Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:06:01.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foreign Judgments as Res Judicata

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Chaim I. Goldwater
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Cases
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , October 1975 , pp. 592 - 595
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1975

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 See [1974] 1 All E.R. 333.

2 See Winter v. Kovach (1963) 17 P.D. 2032; Rosenbaum v. Guli (1964) (II) 18 P.D. 374, referring to the possibility of suing on the foreign judgment or on the original cause of action as well as proceeding under the Foreign Judgments Enforcement Law, 1958 (12 L.S.I. 82).

3 See Gross v. Sherut Express (1969) (II) 23 P.D. 807.

4 Winter v. Kovach, supra n. 2.

5 Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. Rayner & Keeler Ltd. (No. 2) [1967] 1 A.C. 853. For discussion of this aspect of the case see Bower, Spencer & Turner, , The Doctrine of Res Judicata (2nd ed., 1969) 170 ff.Google Scholar

6 Dicey, & Morris, , The Conflict of Latvs (9th ed., 1973) 1022.Google Scholar

7 Ibid. at p. 1027; Levontin, A. V., “Two Paradoxes in the Recognition of Foreign Judgments” (1967) 2 Is.L.R. 197.Google Scholar

8 A. V. Levontin, op. cit. The requirement of sec. 3(1) of the Foreign Judgments Enforcement Law, 1958, that the judgment sought to be enforced “was given in a state, the courts of which were, according to its laws, competent to give it” would suggest that internal competence in the foreign country concerned must be proved under the statute, thus obviating this anomaly.

9 See in particular Graveson, R. H., Conflict of Laws: Private International Law (7th ed., 1974) 8, 618Google Scholar, and authorities there cited.

10 The tendency of the Law Lords in the Carl Zeiss case (supra n. 5) was also to restrict the application of issue estoppel.