ENGLAND & WALES Law and Practice Contributed by: James Herring, Nathalie Allen and David Wigg, Addleshaw Goddard
3.6 Challenging Enforcement of Foreign Judgments The routes to challenge enforcement depend on which regime applies to the judgment. Under the European Regime and the Lugano Convention There are limited grounds for challenging enforce - ment. A judgment will not be recognised if recogni - tion is manifestly contrary to UK public policy, nor if the judgment: • is given in default (if the defendant was not served with the proceedings), unless the defendant failed to challenge the proceedings when it was possible for them to do so; • is irreconcilable with a judgment given between the same parties in the UK; • is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment in another member state including the same cause of action and between the same parties; • conflicts with the special protection for consumers, employees or insureds (weaker parties) under the European Regime; or • is under challenge in the state of origin, or if an application has been made in the UK to refuse enforcement. Under the Hague Convention 2005 and Hague Judgments Convention 2019 Fraud is a ground for refusing recognition. Other grounds for refusing recognition include the following. • The choice-of-court agreement was null and void, unless the court of origin determined that it was valid (Hague Convention 2005 only). • A party lacked the capacity to conclude the choice-of-court agreement (Hague Convention 2005 only). • The document that instituted the proceedings was: (a) not notified to the defendant in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable the defendant to arrange its defence, unless the defendant presented its case without contesting notifica - tion in the court of origin, provided that the law permitted notification to be contested; or (b) notified to the defendant in the requested state in a manner that is incompatible with the
fundamental principles of the requested state concerning service of documents. • Recognition or enforcement would be manifestly incompatible with UK public policy, including where the proceedings leading to the judgment were incompatible with the fundamental principles of procedural fairness of the state of origin. • The judgment is inconsistent with a judgment given in the UK in a dispute between the same parties or is inconsistent with an earlier judgment given in another state between the same parties on the same cause of action, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the UK. Under the Statutory Regime Examples of grounds for challenging registration are as follows. Under the AJA 1920 No judgment may be registered (or any registration may be set aside) if: • the application is made more than 12 months after the date of the original judgment (or longer if the English court permits); • the original court had no jurisdiction over the mat - ter; • the judgment debtor was not resident or carrying on business in the original jurisdiction and did not voluntarily submit to that jurisdiction; • the debtor was not served with the original pro - ceedings and did not appear or submit to the original jurisdiction; • the judgment was obtained by fraud; • enforcement would be contrary to UK public policy; • an appeal is pending in the original court, or the debtor is entitled to appeal and intends to do so; or • the judgment is in respect of a cause of action that could not have been brought in England. Under the 1933 Act No judgment may be registered (or registration may be set aside) if: • the judgment does not fall within the types of judg - ments covered by the 1933 Act;
154 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook