence de La Haye’.

2. The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters was concluded in 1971, but has only five contracting states (Albania, Cyprus, Kuwait, the Netherlands and Portugal).

3. For background to the Judgments Project, see Francisco J Garcimartín Alférez and Geneviève Saumier, ‘Judgments Convention: Revised Preliminary Report’ (Preliminary Document, Hague Conference on Private International Law, May 2018), 4–5 [2]–[5] <https://assets.hcch.net/docs/7cd8bc44-e2e5-46c2-8865-a151ce55e1b2.pdf>.

4. Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, opened for signature 30 June 2005, 44 ILM 1294 (entered into force 1 October 2015) (‘Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention’). It has been implemented in the European Union, Mexico and Singapore. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommended in 2016 that Australia should take binding treaty action to bring this Convention into force in Australia and give it effect in Commonwealth legislation, to be called the International Civil Law Act. As at the date of writing in November 2018, the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department was preparing drafting instructions for the International Civil Law Bill. See Michael Douglas, ‘Choice of Court Agreements Under an International Civil Law Act’ (2018) 34(3) Journal of Contract Law 186; Brooke Adele Marshall and Mary Keyes, ‘Australia’s Accession to the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements’ (2017) 41(1) Melbourne University Law Review 246.

5. The 2018 draft Judgments Convention is available at <https://assets.hcch.net/docs/23b6dac3-7900-49f3-9a94-aa0ffbe0d0dd.pdf> (‘Judgments Convention’).

6. Professor Richard Garnett, University of Melbourne, was a member of the Experts’ Group and is a member of the Special Commission on the Judgments Project. For the discussion paper which framed the public consultation, see Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, Hague Conference Judgments Project — Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Discussion Paper, March 2018) <https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Pages/Recognition-and-enforcement-of-foreign-judgments.aspx> (‘AGD Public Consultation Paper’).

7. Schibsby v Westenholz (1870) LR 6 QB 155, 161 (‘Schibsby’); Herman v Meallin (1891) 8 WN (NSW) 38 (‘Herman’).

8. Vogel v Kohnstamm Ltd [1973] QB 133; Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch 433, 465–6; Telesto Investments Ltd v UBS AG (2013) 94 ASCR 29 (‘Telesto’).

9. If these conditions are satisfied, the foreign judgment may also give rise to an issue estoppel, if the issues in the foreign proceedings are identical to those in the local proceedings: Telesto, above n 8.

10. See especially Stern v National Australia Bank [1999] FCA 1421 (‘Stern’); De Santis v Russo (2001) 27 Fam LR 414; Jenton Overseas Investment Pte Ltd v Townsing (2008) 21 VR 241; Kok v Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd (2017) 323 FLR 95, 101 [18].

11. White v Verkouille [1990] 2 Qd R 191.

12. See also R W White, ‘Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Equity’ (1982) 9 Sydney Law Review 630; Kim Pham, ‘Enforcement of Non-Monetary Foreign Judgments in Australia’ (2008) 30(4) Sydney Law Review 663.

13. (2012) 262 FLR 119.

14. Ibid [4].

15. Ibid [111], [115]. See also Telesto (n 8); Commonwealth Bank of Australia v White [No 3] [2000] VSC 259.

16. See Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1954 (ACT); Foreign Judgments Act 1973 (NSW); Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (NT), repealed in 1997 by Statute Law Revision Act (NT); Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1959 (Qld); Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1963 (Tas); Foreign Judgments Act 1962 (Vic); Foreign Judgments Act 1963 (WA).

17. Foreign Judgments Act 1971 (SA).

18. See Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) ss 18, 19(b) (‘FJA’).

19. Ibid s 6.

20. Hunt v BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 565, 572–3.

21. Indeed, ‘substantial reciprocity of treatment’ must be ‘assured’ to Australian judgments before a foreign court may be listed: FJA (n 18) s 5(1).

22. FJA (n 18) s 10(1).

23. Pavitt v Pavitt (2018) 332 FLR 125.

24. FJA (n 18) s 6(2)(a).

25. Ibid s 5(6).

26. Ibid s 7(1).

27. Ibid sub-s (2).

28. Ibid sub-s (3)(a)(i), (iii). Included in this category is the situation in which the judgment debtor was claimant (including cross-claimant) (s 7(2)(a)(ii)), which is usually treated as indicating submission.

29. Ibid para (iv).

30. Ibid para (v).

31. Ibid sub-s (3)(b). The circumstances in which the foreign court is not regarded as having international jurisdiction are: the subject matter of the proceedings was immovable property outside the foreign country, litigation in the foreign court was brought in breach of an agreement ‘under which the dispute in question was to be settled otherwise than by proceedings in’ the foreign court (although the Act recognises that such an agreement might be superseded by a subsequent submission to the jurisdiction), and the judgment debtor was entitled to sovereign immunity: at ss 7(4)(a)–(c).

32. Direct jurisdiction is subject to control devices such as forum non conveniens and lis pendens that operate to limit the operation of the direct rules. But admittedly, these devices are not always effective.

33. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Recast) [2012] OJ L351/1 (‘Brussels I Recast’).

34. Pham, (n 12) 674.

35. Ibid 675, citing Trans-Tasman Working Group, Trans-Tasman Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement (Report, 2006) 14.

36. Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) s 65(1) (‘TTPA’).

37. Ibid ss 57, 63.

38. Ibid ss 4 (definition of ‘civil proceeding’), 66.

39. Ibid s 4 (definition of ‘judgment’).

40. Ibid s 72(1)(b).

41. Ibid s 72(1)(c).

42. Ibid s 72(1)(a).

43. Reid Mortensen, ‘A Trans-Tasman Judicial Area: Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments in the Single Economic Market’ (2010) 16(1) Canterbury Law Review 61, 93–6; Reid Mortensen, ‘Together Alone: Integrating the Tasman World’ in Andrew Dickinson, Mary Keyes and Thomas John (eds), Australian Private International Law for the 21st Century (Hart Publishing, 2014) 113.

44. LFDB v SM (2017) 256 FCR 218, 226–30 [33]–[50].

45. Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) ss 12, 15 (‘SEPA’); TTPA (n 36) ss 13–14.

46. SEPA (n 45) s 20; Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) s 5 and uniform legislation in the states and territories.

47. TTPA (n 36) ss 17–23; Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (NZ) ss 21–9.

48. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand on Trans-Tasman Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement, signed 24 July 2008 [2013] ATS 32 (entered into force 11 October 2013).

49. Ibid Preamble [4]–[5].

50. Article 25(2) of the Judgments Convention stipulates that it ‘shall not affect the application by a Contracting State of a treaty [or other international instrument] that was concluded before this Convention entered into force for that Contracting State [as between the parties to that instrument]’.

51. Schibsby, (n 7), 159. See Adrian Briggs, ‘Which Foreign Judgments Should We Recognise Today?’ (1987) 36(2) The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 240, 242.

52. See, eg, Re California International (Far East) Ltd [2002] HKEC 652; WFM Motors Pty Ltd v Maydwell [1996] 1 HKC 444.

53. Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act 2005, ULA § 5(a)(6); Eugene F Scoles et al, Conflict of Laws (Thomson West, 5th ed, 2010) 1435–526.

54. Beals v Saldanha [2003] 3 SCR 416, 438 [29] (Major J).

55. Pro Swing Inc v Elta Golf Inc [2006] 2 SCR 612, 633 [31] (Deschamps J) (‘Pro Swing’).

56. See Foreign Judgments Regulations 1992 (Cth) sch.

57. For arguments for greater recognition of foreign non-money judgments: Pham, (n 12).

58. See the comments of Lord Sumption JSC in Abela v Baadarani [2013] 1 WLR 2043, 2062 [53].

59. South Bucks District Council v Porter [2003] 2 AC 558, 580–1 [32] (Lord Bingham of Cornhill).

60. Judgments Convention art 1(1).

61. Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention art 2(1).

62. Judgments Convention (n 5) art 1(1).

63. FJA (n 18) s 3(1) (‘action in personam’ para (a)).

64. Ibid para (b).

65. Ibid para (c).

66. Ibid para (d).

67. Reid Mortensen, Richard Garnett and Mary Keyes, Private International Law in Australia (LexisNexis Butterworths, 3rd ed, 2015) 353, 377–8, 393–4, 407–10. See also Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance, opened for signature 20 June 1956, 268 UNTS 3 (entered into force 25 May 1957) art 1 (‘New York Maintenance Convention’).

68. FJA (n 18) s 3(1) (‘action in personam’ para (f)).

69. Ibid para (e).

70. Judgments Convention (n 5) art 2(1)(1)-(p).

71. Ibid sub-para (k).

72. Brussels I Recast (n 33).

73. Shevill v Presse Alliance SA (C-68/93) [1995] ECR I-450, I-465.

74. eDate Advertising GmbH v X and Martinez v MGN Ltd (Joined Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10) [2011] ECR I-10302, [52].

75. Judgments Convention (n 5) art 3(1)(b).

76. Ibid arts 5(1)(a)–(b).

77. In Schibsby, (n 7) 161, Blackburn J used the term ‘resident’ in the sense of being ‘within the foreign country’. The terms ‘residence’ and ‘presence’ are used interchangeably in Berry v Shead (1886) 7 NSWLR 39, 48 (Martin CJ) and Herman, (n 7) 39 (Stephen J). See above nn 7–8, 26–31.

78. Judgments Convention (n 5) art 5(1)(d).

79. See generally Mortensen, Garnett and Keyes, (n 67) 132, 154; FJA (n 18) s 7(3)(a)(iv).

80. Judgments Convention (n 5) arts 5(1)(g)–(k).

81. Ibid art 5(1)(g). There are restrictions relying on this ground of special jurisdiction when a consumer or employment contract is involved: art 5(2).

82. Ibid sub-para (h).

83. Ibid sub-para (i).

84. Ibid sub-para (j).

85. Ibid sub-para (k).

86. See, eg, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) sch 6(a)(ii); Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) r 7.02(a)(ii). See Mortensen, Garnett and Keyes, (n 67) 62–4.

87. Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) sch 6(a)(i).

88. Judgments Convention (n 5) art 5(1)(j).

89. Ibid art 24.

90. Ibid arts 5(1)(e)–(f), (l)–(m).

91. Ibid arts 5(3), 6(a).

92. Ibid art 6(b).

93. FJA (n 18) ss 7(3)(b), 7(4)(a); TTPA s 72(1)(c).

94. Judgments Convention (n 5) art 6(c). The provision is obviously influenced by the Brussels I Recast art 24(1).

95. This is unlikely to happen in light of Judgments Convention (n 5) art 25(2).

96. ‘Recognition or enforcement may be refused if…’: Judgments Convention (n 5) art 7(1) (emphasis added).

97. Garcimartín Alférez and Saumier, (n 3) 53 [243].

98. See Jacobson v Frachon (1927) 138 LT 386, 392 (Atkin LJ); Jet Holdings Inc v Patel [1990] 1 QB 335, 344–5 (Staughton LJ); Boele v Norsemeter Holding AS [2002] NSWCA 363 [24] (Giles JA, Handley and Beazley JJA agreeing).

99. Judgments Convention (n 5) art 7(1)(a)(i).

100. The defence represents an improvement on art 45(1)(b) of the Brussels I Recast and art 34(2) of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, opened for signature 30 October 2007, 2658 UNTS 197 (entered into force 1 January 2010) [2007] OJ L339/3 (‘Lugano Convention’): both include the first condition but the second is absent.

101. R v Small Claims Tribunal; Ex parte Cameron [1976] VR 427, 432 (Anderson J) (‘Small Claims Tribunal’) (emphasis added). See also Hall v The University of New South Wales [2003] NSWSC 669 [68] (McClellan J); Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576, 591–2 (Northrop, Miles and French JJ), quoted in Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Palme (2003) 216 CLR 212, 219 [22] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Heydon JJ).

102. Small Claims Tribunal, (n 101) 432.

103. Cf Paul Beaumont and Lara Walker, ‘Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters in the Brussels I Recast, and Some Lessons From it and the Recent Hague Conventions for the Hague Judgments Project’ (2015) 11(1) Journal of Private International Law 31, 54.

104. Ibid 55. See Lord Collins et al (eds), Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws (Sweet & Maxwell, 15th ed, 2012) [14-146].

105. Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention art 9(d); New York Maintenance Convention art 22(b). See also Beaumont and Walker, (n 103) 44.

106. Alex Mills, ‘The Hague Choice of Court Convention and Cross-Border Commercial Dispute Resolution in Australia and the Asia-Pacific’ (2017) 18(1) Melbourne Journal of International Law 1, 11.

107. See Beaumont and Walker, (n 103) 55.

108. Ibid 54.

109. The Draft Explanatory Report provides: ‘[f]raud refers to behaviour that deliberately seeks to deceive in order to secure an unfair or unlawful gain or to deprive another of a right…The equivalent provision in the 2005 [Convention concerns] fraud perpetrated by one party to the proceedings to the detriment of the other party’: Garcimartín Alférez and Saumier, (n 3) 55 [252]–[253].

110. See Mortensen, Garnett and Keyes, (n 67) 139–42.

111. See Wentworth v Rogers [No 5] (1986) 6 NSWLR 534, 538–9 (Kirby P) (‘Wentworth’).

112. Clone Pty Ltd v Players Pty Ltd (in liq) (recs and mgrs apptd) (2018) 353 ALR 24, 39 [55] n 77 (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon and Edelman JJ), quoting Wentworth, (n 111) 538.

113. See, eg, Brussels I Recast art 45(1)(a), Lugano Convention art 34(1).

114. Art 6(c) and 9(e).

115. FJA (n 18) s 7(2)(a)(xi); TTPA s 72(1)(a).

116. Richard Garnett, ‘The Hague Choice of Courts Convention: Magnum Opus or Much Ado About Nothing?’ (2009) 5(1) Journal of Private International Law 161, 167, citing Stern, (n 10) [133]–[147].

117. Law Council of Australia, Submission to the Attorney-General’s Department, [26] <https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/Recognition-and-enforcement-of-foreign-judgments/the-law-council-of-australia-submission.PDF>.

118. See above n 10.

119. Marshall and Keyes, (n 4) 262.

120. Trevor Hartley and Masato Dogauchi, Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements — Explanatory Report (Hague Conference on Private International Law, 2013) 821 [153], quoted in Douglas, ‘Choice of Court Agreements’, (n 4) 206. See also Bamberski v Krombach [2001] QB 709, 730 [36]; Orams v Apostolides [2011] 2 WLR 324, 346 [92]–[94].

121. Cf Australian courts’ treatment of the difference between ‘clearly inappropriate forum’ in the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens and simply ‘inappropriate forum’ in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) [pinpoint, please]: Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang (2002) 210 CLR 491, 503 [24] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ). Cf Studorp Ltd v Robinson [2012] NSWCA 382, [5] (Allsop P).

122. The Mill Hill (1950) 81 CLR 502, 509 (Dixon J).

123. See Michael Douglas, ‘Anti-suit Injunctions in Australia’ (2017) 41(1) Melbourne University Law Review 66, 71–3.

124. Telesto, (n 8) [260]–[261], [282] (Sackar J). See FJA (n 18) s 7(3)(a)(iii); Privatbrauerei Erdinger Weissrau Werner Brombach GmbH v World Brands Australia Pty Ltd [2016] WASC 9 [18].

125. Amin Rasheed Shipping Corporation v Kuwait Insurance Co [1984] AC 50, 65 (Lord Diplock). Cf Abela v Baadarani [2013] 1 WLR 2043, 2062 [53] (Lord Sumption JSC).

126. See Briggs, ‘Which Foreign Judgments’, (n 51) 248–9.

127. Briggs later wrote that, in respect of the position in English law prior to the enactment of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (UK) c 27 s 32, ‘[i]t is not easy to be sure what [the common law] did say or, in a country which does not have the legislation in the form of s 32, does say’: Adrian Briggs, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law (Oxford University Press, 2008) 355 [9.28] n 57.

128. See parallel in Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention arts 9(f)–(g).

129. Henry v Henry (1996) 185 CLR 571, 590; Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538.

130. Similar to FJA (n 18) s 7(2)(b).

131. Judgments Convention (n 5) art 7(21)(f).

132. Ibid art 4(4).

133. Ibid art 7(1)(c).

134. Garcimartín Alférez and Saumier, (n 3) 59 [268]. For example, as was explained in CMA CGM SA v ‘Chou Shan’ [2014] FCA 74 [91]: ‘China regulates parallel proceedings by legislation. The existence of parallel proceedings in other jurisdictions will not impact on the equivalent Chinese proceedings. Chinese law does not prevent a person from commencing a parallel proceeding in another jurisdiction when a claim has been first commenced in China. Equally, Chinese law does not prevent a person from commencing parallel proceedings in China when a claim has been first commenced in another jurisdiction.’

135. Whereas at common law recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment may be refused if the judgment of the forum was prior to the foreign judgment between the same parties, art 7(1)(e) does not contain the same temporal limitation. In other words, it is theoretically possible for a court of the requested Court to refuse recognition or enforcement even if the foreign judgment was earlier in time than the forum judgment. In this way, art 7(1)(e) arguably makes space for a somewhat chauvinistic approach — it would allow an Australian court to favour its own judgment, even if the foreign judgment was rendered first. For the common law position, see Vervaeke (formerly Messina) v Smith [1983] 1 AC 145, applied in ED & F Man (Sugar) Ltd v Yani Haryanto (No 2) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 429, 436; ED & F Man (Sugar) Ltd v Haryanto (No 2) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 161, 165; CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 345, 395.

136. ‘Recognition or enforcement may be postponed or refused’ (emphasis added).

137. Jurisdictions differ on whether pending local proceedings may be pre-empted by an otherwise recognisable foreign judgment: Hague Conference, Explanatory Note Providing Background on the Proposed Draft Text and Identifying Outstanding Issues (Preliminary Document No 2, Hague Conference on Private International Law, 2016) [171], cited in Joost Blom, ‘The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act and the Hague Conference’s Judgments and Jurisdiction Projects’ (2018) 55(1) Osgoode Hall Law Journal 257.

138. Re Treadtel International Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1406 [12] (Brereton J); Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v Boots Co (Aust) Pty Ltd (1992) 34 FCR 287, 291 (Lockhart J) (‘Sterling’).

139. Sterling, (n 138) 291 (Lockhart J).

140. Cf Briggs, ‘Which Foreign Judgments’, (n 51) 248–9.

141. See, eg, Richard Garnett, ‘Stay of Proceedings in Australia: A “Clearly Inappropriate” Test?’ (1999) 23(1) Melbourne University Law Review 30.

142. Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538.

143. See Bella Products Pty Ltd v Creative Designs International Ltd (2009) 258 ALR 538, 543 [22]–[24] (Finkelstein J).

144. FJA (n 18) s 7(2)(b).

145. Judgments Convention (n 5) art 7(1)(f).

146. See Marshall and Keyes, above n 4; Michael Douglas and Nicholas Loadsman, ‘The Impact of the Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts’ (2018) 19(1) Melbourne Journal of International Law 1.

147. See the comparable effect of recognition in the FJA (n 18) s 12(1).

148. Cf ibid s 7(1).

149. See generally Richard Garnett, ‘Enhanced Enforcement of IP Rights in Transnational Cases in Australia’ (2017) 27(3) Australian Intellectual Property Journal 114, 127–9.

150. See discussion at Part II(A)(1).

151. Cf Pro Swing (n 55).

152. Judgments Convention (n 5) art 2(1)(m).

153. European Union, Discussion Document from the European Union on the Operation of the Future Hague Judgments Convention with regard to Intellectual Property Rights (Information Document No 10, HCCH, December 2017) [4] (‘EU Discussion Document on Intellectual Property’).

154. Australian delegates drafted the original IP provisions of the Convention.

155. AGD Public Consultation Paper, (n 6) [5.3].

156. Ibid.

157. Judgments Convention art 5(3) (May 2018).

158. Ibid arts 5(3)(a)–(b).

159. Ibid (c).

160. Ibid.

161. See Garnett, ‘Enhanced Enforcement of IP Rights’, (n 149) 127–8.

162. Judgments Convention (n 5) arts 5(3)(a)–(b).

163. Tobias Lutzi, ‘Internet Cases in EU Private International Law — Developing a Coherent Approach’ (2017) 66(3) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 687, 689.

164. Ibid 690.

165. Ibid 704.

166. See Sophie Stoyan, ‘Just a Click Away? Jurisdiction and Virtually Carrying on Business in Canada’ (2017) 13(3) Journal of Private International Law 602, 617–18.

167. See, eg, Football Dataco Ltd v Sportradar GmbH (Court of Justice of European Union, C-173/11, ECLI: EU: C:2012:642, 18 October 2012) [39] (‘Football Dataco’). Cf Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG (Court of Justice of the European Union, C-170/12, ECLI: EU: C:2013:635, 3 October 2013) (‘Pinckney’).

168. Football Dataco, (n 167) [42].

169. Pammer and Hotel Alpenhof (Court of Justice of the European Union, Joined Cases C-585-08 and C-144/09, ECLI: EU: C:2010:740, 7 December 2010) [93].

170. Ibid.

171. L’Oréal SA v eBay International AG (Court of Justice of the European Union, C-324/09, ECLI: EU: C:2011:474, 12 July 2011) [65].

172. Ibid [65], [67].

173. Pez Hejduk v EnergieAgentur NRW Gmbh (Fourth Chamber of European Court of Justice, C-441/13, 22 January 2015) [32], [33] (‘Hejduk’). See also Pinckney, (n 167) [42].

174. Hejduk, (n 173) [38].

175. Francisco J Garcimartín Alférez and Geneviève Saumier, ‘Treatment of Intellectual Property-Related Judgments under the November 2017 Judgments Convention’ (Background Document, HCCH, May 2018) [49].

176. Judgments Convention art 9 (n 157) (May 2018).

177. Judgments Convention art 2(1)(k) (February 2017).

178. See Des Butler, ‘Protecting Personal Privacy in Australia: Quo Vadis?’ (2016) 42 Australian Bar Review 107.

179. See Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479; Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199.

180. See Michael Douglas, ‘Characterisation of Breach of Confidence as a Privacy Tort in Private International Law’ (2018) 41(2) University of New South Wales Law Journal 490.

181. Beaumont and Walker note that the Brussels I Recast contains fewer grounds for nonrecognition: Beaumont and Walker, (n 103) 44.

182. Garnett, ‘The Hague Choice of Courts Convention’, above n 116, 167.

183. AGD Public Consultation Paper, (n 6) [1.3].

184. Cf above nn 53–5 and accompanying text.

185. See Richard Fentiman, International Commercial Litigation (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed, 2015) 544–5 [17.01]–[17.08].