Can UK courts pass judgment on due process in other Convention countries?

5 March 2012 by

Merchant International v Naftogaz International [2012] EWCA Civ 196 – read judgment

The Court of Appeal has ruled that domestic courts may refuse to recognise a judgment of another Convention country on the basis that it failed to respect the fair trial principles in Article 6.

In this case the Ukraine Supreme Court was said to have “flagrantly” disregarded the principle of legal certainty. Whilst the English court should apply a strong presumption that the procedures of other Convention States complied with Article 6, it was not wrong for an English court to consider whether a judgment of a court of a Convention State contravened the Convention.

Background

The complicated series of transactions leading to this ruling may be briefly summarised. The respondent company Merchant, which was resisting the set aside of a default judgment, had claimed to be an assignee of a debt owed by the appellant company Naftogaz. But it had not been able to enforce the Ukranian judgment because of a local law that had suspended the enforcement of certain judgments, so Merchant commenced proceeedings in England instead. When Naftogaz failed to serve a defence, Merchant entered judgment in default.

In the Ukraine in the meanwhile Naftogaz had applied to set aside the local judgment in favour of Merchant because of circumstances that had apparently come to light, in that Merchant allegedly lacked  capacity to enter into the original debt assignment. Merchant opposed that application, arguing that the new material did not satisfy the requirement of Ukrainian procedural law that it could not have been known to Naftogaz at the time of the original hearing, and that it could be shown that any lack of standing only arose after the assignment was executed. The Supreme Commercial Court of Ukraine nevertheless set aside the judgment.

In these proceedings, Naftogaz argued that since the Ukrainian judgment had been set aside and a new trial had been ordered, there was no foreign judgment which could be recognised or enforced in England so that the proceedings should be set aside under the Civil Procedure Rules  r.13.3. Merchant contended that the judge had been right to disregard the Ukrainian Supreme Court judgment and to continue to give effect to the earlier judgment in its favour because the latter ruling involved a breach of not only of Article 6 but of  Article Protocol 1 of the Convention. Applying the Strasbourg Court’s ruling in Agrokompleks v Ukraine  (23465/03), October 6, 2011, it was clear that both the previous Ukrainian judgment in the respondent’s favour and the English judgment were “possessions” protected by the Protocol, requiring the English court to recognise the continued existence of the debt.

The judgment

The appellant’s application was refused. The Court held that the Ukraine judgment involved a clear disregard of the principle of legal certainty because it allowed the entire case to be reopened by reference solely to circumstances which had not prevailed  at the earlier hearing. Furthermore, it would be contrary to public policy and the court’s duty under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to recognise such a judgment. The appellant had had no defence to Merchant’s claim when the English default judgment was entered; the basis of its application to set aside was that it had subsequently obtained a judgment from the Ukraine Supreme Court setting aside the previously final judgment. It had been proper for the judge to consider whether the Ukrainian judgment violated the respondent’s Convention rights and the principles of substantial or natural justice as understood by the English courts.

The Court’s reasoning

This was not a question of ignoring the “strong presumption” that the procedures of other Convention States complied with Article 6, as indicated by Lindberg v Sweden (Admissibility) (48198/99) (2004) 38 E.H.R.R. CD239. That admissibility decision did not lay down a broad rule that the courts of a Convention State should never concern themselves with the question whether there had been a breach of a party’s Convention rights in another Convention State but should regard that question as a matter exclusively for the other Convention State and the Strasbourg court. The Court preferred to rely on its own approach in 2002 in Maronier v Larmer, a case concerning the procedural shortcomings of a Dutch judgment, in which the English Court did not accept that it must apply an “irrebuttable presumption” that  a judgment given in another Member State cannot have resulted from a violation of Article 6:

There is … a distinction in principle between a decision that resolves an issue of substantive law and a decision reached by a procedure that violates the fundamental human right to a fair trial.

..It is thus clear that, in an exceptional case where the procedure of the court first seised has resulted in a defendant being prevented from putting his case to the court, Article 27(1) of the Brussels Convention can justify a refusal to enforce the resultant judgment on grounds of public policy.

Although Maronier dealt with a slightly different version of comity between nations, as governed by the Brussels Convention on the enforcement of foreign judgments, it was strong authority in the instant case for acting on the basis that there had been a breach of Article 6 in the Ukraine. Not only is legal certainty regarded as a “fundamental principle” of English law, and an integral principle of Article 6, but in exercising its discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside a judgment, the court had to consider the question of what was just. In this case the judgment had been properly obtained, and to set it aside on the basis of a later proceeding which involved a fundamental denial of legal certainty and fair process. The judge below had been correct in refusing to do so.
Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: