Strategic Technologies PTE Ltd v Procurement Bureau of the Republic of China Ministry of National Defence

Registration under the Administration of Justice Act 1920 is confined to a judgment of the court that adjudicated the underlying claim. A later judgment obtained in one state by suing on a judgment from another is not registrable as a judgment under the Act, even where the later court had jurisdiction and the statutory conditions are literally satisfied.

The Act must be construed by reference to its purpose and scheme, especially reciprocal enforcement with safeguards. Section 9(2) is directed to scrutiny of the court and proceedings determining the underlying dispute. Section 9(1)'s discretion cannot be used to permit indirect enforcement of a judgment from a non-reciprocating state.

Strategic Technologies obtained a judgment in Singapore against the Procurement Bureau concerning a commercial contract. It later sued on that judgment in the Cayman Islands and obtained a Cayman judgment, followed by a consent order recording the sums due.

Strategic Technologies applied to register the Cayman judgment in England under the Administration of Justice Act 1920. Master Yoxall granted registration. On the Procurement Bureau's application, Carr J held that the Act permitted registration of a judgment on a judgment and dismissed the application to set aside registration: [2020] EWHC 362 (QB).

The appeal proceeded on the basis that the Procurement Bureau had submitted to the jurisdiction of both the Singapore and Cayman courts. The central issue was whether the 1920 Act permitted registration in England of the Cayman judgment.

Lord Justice Males gave the leading judgment. Lord Justice Richards and Lady Justice Laing agreed. The appeal was allowed.

1. The court rejected the need to decide whether the common law permits enforcement by action of a judgment on a judgment. The Administration of Justice Act 1920 and the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 do not codify the common law. The statutory question must be determined from the Act's language, purpose and scheme. This approach was consistent with Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2012] UKSC 46 and Yearwood v Yearwood [2020] UKPC 26.
2. The Cayman judgment fell within the literal definition of judgment in section 12(1), because it was a civil judgment making money payable. That literal reading was insufficient. The 1920 Act was founded on reciprocity, with statutory safeguards. Registration through an intermediate state would allow a judgment from a non-reciprocating state to be enforced indirectly in England and would unbalance the statutory scheme. The discretion in section 9(1) could not cure that defect.
3. The safeguards in section 9(2) made sense only if they applied to the court and proceedings which determined the underlying dispute. The statutory scheme contemplated two stages: adjudication of the underlying claim and registration in England. It did not contemplate a third, intermediate enforcement court. In particular, section 9(2)(f) concerned the underlying cause of action, not merely the cause of action to enforce the intermediate judgment.
4. Nouvion v Freeman (1889) 15 App Cas 1 concerned finality and conclusiveness at common law and did not decide the present issue. The reasoning in Owen v Rocketinfo Inc (2008) 305 DLR (4th) 370 concerning indirect registration and reciprocity was compelling and applied equally to the 1920 Act. The contrary inference drawn from dicta in Morgan Stanley & Co International Ltd v Pilot Investments Ltd [2006] 4 HKC 93 did not follow.
5. The 1920 Act did not permit registration of a judgment given in one state in an action enforcing a judgment given in another state. The order of Master Yoxall dated 4 April 2016 was set aside. Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs, subject to the stated arrangements concerning the £1 million paid into court.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed on 30 November 2020. The order of Master Yoxall registering the Cayman judgment was set aside and permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused.
• High Court, Queen's Bench Division: Carr J dismissed the application to set aside registration and held that the Administration of Justice Act 1920 permitted registration of a judgment on a judgment: [2020] EWHC 362 (QB).
• Master Yoxall: On 4 April 2016, registration of the Cayman judgment in England was granted under the 1920 Act.