1-7 of 7 Results

  • Keyword: foreign courts x
Clear all

Chapter

Jonathan Hill

This chapter deals with the recognition of enforcement of foreign judgments by English courts. The crucial question is not whether foreign judgments should be recognised and enforced in England but which judgments should be recognised and enforced. There are, broadly speaking, two theories. The first is the theory of obligation, which is premised on the notion that if the original court assumed jurisdiction on a proper basis the court's judgment should prima facie be regarded as creating an obligation between the parties to the foreign proceedings which the English court ought to recognise and, where appropriate, enforce. The alternative theory is based on the idea of reciprocity: the courts of country X should recognise and enforce the judgments of country Y if, mutatis mutandis, the courts of country Y recognise and enforce the judgments of country X. Whichever theory is adopted, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is limited by a range of defences which may be invoked by the party wishing to resist the judgment in question. It would be unrealistic to expect the English court to give effect to a foreign judgment which conflicts with fundamental notions of justice and fairness. So, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is a two-stage process: Are the basic conditions for recognition or enforcement satisfied? If so, is there a defence by reason of which the foreign judgment should nevertheless not be recognised or enforced? The remainder of the chapter discusses the recognition and enforcement at common law; statutory regimes based on the common law; recognition and enforcement under the Brussels I Recast; and United Kingdom judgments.

Chapter

This chapter explores the concept of immunities. Immunity from jurisdiction describes the doctrines developed in domestic courts over time to avoid infringements on State sovereignty whenever possible. Generally speaking, immunities seek to prevent foreign courts from exercising jurisdiction regarding the conduct of another State, its agents, officials, or diplomatic representatives, as well as from adjudicating on inter-State disputes without their consent. Due in part to the historical conflation of State and sovereign that defined the scope of immunity, several mechanisms have been developed that allow various categories of officials of States to invoke immunity in the courts of another State. Often an exemption from local jurisdiction exists in relation to mundane violations such as driving offences or administrative matters. However, exemption from jurisdiction has important policy implications if the act in question would constitute an international crime.

Chapter

Jonathan Hill

This chapter addresses the English court's jurisdiction other than in family law matters and excluding a few other kinds of proceedings. There are two types of claim which may be commenced in England: claims in personam and admiralty claims in rem. A claim inpersonam is one in which the claimant seeks a judgment requiring the defendant to pay money, deliver property or do, or refrain from doing, some other act. A claimant who wishes to commence proceedings in personam must be able to serve a claim form on the defendant — either in England or abroad. Admiralty proceedings in rem are directed against property, usually a ship. A typical case is where the claimant has a claim against a ship-owner in respect of his ship — for example, where the claimant's cargo has been damaged as a result of the negligent navigation of the vessel. The remainder of the chapter discusses the bases of jurisdiction in personam; declining jurisdiction and staying proceedings; provisional measure designed to maintain the status quo pending the outcome of the dispute between the parties; and restraining foreign proceedings.

Chapter

Parties occasionally refuse to comply with the judgments and orders of the court. A range of enforcement procedures is available to ensure compliance. This chapter discusses enforcement of money judgments; enforcement of judgments for the delivery of goods; enforcement of judgments for the possession of land; contempt of court; and enforcement of foreign judgments.

Chapter

Parties occasionally refuse to comply with the judgments and orders of the court. A range of enforcement procedures is available to ensure compliance. This chapter discusses enforcement of money judgments; enforcement of judgments for the delivery of goods; enforcement of judgments for the possession of land; contempt of court; and enforcement of foreign judgments.

Chapter

This chapter examines the institutions within the European Union (EU), their powers and the relationship between the institutions. The main EU institutions are the European Parliament, the Council, the European Council, the Commission (including the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy), the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank and the Court of Auditors. There are also other bodies, including: the European Ombudsman, the Economic and Social Committee (ECOSOC), the Committee of the Regions and COREPER. The chapter explains that these institutions and bodies are given different powers and are subject to important rules (for instance, the usual rule of qualified majority voting in the Council), and that they are required to work together in order to provide the checks and balances within the Union legal order, or the so-called institutional balance.

Chapter

This chapter examines the institutions within the European Union (EU), their powers and the relationship between the institutions. The main EU institutions are the European Parliament, the Council, the European Council, the Commission (including the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy), the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank and the Court of Auditors. There are also other bodies, including the European Ombudsman, the Economic and Social Committee (ECOSOC), the Committee of the Regions and COREPER. The chapter explains that these institutions and bodies are given different powers and are subject to important rules (for instance, the usual rule of qualified majority voting in the Council), and that they are required to work together in order to provide the checks and balances within the Union legal order, or the so-called institutional balance.