Society of Lloyd's v X

Cour de Cassation (France) 

[2008] 10 WLUK 588 

22 Oct 2008

Case Digest

Summary

The French Cour de Cassation dismissed an appeal by the Society of Lloyd's against a decision not to enforce an English judgment delivered under RSC Ord.14 r.3 against an individual in France because it was made without reasons.

Abstract

The appellant Society of Lloyd's (L) appealed to the French Cour de Cassation against the dismissal of its application to have an English judgment enforced against the respondent (X) in France.

The High Court in London ordered X to pay L the sum of £142,037.00. That order was made on the basis of RSC Ord.14 r.3, which permitted judgments to be made only having regard to the relief sought. Consequently, the rule allowed a judgment to be given without reasons. L then sought to enforce the judgment in France. The Rennes Court of Appeal nevertheless rejected that application on the basis that enforcement of a foreign judgment made without reasons was contrary to French international public order.


L submitted that (1) the High Court was to be taken as having accepted L's particulars of claim as satisfying the requirement to give reasons its reasons by its reference to RSC Ord.14 r.3; (2) the absence of reasons in a foreign judgment was not sufficient to refuse enforcement where other documents submitted in the proceedings were equivalent to those reasons; (3) the summons and annexes were the equivalent documents; (4) statements in a certificate drawn up pursuant to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 s.12 were equivalent to the requisite reasons.

Held

Appeal dismissed.

(1) The mere reference in the foreign judgment to RSC Ord.14 r.3 could not satisfy the obligation to give reasons for the ruling made against X. (2) Recognition of a foreign judgment that did not give reasons where documents, which could be taken as being equivalent to the missing reasons, were not submitted was contrary to the French concept of procedural international public order. (3) The summons document and its annexes could not be taken as being equivalent to the missing reasons. (4) Statements on the certificate drawn up pursuant to the s.12 were also not sufficient to constitute reasons.