Conflicts of Laws Question 2022

Running Head: CONFLICT OF LAWS
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

CONFLICT OF LAWS1
QUESTION a:
The civil proceedings were brought before the London Civil Court by Zambia on three
grounds. The first ground was the Zamtrop Conspiracy. It was named after the incident where
the President Chiluba extracted money from various public bank accounts under the Ministry of
Finance and pooled it into two anonymous London-held bank accounts for his own personal use.
The President was accused to have been involved in the siphoning of 25 million dollars from
public accounts into the fake accounts under the impression of fake contracts.
The second ground was MOFED Claim. Although the claim ultimately failed, the
President was accused for the breach of fiduciary duty, in which he had improperly obtained a
property against which he would be entitled to a sum of 100,000 pounds a year.
The third ground was BK Conspiracy wherein the funds were funneled to Belgium and
Switzerland and some to London too with respect to dealings made in arms worth 20,000,000
dollars from Zambia.
The statutory and the Common Law scheme are the most conservative and permit only
the budgetary judgments to be enforced, except the judgments related to taxation and penalties1.
According to the Common Law, a judgment will be enforced only if such judgment is
conclusive. However, the judgments, which are subject to appeal, may also be considered final
which the sole discretion of the court is.
1 Section 12(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1920 and Section 1(2) of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal
Enforcement) Act 1933

CONFLICT OF LAWS2
As per the Common Law, a foreign judgment can only by enforced by means of a fresh
new legal proceedings. Summary Judgment can also be obtained2 if the debtor has no credibility
to defend the claim. The maximum period for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign
judgment as stated by the Common Law is six years.
QUESTION b:
Under the Common Law, following are the basis of refusal:
 The judgment is contradictory to the public policy prevalent in England and Wales.
 The principles of natural justice were breached or the statutory requirements were not
fulfilled.
 Existence of previous final judgment with respect to jurisdiction dispute by a court in that
matter.
 Lack of jurisdiction of the original court in one or more limited grounds.
 Fraudulent methods were followed to obtain the judgment.
 The proceedings of the original court contradict with the contractual dispute resolution
system as agreed upon by the parties excluding the legal proceedings of court in that
country3.
 The judgment decides and confers decision for multiple matters4. Such ground was
included to protect Companies of UK from extraterritorial jurisdiction of United States
authorities.
2 Civil Procedure Rule 24
3 Section 32 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
4 Section 5 of the Protection of Trading Interest Act 1980