JERSEY Law and Practice Contributed by: Amy Benest, William Redgrave, Jared Dann and Lynne Gregory, Baker & Partners
• the judgment was obtained by fraud; • enforcement of the foreign judgment would be contrary to public policy in Jersey; • the foreign judgment does not fall within the parameters of the Law; • the debtor did not receive sufficient notice of the proceedings in order to defend themselves and they did not appear; • the applicant for registration of the foreign enforce - ment does not hold the rights in the foreign judg - ment; and • the foreign court had no jurisdiction to grant the judgment. Customary Method At an application for summary judgment, the defend - ant to enforcement proceedings may assert that: • the judgment was obtained by fraud; • enforcement of the foreign judgment would be contrary to public policy or natural justice in Jer - sey; and • the foreign court had no jurisdiction to grant the underlying judgment. Under either method, the Royal Court will deem that the foreign court had jurisdiction over the defendant in the underlying proceedings if, in the case of an in personam claim: • the defendant submitted to the foreign court’s juris - diction; • the defendant was a plaintiff or issued a counter - claim in the underlying proceedings; • the defendant had agreed prior to the issue of the proceedings to submit to the foreign court’s jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter of the underlying proceedings; and • the defendant was ordinarily resident or had an office or place of business in the foreign jurisdiction at the time when the proceedings were initiated. If the subject matter of the foreign proceedings con - cerned immovable property situated in the foreign court’s jurisdiction or an in rem action which relates to movable property is located in the foreign court’s jurisdiction, the Royal Court will also deem that the foreign court had jurisdiction over the debtor.
A judgment debtor may challenge enforcement if they are entitled to immunity.
4. Arbitral Awards 4.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Arbitral Awards The enforcement of arbitral awards in Jersey is gov - erned by the Arbitration (Jersey) Law 1998 (the “Arbi - tration Law”). The Arbitration Law establishes two regimes depend - ing upon whether the New York Convention applies (the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958) (Part 4 of the Arbitration Law) or the 1923 Protocol on Arbitra - tion Clauses or the 1927 Geneva Convention (Part 3 of the Arbitration Law). 4.2 Variations in Approach to Enforcement of Arbitral Awards The Arbitration Law provides for the enforcement of arbitral awards by ex parte Representation to the Court or by issue of fresh proceedings (see the Cus - tomary Method explained in 3. Foreign Judgments ). Awards from the International Centre for the Settle - ment of Investment Disputes may be enforced in Jer - sey further to the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) (Jersey) Order 1979. No procedure has been established for these awards, but our view is that an applicant would need to issue a Representation to the Court, supported by affidavit, to seek a court order allowing enforcement. 4.3 Categories of Arbitral Awards Not Enforced Arbitration awards are, subject to the exceptions listed below, enforceable in Jersey. The Arbitration Law states that the enforcement of a New York Convention award shall not be refused unless it falls within the categories set out in 4.6 Chal- lenging Enforcement of Arbitral Awards . The empha - sis is different for Protocol and Geneva Convention awards in that permission needs to be obtained from the court before it may be enforced.
264 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook