Tradin Organic Agriculture BV v Gold Grain Gida Tarim Ürünleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
[2024] EWHC 1562 (KB)
Iain Shovlin v Paul Careless & Ors
16 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 324 (KB)
High Court
A company tried to enforce a big US court judgment against other companies in the UK. The UK court had to decide if the companies being sued had agreed to be sued in the US court. The UK court looked at what happened in the US court and the laws of both countries. It decided that the companies being sued had *not* agreed to be sued in the US, so the UK court threw out the case.
Key Facts
- •Claimant sought enforcement of a US$10,066,353 Californian default judgment against English defendants.
- •The central issue was whether the defendants voluntarily submitted to the Californian court's jurisdiction.
- •Defendants' counsel appeared at a 'Prove Up Hearing' in California, arguing for dismissal due to non-compliance with a five-year rule.
- •The appearance was described as 'special,' intending to preserve jurisdictional objections.
- •Conflicting expert evidence was presented on Californian and English law regarding voluntary submission.
- •The defendants' solicitor's inappropriate involvement in drafting the joint expert statement was noted.
Legal Principles
Enforcement of foreign judgments at common law requires the foreign court to have had jurisdiction over the defendant, determined by English conflict of law rules.
Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws, 16th Edition, Rules 46-47
Voluntary submission to jurisdiction can arise from a party's conduct, objectively assessed; consent or unequivocal waiver are key.
Golden Endurance Shipping SA v RMA Watanya SA, [2016] EWHC 2110 (Comm)
The burden lies on the claimant to prove the foreign court's competence.
Adams v Cape Industries PLC [1990] 1 Ch 433
The test for voluntary submission is whether there's been an unequivocal representation, by word or conduct, that objection isn't taken to the jurisdiction.
Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2013] 1 AC 236
A party makes a voluntary submission if a step taken amounts to recognition of the court's jurisdiction.
The Messianiki Tolmi [1984] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 266
Californian law distinguishes between general and special appearances; a general appearance submits to jurisdiction.
Various Californian case law and statutes (CCCP)
Under Californian law, judicial estoppel may prevent a party from asserting inconsistent positions in court.
Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171
Outcomes
The claim to enforce the Californian judgment was dismissed.
The court found that the defendants' counsel's conduct at the Prove Up Hearing did not constitute voluntary submission to the Californian court's jurisdiction under either Californian or English law. The defendants' actions were consistent with maintaining their jurisdictional objection, not waiving it. Furthermore, the application of judicial estoppel in California would have barred the claimant's argument.