Superior Composite Structures LLC v Malcolm Parrish

A foreign judgment for a definite sum which is final and conclusive is enforceable at common law, subject to limited exceptions including fraud, denial of natural justice, public policy, and liability for tax, a fine or other penalty. The enforcing court does not conduct a retrial or hear an appeal on the merits.

Fraud must be conscious and deliberate, material to the judgment, and causative of the result. Complaints about the foreign court’s reasoning or the size of the award are insufficient without compelling evidence that enforcement would offend natural justice, public policy or Convention rights.

Superior Composite Structures LLC v Malcolm Parrish concerned an application to enforce a judgment obtained by the claimant against the defendant in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. The judgment, entered on 5 August 2013, was for $2,058,861.

The defendant resisted enforcement on the grounds of fraud, breaches of natural justice and Article 6 of the ECHR, public policy, and alleged defects in the assessment of damages. The central issue was whether he had established an exception to the common-law enforcement rule.

1. The claim to enforce the South Dakota judgment succeeded. The defendant had not established any recognised exception to enforcement.
2. At common law, a foreign judgment for a definite sum which is final and conclusive on the merits is enforceable and cannot be impeached for error of law or fact. The material exceptions include fraud, proceedings contrary to natural justice, enforcement contrary to public policy, and judgments concerning tax, fines or other penalties. The possible existence of a separate Convention-rights exception was noted.
3. The fraud exception requires conscious and deliberate dishonesty relating to relevant evidence, conduct, statements or concealment. That dishonesty must be material and causative: the fresh evidence must demonstrate that the impugned matter was an operative cause of the foreign judgment and would have affected the decision on an honest retrial. The defendant’s allegations concerning the $250,000 payment, funding and factory representations did not satisfy that test.
4. The enforcement proceedings were not a retrial or an appeal. The court was not required to reassess the damages, conduct an actuarial exercise, or determine every factual issue in the underlying dispute. The defendant bore the burden of proving the grounds on which he resisted enforcement.
5. The criticisms of the foreign judge’s reasoning, the assessment of lost profits and wasted costs, and the alleged excessiveness of the award did not show a sufficiently serious departure from natural justice, public policy or Article 6. The claim succeeded accordingly.