Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:41:47.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE EFFECTS OF RECOGNIZED FOREIGN JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 April 2013

Sirko Harder
Sirko Harder*
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer, Monash Law School.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates what effects a recognized foreign judgment in civil and commercial matters has in English proceedings. Does the judgment have the effects that it has in the foreign country (extension of effects) or the effects that a comparable English judgment would have (equalization of effects), or a combination of these? After a review of the current law, it will be discussed what approach is preferable on principle. The suggested approach will then be illustrated by considering whether a foreign decision on one legal basis of a certain claim ought to preclude English proceedings involving another legal basis of the same claim. Finally, it will be discussed whether and how the effects of a recognized foreign judgment in England are affected by interests of a third country.

Keywords

cause-of-action estoppelforeign judgmentissue estoppelres judicatarule in Henderson v Henderson
Type
Shorter Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 441 - 461
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2013

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.)

References

1 Thoday v Thoday [1964] P 181 (CA) 197–98; Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93 (HL) 104; Zurich Insurance Co plc v Hayward [2011] EWCA Civ 641, [2011] CP Rep 39 [45]–[47].

2 R v Hartington Middle Quarter Inhabitants (1855) 4 E & B 780, 794; 119 ER 288, 293; Thoday v Thoday [1964] P 181 (CA) 198; Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93 (HL) 105, 111–12.

3 (1843) 3 Hare 100, 114–15; 67 ER 313, 319. Followed in Ord v Ord [1923] 2 KB 432 (KB) 443; Brisbane City Council v Attorney-General for Queensland [1979] AC 411 (PC) 425; Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93 (HL) 104–07, 111–12.

4 Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd [1999] ICR 1170 (CA) 1180–81; Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm) [2002] 2 AC 1 (HL) 32–33.

5 Vervaeke v Smith [1983] 1 AC 145 (HL) 162; Charm Maritime Inc v Kyriakou [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep 433 (CA) 441, 450; Relfo Ltd (in liquidation) v Varsani [2009] EWHC 2297 (Ch) [37]–[38].

6 Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd [1967] 1 AC 853 (HL) 918, 926, 967; The Sennar (No 2) [1985] 1 WLR 490 (HL) 493, 499; Desert Sun Loan Corp v Hill [1996] 2 All ER 847 (CA) 854, 862–63. Again, the finding must have been fundamental and not collateral: Joint Stock Asset Management Co Ingosstrakh-Investments v BNP Paribas SA [2012] EWCA Civ 644, [2012] 1 Lloyd's Rep 649 [61].

7 Vervaeke v Smith [1983] 1 AC 145 (HL) 163; Desert Sun Loan Corp v Hill [1996] 2 All ER 847 (CA) 854, 863; Fennoscandia Ltd v Clarke [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 365 (CA) 372–74. Indeed, Henderson v Henderson itself involved a foreign judgment. It has been held, unconvincingly, that conduct in foreign proceedings can lead to preclusion under the rule in Henderson v Henderson only if the proceedings culminated in a judgment on the merits: Charm Maritime Inc v Kyriakou [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep 433 (CA) 442, 449–50.

8 Casad, RC, ‘Issue Preclusion and Foreign Country Judgments: Whose Law?’ (1984–85) 70 IowaLRev 53, 63–5Google Scholar; von Mehren, AT and Trautman, DT, ‘Recognition of Foreign Adjudications: A Survey and a Suggested Approach’ (1968) 81 HarvLRev 1601, 1674–7Google Scholar.

9 [2011] EWHC 3298 (QB).

10 [2011] EWHC 1461 (Comm), [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 479; [2012] EWCA Civ 855, [2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep 208.

11 In this article, the term ‘forum’ denotes the jurisdiction in which the recognition of a judgment is being sought, and the term ‘domestic judgment’ denotes a judgment rendered by a court in the forum.

12 Barnett, P, ‘The Prevention of Abusive Cross-Border Re-Litigation’ (2002) 51 ICLQ 943, 954CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Linke, H, ‘Selected Problems Relating to Lis Alibi Pendens and the Recognition of Judgments’ in Court of Justice of the European Communities (ed), Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments in Europe (Butterworths 1992) 178Google Scholar.

13 See Layton, A and Mercer, H, European Civil Practice (2nd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2004) paras 24.009–24.010Google Scholar.

14 [2003] EWHC 10 (Comm); [2003] EWCA Civ 1668, [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep 67. Another example is Naraji v Shelbourne [2011] EWHC 3298 (QB), discussed in Part IV below.

15 This rule has been expressed in the form of a presumption that foreign law is the same as English law unless the contrary is established: The Parchim [1918] AC 157 (PC) 161; Ertel Bieber & Co v Rio Tinto Co Ltd [1918] AC 260 (HL) 295; Royal Boskalis Westminster NV v Mountain [1999] QB 674 (CA) 693, 724–26, 732. However, it is better to say that where foreign law is not proved the court applies English law: Global Multimedia International Ltd v ARA Media Services [2006] EWHC 3612 (Ch) [38].

16 Shaker v Al-Bedrawi [2002] EWCA Civ 1452, [2003] Ch 350 [64]–[67]; Fourie v Le Roux [2005] EWCA Civ 204, [2006] 2 BCLC 531 [65]; MA (Ethiopia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 289, [2010] INLR 1 [63]. See also Fentiman, R, Foreign Law in English Courts: Pleading, Proof and Choice of Law (OUP 1998) 143–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 [1967] 1 AC 853 (HL) 919 (Lord Reid), 970–71 (Lord Wilberforce).

18 [1967] 1 AC 853.

19 ibid 970.

20 ibid 919.

21 [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep 569 (QB).

22 ibid 573.

23 ibid.

24 [2011] EWHC 1461 (Comm), [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 479; reversed on other grounds [2012] EWCA Civ 855, [2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep 208. Another aspect of that case is discussed in Part V below.

25 [2011] EWHC 1461 (Comm), [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 479 [56]–[58].

26 ibid [77]–[79].

27 The Jocelyne was decided before the Brussels Convention became applicable to the UK. The Dutch judgment in Yukos fell outside the scope of the Brussels I Regulation since it concerned arbitration: art 1(2)(d) of the Regulation. The Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 should have been applied in both cases, but it would not have made a difference compared to the position at common law: van de Velden, J, ‘The “Cautious Lex Fori” Approach to Foreign Judgments and Preclusion’ (2012) 61 ICLQ 519, 523–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 This approach is called the ‘cautious lex fori’ approach by van de Velden, ibid.

29 A possible exception is Fennoscandia Ltd v Clarke [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 365 (CA) 372–74, where one (but possibly not the sole) reason for applying the rule in Henderson v Henderson was the fact that the claim in question was precluded in the foreign country.

30 The residual application of common law rules in the context of the 1920 Act was recognized in Owens Bank Ltd v Bracco [1992] 2 AC 443 (HL) 464.

31 A very similar provision is contained in the European Communities (Enforcement of Community Judgments) Order 1972, section 4.

32 Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg AG [1975] AC 591 (HL). Section 8(3) provides that the Act does not deprive any judgment of any effect that it would have in the absence of the Act.

33 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [2001] OJ L12/1. Everything said in this article on the Brussels I Regulation applies mutatis mutandis to the Lugano Convention of 30 October 2007 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

34 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Order, SI 2001/3929, art 3 and Sch 1, para 2(2): ‘A judgment registered under the Regulation shall, for the purposes of its enforcement, be of the same force and effect, the registering court shall have in relation to its enforcement the same powers, and proceedings for or with respect to its enforcement may be taken, as if the judgment had been originally given by the registering court and had (where relevant) been entered’. An identical provision exists for the Lugano Convention 2007: Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, section 4A(2).

35 Case C-420/07 Apostolides v Orams [2009] ECR I-3571, para 66; citations omitted.

36 Layton and Mercer (n 13) para 24.010. A pure equalization approach seems to be favoured by A Briggs and P Rees, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (5th edn, Informa 2009) para 7.26. A pure extension approach for cause-of-action preclusion and a pure equalization approach otherwise is favoured by PR Barnett, Res Judicata, Estoppel, and Foreign Judgments (OUP 2001) paras 7.58–7.105.

37 Marc Rich & Co AG v Societa Italiana Impianti PA (No 2) [1992] 1 Lloyd's Rep 624 (CA); Berkeley Administration Inc v McClelland [1995] I L Pr 201 (CA) 214, 221; Berkeley Administration Inc v McClelland (No 2) [1996] I L Pr 772 (CA) 781–2. In Calyon v Michailaidis [2009] UKPC 34 [22], it was submitted that a Greek judgment ‘enjoys no less a status in Gibraltar than an equivalent judgment of the Gibraltar court itself ’. The Privy Council expressed no view on the correctness of that submission.

38 [1997] 1 WLR 351 (CA) 359.

39 Fidelitas Shipping Co Ltd v V/O Exportchleb [1966] 1 QB 630 (CA) 642; R v Governor of Brixton Prison [1991] 1 WLR 281 (Div Ct) 291; Svenska Petroleum Exploration AB v Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No 2) [2006] EWCA Civ 1529, [2007] QB 886 [109].

40 ABCI v Banque Franco-Tunisienne [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 511 (Com Ct) 538; Air Foyle Ltd v Center Capital Ltd [2002] EWHC 2535 (Comm), [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 753 [44].

41 Case 145/86 Hoffmann v Krieg [1988] ECR 645, paras 10–11; Case C-420/07 Apostolides v Orams [2009] ECR I-3571, para 66; Case C-456/11 Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG v Samskip GmbH (ECJ, 15 November 2012), para 34; Jenard, P, ‘Report on the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters’ [1979] OJ C59/43Google Scholar; Fawcett, JJ and Carruthers, JM, Cheshire, North & Fawcett on Private International Law (14th edn, OUP 2008) 604Google Scholar; Linke, H, ‘Selected Problems Relating to Lis Alibi Pendens and the Recognition of Judgments’ in Court of Justice of the European Communities (ed), Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments in Europe (Butterworths 1992) 178Google Scholar; Stone, P, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments in Europe (Longman 1998) 152Google Scholar; P Wautelet in U Magnus and P Mankowski (eds), Brussels I Regulation (2nd edn, Sellier 2012) art 33 notes 3–9. An extension of effects is expressly envisaged by Recital 22 in the Preamble of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings.

42 In addition, the Regulation accords findings a binding effect where this is necessary for the uniform application of its jurisdiction rules. Where a court in a Member State declines jurisdiction based on the finding that there is an exclusive jurisdiction agreement in favour of another Member State, that finding is binding upon the court of a third Member State in deciding on its own jurisdiction, even if neither the law of the judgment-rendering state nor the law of the recognizing state has a doctrine comparable to the common law doctrine of issue estoppel: Case C-456/11 Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG v Samskip GmbH (ECJ, 15 November 2012), paras 33–43.

43 Ho, HL, ‘Policies Underlying the Enforcement of Foreign Commercial Judgments’ (1997) 46 ICLQ 443, 445CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 This concept was used in Grant v Easton (1883) 13 QBD 302 (CA) 303. It was described as ‘pure fiction’ by Lorenzen, EG, ‘The Enforcement of American Judgments Abroad’ (1919–20) 29 YaleLJ 188, 190Google Scholar.

45 This idea was rejected in Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 (CA) 553.

46 (1842) 9 M & W 810, 819; 152 ER 343, 347. See also Williams v Jones (1845) 13 M & W 628, 633; 153 ER 262, 265; Godard v Gray (1870) LR 6 QB 139 (QB) 148; Schibsby v Westenholz (1870) LR 6 QB 155 (QB) 159.

47 This theory was supported by, eg, Beale, JH, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws or, Private International Law (Harvard University Press 1916) 105–13Google Scholar; Dicey, AV, A Digest of the Law of England With Reference to the Conflict of Laws (Stevens & Sons 1896) 22–30Google Scholar, 413.

48 Carswell, RD, ‘The Doctrine of Vested Rights in Private International Law’ (1959) 8 ICLQ 268, 279–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kahn-Freund, O, ‘General Problems of Private International Law’ [1974] III Recueil des cours 139, 465Google Scholar; Lipstein, K, ‘Conflict of Laws 1921–1971: The Way Ahead’ (1972) 31 CambLJ 67, 68–9Google Scholar.

49 Harris, J, ‘Recognition of Foreign Judgments at Common Law – The Anti-Suit Injunction Link’ (1997) 17 OJLS 480CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Cambridge Gas Transportation Corp v Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Navigator Holdings plc [2006] UKPC 26, [2007] 1 AC 508 [13].

51 Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 (CA) 513; Lewis v Eliades [2003] EWCA Civ 1758, [2004] 1 WLR 692 [48]; Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2010] EWCA Civ 895, [2011] Ch 133 [34]–[35]. See also Owens Bank Ltd v Bracco [1992] 2 AC 443 (HL) 484.

52 A Briggs, Recognition of Foreign Judgments: A Matter of Obligation’ (2013) 129 LQR 87, criticizing the description of the doctrine of obligation as ‘purely theoretical and historical’ in Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2012] UKSC 46, [2012] 3 WLR 1019 [9] (Lord Collins, with whom Lord Walker and Lord Sumption JJSC agreed).

53 Geyer v Aguilar (1798) 7 Term Rep 681, 695–96; 101 ER 1196, 1204; Belize Telecom Ltd v Government of Belize, 528 F 3d 1298, 1304–05 (11th Cir, 2008); Jenton Overseas Investment Pte Ltd v Townsing [2008] VSC 470, (2008) 21 VR 241 [20]; H Barry, ‘Comity’ (1926) 12 VaLRev 353; Harris (n 49) 481–2.

54 Ho (n 43) 451.

55 Kahn-Freund (n 48) 464.

56 159 US 113, 163–64 (1895). This definition was elaborated in Mast, Foos & Co v Stover Manufacturing Co, 177 US 485, 488–89 (1900).

57 WLM Reese, ‘The Status in This Country of Judgments Rendered Abroad’ (1950) 50 ColumLRev 783, 784; von Mehren and Trautman (n 8) 1603.

58 Re D (a child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2006] UKHL 51, [2007] 1 AC 619 [82]; Long Beach Ltd v Global Witness Ltd [2007] EWHC 1980 (QB) [26]; Agbaje v Agbaje [2010] UKSC 13, [2010] 1 AC 628 [54]; Yukos Capital Sarl v OJSC Rosneft Oil Co [2012] EWCA Civ 855, [2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep 208 [151].

59 Beals v Saldanha [2003] SCC 72, [2003] 3 SCR 416.

60 MacDonald v Grand Trunk Ry Co, 71 NH 448 (1902); Baldwin v Iowa State Travelling Men's Ass'n, 283 US 522, 525–26 (1931); WLM Reese (n 57) 784–5; Yntema, HE, ‘The Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Anglo-American Law’ (1935) 33 MichLRev 1129, 1145–6Google Scholar.

61 Charm Maritime Inc v Kyriakou [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep 433 (CA) 440; Gal-Or, N, ‘The Concept of Appeal in International Dispute Settlement’ (2008) 19 EJIL 43, 49–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 Yntema (n 60) 1145–6.

63 Casad (n 8) 460.

64 Ho (n 43) 453–8.

65 Martiny, D, ‘Federal Republic of Germany’ in Platto, C and Horton, WG (eds), Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Worldwide (2nd edn, Graham & Trotman 1993) 188–9Google Scholar.

66 T Takehara, ‘Japan’ in Platto and Horton, ibid 58.

67 See Nadelmann, KH, ‘Non-Recognition of American Money Judgments Abroad and What To Do about It’ (1956–7) 42 IowaLRev 236, 249–50Google Scholar.

68 [1990] Ch 433 (CA) 552.

69 A similar view is taken by van de Velden (n 27) 529–30.

70 See Baker v Ian McCall International Ltd [2000] CLC 189 (Com Ct) 202. In that case, Toulson J (at 202–03) further held that an effect that a foreign judgment has in the foreign country can obtain in English proceedings only if the foreign law so provides. With respect, this is wrong. The foreign country lacks the competence to make provisions in respect of English proceedings.

71 The maximum-effect approach was taken, with regard to a sister-state judgment, in Hart v American Airlines Inc, 304 NYS 2d 810 (Sup Ct, 1969). However, a pure extension approach with regard to US sister-state judgments is favoured by Erichson, HM, ‘Interjurisdictional Preclusion’ (1998) 96 MichLRev 945Google Scholar.

72 The view that the doctrine of issue estoppel should not apply to foreign judgments at all was taken by Lord Guest in Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd [1967] 1 AC 853 (HL) 937–38.

73 ibid 917. A similar argument was made, in the context of a foreign judgment, in Owens Bank Ltd v Bracco [1992] 2 AC 443 (HL) 471–72.

74 Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd [1967] 1 AC 853 (HL) 917, 947; Turner v London Transport Executive [1977] ICR 952 (CA) 966.

75 Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93 (HL).

76 Coflexip SA v Stolt Offshore MS Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 213, [2004] FSR 34 [51], [143].

77 Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd [1967] 1 AC 853 (HL) 918, 967; Good Challenger Navegante SA v Metalexportimport SA [2003] EWCA Civ 1668, [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep 67 [54], [59]–[60], [86].

78 [2011] EWHC 3298 (QB).

79 Cooke v Gill (1873) LR 8 CP 107, 116; Read v Brown (1888) 22 QBD 128 (CA) 129; Dipple v Dipple [1942] P 65 (P, D & A) 67–68; Trower & Sons Ltd v Ripstein [1944] AC 254 (PC) 263.

80 Hitchin [or Kitchen] v Campbell (1772) 2 W Bl 827, 831; 96 ER 487, 489; Hunter v Stewart (1861) 4 D F & J 168, 178; 45 ER 1148, 1152; Brunsden v Humphrey (1884) 14 QBD 141 (CA) 147; Ord v Ord [1923] 2 KB 432 (KB) 443; Bell v Holmes [1956] 1 WLR 1359 (QB) 1366; Wood v Luscombe [1966] 1 QB 169 (QB) 175.

81 Hills v Co-Operative Wholesale Society Ltd [1940] 2 KB 435 (CA). The same is true for Scots law: Reynolds v North Lanarkshire Council [2011] CSOH 211, [2012] GWD 2–19.

82 eg Green v Weatherill [1929] 2 Ch 213 (Ch) 221–22.

83 Divine-Bortey v Brent London Borough Council [1998] ICR 886 (CA).

84 Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd [1999] ICR 1170 (CA) 1180–81.

85 Those circumstances have rarely arisen in the context of preclusion, which may be due to the fact that concurrent liability in contract and tort was not recognized across the board before Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145 (HL).

86 Handley, KR, Spencer Bower and Handley on Res Judicata (4th edn, LexisNexis 2009)Google Scholar para 7.05.

87 [2011] EWHC 3298 (QB).

88 The company through which Dr Shelbourne had conducted the treatment was joined as a second defendant in both the Indiana proceedings and the English proceedings. The issues involved in the claim against this company were the same as those in the claim against Dr Shelbourne personally. For this reason, the following discussion will only refer to Dr Shelbourne.

89 An English doctor was joined as a defendant, but Mr Naraji's claim against the English doctor is irrelevant for present purposes.

90 [2011] EWHC 3298 (QB) [131].

91 ibid [129]–[134].

92 ibid [136].

93 ibid [135].

94 ibid [154].

95 The contractual claim was still struck out on the ground that it was time-barred: ibid [172]–[178].

96 This was the common opinion of the experts on Indiana law, as noted by Popplewell J, ibid [169]. Popplewell J (at [169]) classified this form requirement as procedural rather than substantial.

97 ibid [149].

98 ibid [149].

99 ibid [149].

100 ibid [150]. Popplewell J (at [153]) also rejected an issue estoppel, precluding Mr Naraji from asserting that Dr Shelbourne had been careless, on the ground that since there had been no pleadings in the Indiana proceedings, it was impossible to determine whether the order by the Indiana court determined any issues and, if so, which issues.

101 Fairwood Bluffs Conservancy District v Imel, 146 Ind App 352, 362 (1970); Indiana State Highway Commission v Speidel, 181 Ind App 448, 452–3 (1979); Biggs v Marsh, 446 NE 2d 977, 982 (1983); Hoffman v Dunn, 496 NE 2d 818, 821 (1986); Bojrab v John Carr Agency, 597 NE 2d 376, 378 (1992); Indiana State Department of Health v Legacy Healthcare Inc, 752 NE 2d 185, 191 (2001); Richter v Asbestos Insulating & Roofing, 790 NE 2d 1000, 1003 (2003); Indianapolis Downs LLC v Herr, 834 NE 2d 699, 703 (2005); MicroVote General Corp v Indiana Election Commission, 924 NE 2d 184, 192 (2010).

102 Paniaguas v Aldon Companies Inc (ND Ind, No 04-CV-468-PRC, 31 July 2007) slip op 9; Ingalls v Aes Corp (SD Ind, No 07-CV-0104-DFH-TAB, 26 March 2009) slip op 2.

103 Leal v Krajewski 803 F 2d 332, 335 (7th Cir, 1986); Atkins v Hancock County Sheriff's Merit Board 910 F 2d 403, 404-5 (7th Cir, 1990).

104 731 NE 2d 22 (2000).

105 [2011] EWHC 3298 (QB) [134].

106 731 NE 2d 22, 27 (2000). This is akin to the rule in Henderson v Henderson in English law.

107 As noted in [2011] EWHC 3298 (QB) [129].

108 [2011] EWHC 1461 (Comm), [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 479; [2012] EWCA Civ 855, [2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep 208. For the application of the common law, instead of the Brussels I Regulation or the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, see footnote 27. The case also involved a consideration of the act-of-state doctrine, under which English courts do not adjudicate upon the act of a foreign government in its own territory, and the limitations on that doctrine. That aspect of the case, which is irrelevant for present purposes, is discussed by Mills, A, ‘From Russia with Prejudice? The Act of State Doctrine and the Effect of Foreign Proceedings Setting Aside an Arbitral Award’ (2012) 71 Camb LJ 465CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

109 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (signed in New York on 10 June 1958), 330 UNTS 4739. The Netherlands, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom are among the countries that have acceded to that Convention.

110 His decision has been welcomed by Hill, J, ‘The Significance of Foreign Judgments Relating to an Arbitral Award in the Context of an Application to Enforce the Award in England’ (2012) 8 JPrivIntL 159, 186–7Google Scholar.

111 [2011] EWHC 1461 (Comm), [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 479 [90]–[93].

112 ibid [77]–[79]. The Dutch law on issue preclusion is outlined by van de Velden (n 27) 526–8.

113 [2011] EWHC 1461 (Comm), [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 479 [94]. In general, issue estoppel can operate even though the foreign court applied a law different from the one that the English court would apply: Tracomin SA v Sudan Oil Seeds Co Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 662 (Com Ct) 673–74.

114 [2011] EWHC 1461 (Comm), [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 479 [105].

115 [2012] EWCA Civ 855, [2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep 208 [151], [156].

116 ibid [151] (Rix, Longmore and Davis LJJ).

117 ibid [160].

118 ibid (Rix, Longmore and Davis LJJ). It has been said that ‘comity considerations require the court not to pass judgment on the foreign court system without adequate evidence. Evidence of corruption in the foreign court system is admissible … but it must go beyond generalised, anecdotal material’: Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7, [2012] 1 WLR 1804 [102] (Lord Collins).

119 Section 8(3) of the Act preserves the effects that the judgment has at common law, and the effects of a judgment on the merits pursuant to section 8(1) of the Act are the same as those at common law: Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg AG [1975] AC 591 (HL).

120 Art 34(1) in both instruments. Art 35 contains one exception. When the English court reviews the jurisdiction of the foreign court, which is permitted only to a limited extent, the English court is bound by the findings of fact on which the foreign court based its jurisdiction and cannot invoke English public policy.

121 Similarly, where registration of a foreign judgment under the Administration of Justice Act 1920 is sought, the High Court may use its discretion under section 9 of that Act and refuse registration.