The defendant had been a dentist in the Netherlands. An action for damages was begun against him, but then stayed. Judgment was later entered in the Netherlands after he had moved to the UK, and of which he was ignorant. There was no subsisting right of appeal. The claimant sought to enforce the judgement here.
Held: The court could refuse to enforce a judgement obtained unfairly. The Brussels convention was intended to simplify the enforcement of judgements, and that would be frustrated by the courts of one country examining whether the procedures of another complied with the Human Rights Convention. Courts should only do so in exceptional circumstances, but there was a distinction between a decision on the facts and a procedure which operated in breach of the right to a fair trial. The Brussels Convention itself (art 27.2) recognised the need for a fair trial. The case had been re-activated after twelve years with no further notification. The judgement would not be enforced since the defendant had been denied his right to a fair trial.
Judges:
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Lord Justice Clarke
Citations:
Times 13-Jun-2002, Gazette 11-Jul-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 774, [2003] QB 620, [2003] 3 All ER 848, [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 225, [2002] 3 WLR 1060
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Brussels Convention Art 27.2
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Barnette v Government of the United States of America; United States Government v Montgomery (No 2) CA 24-Mar-2003
The appellant sought to resist the registration here of a confiscation order made in the US. She argued it would be contrary to the interests of justice to register it, that the US procedure would be unlawful here under the Convention, the appeal . .
Cited – Al-Bassam v Al-Bassam CA 1-Jul-2004
The claimant sought administration of her husband’s estate according to his domicile in England. The defendant claimed the estate under Islamic law, and that there had been no marriage, and that he had been domiciled in Saudi Arabia.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Jurisdiction
Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.171336