How Public Policy Restricts Foreign Judgments in England: A Study

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in England, with a specific focus on the role of public policy as a restricting factor. The study examines the legal framework governing foreign judgments in the UK, detailing the conditions for recognition and enforcement, including the requirement of similar issues, finality, and identical parties. It delves into the theories of obligation and reciprocity, which underpin the acknowledgment and execution of foreign judgments. The report explores the three primary methods of applying foreign judgments in England: European judgments, judgments from Commonwealth states and those with bilateral agreements, and judgments from states without agreements. It details the processes and regulations under the Brussels Regulation, the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, and the Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933. Furthermore, it examines exceptional cases where foreign judgments cannot be applied, especially when they conflict with English public policy. The influence of EU law and relevant case law, such as the Jimmy Wayne Adams case, are considered throughout the analysis, offering practical examples and insights into the complexities of international law and cross-border enforcement.

Private International Law

Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Main Body.......................................................................................................................................3
Acknowledgement and execution of the foreign judgement in England.....................................3
Analysis of the role of public policy as restriction in the procedure of executionand
acknowledgment of foreign judgement in England...................................................................12
Legal mechanism of foreign judgments....................................................................................14
Exceptional cases when foreign judgments cannot be applied..................................................17
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................18
Bibliography..................................................................................................................................19

INTRODUCTION
It is a fact that states in a country shares overarching legislative framework along with advantage
of enhanced economic, artistic , historical proximity with each other rather than outsiders. Thus,
a state is usually accepts and enforce a judgment with ease which has been concluded or
provided by a sister state rather than state which is not in constitutional framework. It can be
rather referred as foreign judgments. One of major instance of same is application of decision in
public and trading matters i.e. Brussels Convention in EU which asserts that judgment concluded
in EU member state are empowered to accept or approve without review subject to limited
exceptions. However, same is not applied to judgment concluded in Non –EU countries. Present
study provides detail discussion relating to the manner in which public policy can be
implemented as a restriction in the process of consideration and application of foreign judgments
in Europe.
MAIN BODY
Recognition of foreign judgment take place at the time when court of one country approves a
judicial decision made by court of other nation, and issues a decision in major similar terms
without rehearing the main aspect of original litigation. The European Union offers for various
lawful regimes to confirm that decision given by EU member state in commercial and civil
aspects are smoothly implemented in the other state member of EU1.
Acknowledgement and execution of the foreign judgments in England
Execution of ruling can be comprehensive where distinct nation and distinct system are involved.
Therefore, it is important to obtain the advice of expert to safeguard their place in the case of
dispute. In the present globalized environment, the significance of parties securing their positions
is even more critical. Enforcement consists of the act of implementing judgment, and it
mandatorily comprises its recognition.
1BriggsAdrian, Private International Law in English Courts (Oxford University Press 2014)
Chapter 3.

For execution and acknowledgment of foreign judgment in England, three conditions should be
satisfies, which are as follows –
 Issues which are before the English court should be similar with that are ascertained by
the foreign court.
 Foreign ruling must be ultimate.
 Parties should be identical.
For the execution of foreign ruling, a ruling should firstrecognized. With this aspect, major
issues for acknowledgment and execution of foreign judgment are related with which judgment
should be acknowledged and executed2. There are two theories, which states that which foreign
judgment should be recognized and enforced, which are described as below –
Theory of obligation
It is based on the aspect that if the original jurisdiction presumed jurisdiction on a suitable source
the judgment of the court should prima facie considered as making a responsibility among the
revelries to the foreign proceeding which the English court want to recognized and enforced.
Theory of reciprocity
It is another theory for acknowledgment and execution of foreign judgment. It is founded on the
aspect of reciprocity3. According to this theory, the count of country A should consider and
execute the judgment of nation B if, mutatis mutandis, the court of nation B recognize and
execute judgment of nation A.
2Samuel P Baumgartner., ‘Changes in the European Union's Regime of Recognizing and
Enforcing Foreign Judgments and Transnational Litigation in the United States’ (2012) 18 (2)
Southwestern Journal of International Law 567.
3MarussiaBorm-Reid, ‘Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments’ (1954) 3 (1)
International and Comparative Law Quarterly 49.

In the England, foreign judgment may be applied in three manners, which are given below –
 European Judgment – ruling of foreign States participants to the Judgment Regulation
2000 and Lugano Convention which relates to EFTA countries.
 Ruling of the states of Commonwealth and states with which UK has a bilateral
agreement.
 Ruling from the courts of foreign states with whom no agreement has been made.
After registration of decision, or announced executable, it is considered as for purpose of English
Law as similar to judgment provided by High Court4.
Judgment of European Nation
The registration of judgment of European nation can be possible by reasonably forthright
process. Notification of the action is then given to the judgment debtor, who had the chance to
implement to set aside the action, but only in accordance with restricted reasons which are
defined in Article 27 of the Brussels Regulations.
The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgment Act 1982, as modified by the Civil Jurisdiction and
Judgments Order 2001 (SI 2001 No. 3929), takes into impact in English Law the agreements
under which ruling of the participant states of the connected convention will be imposed.
Particularly, under treaties the judgment is not only related with concluding financial payment,
but also commands, consisting interlocutory injunctions, would imposed.
According to Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, ruling given by court of state of
participants of European nation may be listed by compliance of process same prescribed in the
1920 or 1933 Act. According to Article 31 of the Convention states, a decision provided in a
Contracting State and imposed in that state should be executed in other Contracting State when,
interested party filed an application, the command for its imposition has been enforced there.
4Adrian Briggs, ‘Recognition of Foreign Judgements: A Matter of Obligation’ (2013) 129 (1)
Law Quarterly Review 87.

Provided that, agreement offers a constant means of determination of jurisdiction, if the time
limit for set aside of registration has finished, ruling can be applied by the same method an
English Judgment5.
The Brussel agreement offers for acknowledgment and application of a decision from one
contracting state in other contacting state. According to this, foreign decision provided in one
contracting state must be recognized in other contracting state without any compliance of unique
procedure. The agreement in an expressed manner establishes situation in which Court of a State
in which acknowledgment is required should not be recognized.
Terms and conditions provided under Article 27 of Brussel Regulation are prescribed as below –
 In which recognition is wanted, it is opposed to the pubic norms of the state.
 If there was full of mistake appears in the judgment, if the respondent was not
appropriately attended with papers which initiated proceedings or a similar paper in
adequate period to capable him to organize for his resistance6.
 If the ruling is contradicting with ruling provided in an issue among same assessee in the
state in which acknowledgment is required.
 If the court of the state of origin, in order to reach at its ruling, has ascertained a primary
questions regarding the position of permissible ability of accepted individual, privileges
in property rising out of a martial connection, wills, progression in manner that clashes
with a norms of private international law in the state in which acknowledgment is
5EnidCampbell, ‘Res Judicata and Decisions of Foreign Tribunals’ (1994) 16 (3) Sydney Law
Review 311.
6Adair Dyer, ‘Beyond the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements’ (1984) 9 International
Legal Practitioner 49.

wanted, except if similar outcome would have been obtained by the request of norms of
private international law of the states7.
 If ruling is conflicting with a prior judgment in a non-contracting state consisting of
similar reason of activities and among the similar revelries, on a condition that this latter
ruling satisfies the terms necessary for its acknowledgment in the state addressed8.
Judgment reached in states of commonwealth or states with which the United Kingdom has
a bilateral agreement
According to the Administration of Justice Act 1920 and following regulations, ruling acquired
in the Superior courts in several areas of territories of majesty outside the UK may be registered
by a same process to that applied on European judgment. According to the Foreign Judgment
(Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, ruling acquired in the courts of identified foreign nations
may also be listed in this nation. This Act permits judgment of superior court in the nation in
which UK has bilateral agreement to be applied by registration9.
Registration of the ruling set aside under the Foreign Judgment Act 1933 if the court is content
that the following aspect –
 If the ruling is not considered as ruling to which Act is applicable or was registered in
violation of the norms of the law.
7John Fitzpatrick, ‘TheLugano Convention and Western European Integration: A Comparative
Analysis of Jurisdiction and Judgments in Europe and the United States’ (1993) 8 (2)
Connecticut Journal of International Law 695.
8Adair Dyer, ‘Beyond the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements’ (1984) 9 International
Legal Practitioner 49.
9Jie Huang, ‘Interregional Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments:
Lessons for China from US and EU Laws’ (2010) 6 (1) Journal of Private International Law 109.

 The courts of the nation of the original court had no authority as perEnglish regulations
of the private international law in the condition of the case10.
 If notice is not obtained by the ruling debtor being respondent in the proceeding in the
original court of those proceeding in adequate time to capable it to respond the
proceeding and did not perform.
 If the ruling was obtained by embezzlement.
 If the application of the ruling would be in conflicting under the English public norms.
 The powers of the person under the ruling were not conferred in the individual by whom
the request for registration was create11.
Judgment acquired in the courts of foreign state with which there is no agreement
Judgment of the nation with whom no agreement is made and which is not connected to the
agreement may be applied by taking an action on the judgment. For instance, there is no treaty
among UK and USA.
The action to apply the ruling is an act at common law as compared with Brussel agreement, the
norms of common law are considered as more obstructive. In accordance with English common
law, a foreign decision which is not accepted in England to merge original reason of conduct, is
provided that realistic defined conditions are satisfied between individuals who were the parties
in the case of proceedings in foreign court relating to question adjudicated upon can be trusted
upon by above specified parties if later proceeding which are brought to England by other parties
10BriggsAdrian, Private International Law in English Courts (Oxford University Press 2014)
Chapter 5.
11Francisco J. GarcimartinAlferez,, ‘The Rome I Regulation: Exceptions to the Rule on
Consumer Contracts and Financial Instruments’ (2009) 5 (1) Journal of Private International Law
85.

in respect of same cause of action12. However, it cannot be complied in case of criminal or fiscal
matter. The same judgment was provided in case of Black-Clawson International Ltd v
PapienverkeWaldhof-Aschaffenburg.
The reason of action is the foreign ruling and request could create for immediate decision on the
origin of that there is no security to activities. For enforceability of foreign ruling in English
court, it should be contented that foreign court had authority to provide the decision as the
English norms of the international private law13.
The requirement by the English court for the jurisdiction is prescribed as below –
 Respondent involved in the applied proceeding in England should be resident, or in case
of person is body corporate, and then it should have place of businesses the nation of the
foreign court which has provided ruling.
 The respondent to the applied proceeding was the petitioner in the proceeding of foreign
court.
 It should be agreed by respondent to file to the authority of the foreign court.
 Foreign ruling is certain as well as concluding. The entitlement in the English processing
is to apply ruling for certain amount of money. However, this amount does not include
fines, taxes, or penalties.
12Volker Behr, ‘Rome I Regulation: A - Mostly - Unified Private International Law of
Contractual Relationships within - Most - of the European Union’ (2011) 29 (2) Journal of Law
and Commerce 233.
13UgljesaGrusic, ‘Jurisdiction in Complex Contracts under the Brussels I Regulation’ (2011) 7
(2) Journal of Private International Law 321.

 The respondent was assisted with the procedure of the foreign court and ruling was not
acquired by deceptive technique or any reason of activities which are opposed to the
public policy of the England.
In England, acknowledgment and execution of a foreign decision is denied on the basis of fraud.
It is different as compared with the civil place of the other countries; in which fraud is not the
basis of refusal of acknowledgment and execution of foreign judgment. However, foreign ruling
may be denied acknowledgment in civil law nations if the reason of acquisition was fraud. In
England, one of the leading case related with consideration and application of foreign ruling is
the Jimmy Wayne Adams and others v Cape Industries plc and Capasco Limited [1990] 2 WLR
657. In this case, Steven Loble performed for the claimants in that case which consist of
execution of common law of judgment acquired in Texas by 206 claimants wounded by asbestos.
The judgment was acceptd in contrary to the respondent in the district court of the United States
for the Eastern District of Texas Tyler Division and the related proceeding was taken to High
Court of Justice in London to execute the judgment. However, the court refused to execute the
judgment because of the some reasons, which are provided as follows –
 The respondent did not existed in nation of the foreign court while initiation of foreign
proceedings.
 It would be against the normal reasonableness to execute the ruling on the basis that there
is no appropriate official analysis of the costs.
It was identified by the court that respondent, if they have been demonstrate to exist in the US,
would have been exist in Illinois and that the ruling was provided in Texas would not restrict the
ruling from executed. The reason behind this, matter was before a Federal court and it was the
court of the US and not of the territory in which it was sitting. The petition to the court of appeal
was not successful14.
14Murat MetinHakki, ‘Choice of Law, Contracts and the EC's 1980 Rome Convention - A Re-
Evaluation in the 21st Century’ (2003) Australian International Law Journal 156.

The services out of the jurisdiction will permit by the English court only in some circumstances.
It is expected by foreign court to apply their ruling. The discussion, founded on mutuality, is to
the impact that English court should apply foreign ruling in similar condition. These discussion
respites significantly on the doctrine of comity of nation15.
Execution of penal ruling
Penal or revenue rules will not distract by the English court in direct manner or in indirect
manner. This is basically element of contravention of act that penal rules will not applied in the
English court. The implementation of specified provision relating to execution of foreign ruling
by the English court has assist to unclear results. In the legal case of Huntington v Attrill [1893]
AC 150, the basic of this law is provided by Lord Watson16. This law has its foundation in the
famous standard that offense, consisting in that noncompliance of public law indictable by
monetary mulct or in any other manner, in the case of state government, or any person
demonstrating the public, is local in this meaning, that it generally recognizable and serious in
the nation where they were taken place.
Estoppel
The doctrine of estoppel plays an important role with respect to complication in international and
worldwide litigation. If the foreign court provided ruling for an amount of money to a party who
was achieved success in proceeding, however it is considered that amount of damages provided
by foreign court should be more, then the question arise whether party is capable to request for
new action in the England. That revelry would be prevented from request for new proceedings.
The basic reason behind that English court identifies the legitimacy of a foreign ruling about the
claims or reason of action as among the same parties. In the similar manner, if success was not
achieved by part in foreign court and wished file claim again in England, the respondent would
assert that the case is res judicata17. If any decision that considers as a res judicata may assist to a
15Lone LHansen., ‘Applicable Employment Law after Rome I - The Draft Rome I Regulation
and Its Importance for Employment Contracts’ (2008) 19 (4) European Business Law Review
767.
16Huntington v Attrill [1893] AC 150,
17HardingMaebh, Conflict of Laws Paperback (5 edn.,Routledge 2013) Chapter 9.

plea of cause of action estoppel. Although, every plea has its own terms in accordance with
subject matter that can be prohibited, they all accept a decision that consider as res judicata. On
the basis of view of public, if any decision is taken by foreign court then it assists that it must not
be normally reviewed in the English court. However, if in case foreign court provided their
ruling on the aspect which are not considered as significant part of its decisional process, then in
such case the court has recognized and enforced the proceedings.
Matters relevant for respondent in relation to set aside listed decision
Respondent has several choices to set aside the foreign ruling which has been registered in
England. Some of issues which should be taken into account by respondent are as follows –
 Whether contract contain judicial clause.
 Whether foreign court have jurisdiction.
 Whether there is any manner in which respondent can restrict execution.
 Whether judgment is acquired by fraud18.
Analysis of the role of public policy as restriction in the procedure of execution and
acknowledgment of foreign judgments in England
Acknowledgment and execution of foreign judgment under common law is applicable in case
inventing jurisdiction do not have any valid agreement with the United Kingdom, on in the non-
existence of any valid statute of UK. With this aspect, few out of main example consists of
China, Russia, Brazil, and United States. In accordance with common law, in the UK foreign
judgment cannot be executed in a direct manner, but rather than will be considered as if it make a
contract of obligation among the parties19. The creditor will required taking an action in the
appropriate jurisdiction of the UK for a simple debt; generally immediate procedure will be
available. Any ruling acquired will be executed in the same manner as any other ruling of the
court situated in the United Kingdom. In the UK, court will not provide judgment on such a debt
18Ooi,Maisie Shares and Other Securities in the Conflict of Laws (Oxford University Press 2003).
19S. FinchMichael, ‘Choice-of-law and Property’ (1996) 26 Stetson Law Review 257.

if original court needed jurisdiction as per the suitable UK conflicts of laws rule, was obtained
through embezzlement, or it is against the public policy. Further, if it is against the natural justice
then also UK court will not provide judgment20.
In accordance with section 32 (1) of Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, foreign decision
might not be considered in case it was concluded in contravene of valid choice of court or
arbitration except in case when defendant submitted foreign court jurisdiction. Moreover, while
determining the significant reasonableness variants, judgment will be based on standards of
reasonableness instead of severe norms. In case the provisions are not limited to deprived off
notification or renunciation of adequate opportunity to be heard , mere loophole procedure will
not be enough to recognize and execution. The courts are able to sever variants of foreign
judgment which are against to policy of public or ineligible under as per enforcement provisions
and recognize the balance. However, in case part of an award in relation to tax and penalties
might be severed and amount excess of compensatory amount will be unenforceable21.
In the UK, the court has no right to preclude foreign court from performing to issue or execute
judgments, and will in vast majority of cases execute foreign ruling in the UK where the
common law, legal or agreement requirement are satisfied. On the other hand, the court in UK,
do not have power to restrict individual variant to their influence from implementing in the UK a
ruling acquired in contravention of the contract or by embezzlement. In the legal case of
Ellerman Lines, Ltd v Read (1928) 2 KB 144, anti-enforcement injunction was provided. The
power to confine execution has been applied infrequently, possibly due to contractual selection
of court or embezzlement in the foreign court are given clearly among the limitation of the basis
for stimulating registration of judgment in the several laws and other aspect leading execution22.
20Rogerson P. J., ‘The Situs of Debts in the Conflict of Laws. Illogical, Unnecessary and
Misleading’ (1990) 49 (3) The Cambridge Law Journal 441.
21ThomaleChris, ‘The forgotten discipline of private international law: lessons from Kiobel v
Royal Dutch Petroleum – Part 2’ (2016) 7 (3) Transnational Legal Theory 287.
22Ellerman Lines, Ltd v Read (1928) 2 KB 144

A foreign ruling acquired in derision of an anti-suit injunction provided by a court in the UK
would not be executed in the UK on the basis of public policy23.
The public policy deliberations related to the execution are not a closed list. Further, any analysis
of the requirement of natural reasonableness of a foreign court should also be founded on an
evaluation of the condition in every case.
Along with above aspect, another matter is related with whether court investigates the foreign
ruling for steadiness with executing public policy of jurisdiction and substantive rules and
regulations. According to the norms and rules, the Brussels and Lugano Convention, the FJA and
common law the court of UK will not exercise a foreign judgment where it in in contravention of
public policy.
Legal mechanism of foreign judgments
A significant expansion has been assessed in international commerce and communication and it
has enhanced the proportionate increase in transnational disputes in terms of volume as well as
intensity. Regulations in relation with private international law which arise on rare basis are now
assessed at most national courts and analyzed in appropriate manner24. The same has been done
through assistance of The Hague Conference on Private International Law which provided
uniformity to come up to decision of law in international contracts. The Hague Principals
emphasize party autonomy and enforce principles considering the law selected by the parties
which will regulate the contract to the significant possible limit after considering specified limits.
However, Article 1(2) of Hague Principals specified negative description to impact that the
agreement or contract in international unless ‘the relevant parties of the contract have
establishments in same State along with all other variants are connected with specified state
23MarussiaBorm-Reid, ‘Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments’ (1954) 3 (1)
International and Comparative Law Quarterly 49.
24Paul Beaumont, "Private international law concerning children in the UK after Brexit:
comparing Hague Treaty law with EU Regulations." Child and Family Law Quarterly 29.3
(2017): 213-232.

only’. In accordance with Hague principles, party autonomy concept is applied which permits to
chose the law under which their contract will be regulation25. The specified act assures certainty
and predictability of the terms between parties arrangement for various reason. It was concluded
in case of Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp v. Kuwait Insurance Co [1984] AC 50 (U.K.) that
contracts should be developed with some reference of private law which asserts the obligation
presumed by parties26.
Even the principles of party autonomy have been applied in context with international contract
which was significantly contentious issue on both the parties27. Various scholars of England,
United States have supported the law as in present globalized world; concept of party autonomy
has garnered significant support in resolving conflicts of laws as it is a practical solution28. The
fact cannot be denied that variation in approaches might lead to practices which might be
confronted by similar disputes over same contract as per choice of different degrees. It has been
concluded in case of ANDREW S. BELL, FORUM SHOPPING AND VENUE IN
TRANSNATIONAL LITIGATION 15 (2003) that issue could be resolved through analyzing the
available option in order to conclude the best result through selecting a forum which will be
applied on arguments of laws rules favorably. Thus the Hague principles could be summarized in
following manner:
 The chosen court is required to resolve the case with option of court agreement in case it
is legitimate or legally binding in accordance with provisions developed by Convention.
25Adrian Briggs, ‘Recognition of Foreign Judgements: A Matter of Obligation’ (2013) 129 (1)
Law Quarterly Review 87.
26Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp v. Kuwait Insurance Co [1984] AC 50 (U.K.)
27Daniel Girsberger, and Neil B Cohen,., ‘Key Features of the Hague Principles on Choice of
Law in International Commercial Contracts’ (2017) 22 (2) Uniform Law Review 316.
28Merino Elena Blanco, andPontin Ben. "Litigating extraterritorial nuisances under english common law
and UK statute." Transnational Environmental Law 6.2 (2017): 285-308.

 It provides a universal approach which is serves international code of current in assessing
and applying concept of party autonomy29.
 It specifies “the level of playing field” between the parties for arbitration and litigation
purpose30.
An exception to above specified provision can be understood with case of Contour Design, Inc.
v. Chance Mold Steel Co.31, Ltd. In specified case dispute existed relating to non-disclosure
agreement. (NDA) framed by lawyer of Colorado which asserts that a choice of law selecting
Colorado. The another party i.e. Taiwanese respondent who was the appellant of A New
Hampshire corporation in accordance with which the method of Re-statement applied to the
dispute32. The decision was made by Court by keeping aside parties choice of law as there was
insignificant relationship between provisions of Law of Colorado and NDA and resolved the
issue through application of New Hampshire Law. Further Article 11 of Hague principles asserts
that the choice of law between assessee relating to an worldwide commercial agreement does not
exclude overriding compulsory laws and public policy or the provisions of ordre public.
Exceptional cases when foreign judgments cannot be applied
The consideration or application of foreign judgments could be denied to the extent judgments
awards penalty or punishment comprising exemplary or penalizing damages and do not provide
compensation to the party who has suffered actual loss. Another case is when court makes
assessment relating to consideration to the extent damages provided through judgment of origin
serve to recover the cost and spending in relation with proceedings. It has been specified in
Article 17 of International law that proceeding relating to contract of insurance or reinsurance is
29Enid Campbell, ‘Res Judicata and Decisions of Foreign Tribunals’ (1994) 16 (3) Sydney Law
Review 311.
30Lassa Oppenheim,. "The Science of International Law: its task and method." The Nature of
International Law.Routledge, 2017. 93-356.
31Contour Design, Inc. v. Chance Mold Steel Co., Ltd., 693 F.3d 102 (1st Cir. 2012).
32Richard Garnett, , ‘The Hague Choice of Court Convention: Magnum Opus or Much Ado about
Nothing’ (2009) 5 (1) Journal of Private International Law 161.

part of scope of Convention. Further, enforcement of decision in relation to terms of contract i.e.
insurance or reinsurance are not bounded or denied on the basis that liability under the contract
comprises liability to cover the insured subject to matter to which contradicted does not apply
will be awarded damages to which Article 11 applies.
As per the decision of case of the AJA, it could be assessed that the main cause in relation with
implementation of foreign judgement that whether it will be analyzed by courts in the UK is its
impact on public policy. The specified cases does not represent the exhaustive case laws which
provides that conceptions of public policy are required to be involved while the situation exist
where there is precedent for public policy considerations excepting the decision of foreign
judgements in relation with taxes, penalties or multiple damages as in case of SA Consortium
General Textiles v Sun & Sand Agencies Ltd (1978) .The case obtained in breach of article
6 of the ECHR which can be referred as contravention with breach of fundamental human rights.
The decision was provided by court that judgement will be made after considering allegations
of fraud relating to significant embarrassment to diplomatic relations even in case of non-EU
judgments. In case the parties are irreconcilable with availablejudgments between the same
assessee on the similar issues in the UK.
On the contrary as per provision of EEO Regulation, EOP and Small Claims Procedures, are the
representatives of available irreconcilable UK judgment which provide a base for challenging
the enactment. Thus, the Courts of UK are capable to not to accept or deny part of a foreign
judgment in case they are contravening public policy or ineligible under the required
enforcement rules, and recognise the balance. Moreover in case where, part of an award is
relating to taxes or penalties, the same is required to be severed. In case where award is in
relation with multiple damages, the amount exceeding compensatory amount will be
unenforceable. It has been asserted in Article 48 of the Regulation that for severance as a general
matter i.e. actual judgement is not considered for all matters dealt with in a judgment, the courts
are required to specify the limits in relation with eligible parts of the judgment.
CONCLUSION
It can be conclude from above discussion that Hague Principles represent the overarching
mandate of Hague Conference. Further, through application of signification cohesion between

various approaches of law relating to international contracts could be made. As, it assists in
prompting the parties to plan cross-border transactions in more adequate manner. Through above
specified examples it is appropriate to state that courts of England and Wales apply foreign
judgments and comparatively law at wide basis. However, specific exemptions are there which
specify that these judgments cannot override public policy of any state. It has been accessed from
above study that at common law; the court of UK will not provide judgment relating to debt
claim on the basis of foreign judgment which lack jurisdiction as per UK conflict of law rules
which is not in accordance with public policy or the requirements of natural justice. Overall, it
would be appropriate to state that English law recognizes sovereign immunity as legal defence
for enactment of foreign judgments. Thus, it is appropriate to reassess the available provision of
public policy and exceptions of foreign judgments by every assessee before application of same.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
List of cases
Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp v. Kuwait Insurance Co [1984] AC 50 (U.K.)
Contour Design, Inc. v. Chance Mold Steel Co., Ltd., 693 F.3d 102 (1st Cir. 2012).
Ellerman Lines, Ltd v Read (1928) 2 KB 144
Huntington v Attrill [1893] AC 150,
Books and Journal
Adrian B.Private International Law in English Courts (Oxford University Press 2014) Chapter 3.
Baumgartner, S. ‘Changes in the European Union's Regime of Recognizing and Enforcing
Foreign Judgments and Transnational Litigation in the United States’ (2012) 18 (2) Southwestern
Journal of International Law 567.
Borm-Reid, M. ‘Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments’ (1954) 3 (1) International
and Comparative Law Quarterly 49.
Briggs, A. ‘Recognition of Foreign Judgements: A Matter of Obligation’ (2013) 129 (1) Law
Quarterly Review 87.
Campbell, E. ‘Res Judicata and Decisions of Foreign Tribunals’ (1994) 16 (3) Sydney Law
Review 311.
Dyer, A. ‘Beyond the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements’ (1984) 9 International Legal
Practitioner 49.
Fitzpatrick, J. ‘TheLugano Convention and Western European Integration: A Comparative
Analysis of Jurisdiction and Judgments in Europe and the United States’ (1993) 8 (2)
Connecticut Journal of International Law 695.
Huang, J. ‘Interregional Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments:
Lessons for China from US and EU Laws’ (2010) 6 (1) Journal of Private International Law 109.
Adrian B. Private International Law in English Courts (Oxford University Press 2014) Chapter 5.
Alferez, F. ‘The Rome I Regulation: Exceptions to the Rule on Consumer Contracts and
Financial Instruments’ (2009) 5 (1) Journal of Private International Law 85.

Behr, V. ‘Rome I Regulation: A - Mostly - Unified Private International Law of Contractual
Relationships within - Most - of the European Union’ (2011) 29 (2) Journal of Law and
Commerce 233.
Grusic, U. ‘Jurisdiction in Complex Contracts under the Brussels I Regulation’ (2011) 7 (2)
Journal of Private International Law 321.
Hakki, M. ‘Choice of Law, Contracts and the EC's 1980 Rome Convention - A Re-Evaluation in
the 21st Century’ (2003) Australian International Law Journal 156.
Hansen, L.‘Applicable Employment Law after Rome I - The Draft Rome I Regulation and Its
Importance for Employment Contracts’ (2008) 19 (4) European Business Law Review 767.
Maebh H. Conflict of Laws Paperback (5 edn.,Routledge 2013) Chapter 9.
Maisie O. Shares and Other Securities in the Conflict of Laws (Oxford University Press 2003).
Michael S. F. ‘Choice-of-law and Property’ (1996) 26 Stetson Law Review 257.
Rogerson P. J., ‘The Situs of Debts in the Conflict of Laws. Illogical, Unnecessary and
Misleading’ (1990) 49 (3) The Cambridge Law Journal 441.
Chris T. ‘The forgotten discipline of private international law: lessons from Kiobel v Royal
Dutch Petroleum – Part 2’ (2016) 7 (3) Transnational Legal Theory 287.
Borm-Reid, M.‘Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments’ (1954) 3 (1) International
and Comparative Law Quarterly 49.
Briggs, A. ‘Recognition of Foreign Judgements: A Matter of Obligation’ (2013) 129 (1) Law
Quarterly Review 87.
Campbell, E. ‘Res Judicata and Decisions of Foreign Tribunals’ (1994) 16 (3) Sydney Law
Review 311.
Dyer, A. ‘Beyond the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements’ (1984) 9 International Legal
Practitioner 49.
Girsberger, D. and Cohen, N. B., ‘Key Features of the Hague Principles on Choice of Law in
International Commercial Contracts’ (2017) 22 (2) Uniform Law Review 316.
Garnett, R., ‘The Hague Choice of Court Convention: Magnum Opus or Much Ado about
Nothing’ (2009) 5 (1) Journal of Private International Law 161.
Levin, J., ‘The Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts:
Enhancing Party Autonomy in a Globalized Market’ (2016) 13 (1) New York University Journal
of Law and Business 271.

Blanco, E. M., and Ben P., "Litigating extraterritorial nuisances under english common law and
UK statute." Transnational Environmental Law 6.2 (2017): 285-308.
Beaumont, l. "Private international law concerning children in the UK after Brexit: comparing
Hague Treaty law with EU Regulations." Child and Family Law Quarterly 29.3 (2017): 213-232.
Oppenheim, L. "The Science of International Law: its task and method." The Nature of
International Law.Routledge, 2017.93-356.