- Foreign judgments recognition—public policy and voluntary submission considered (Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV v Bank of China)
- Practical implications
- How did SBV come to appear before the Chinese courts?
- What does the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 say?
- Why did SBV's appearance in the Chinese court amount to a submission to its jurisdiction?
- Is there an otherwise evaluative exercise of judgment to be carried out?
- Could recognition be refused on public policy grounds?
- Court details
Dispute Resolution analysis: the Commercial Court has considered when a party’s appearance in proceedings in China, so as to protect or obtain the release of property seized or threatened with seizure in the proceedings, is a step too far and results in submission to those proceedings, such that a judgment following in them may be recognisable and enforceable in this jurisdiction. The judgment also concludes that the voluntary submission to the Chinese proceedings prevented subsequent invocation of the shield of section 32 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982) where the proceedings were started in contravention of an arbitration agreement. Per Carr J: 'If a party submits for the purpose of s 32(1)(c), then it loses its shield against recognition under CJJA 1982, s 32 by reference to jurisdiction or arbitration clauses.’
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial