Public Joint Stock Company ("Rosgosstrakh") v Starr Syndicate Ltd & Ors

Summary judgment should be refused where a defendant has a realistic prospect of establishing that a foreign judgment lacked jurisdiction or was procured by bias, fraud or improper influence. Questions concerning submission to a foreign court are governed by English private international law, but construction of the jurisdiction agreement is governed by the law applicable to the contract. Expert disagreement on the relevant foreign law ordinarily requires a trial. A foreign judgment may be challenged for fundamental lack of jurisdiction in the international sense, rather than for a mere procedural irregularity. Allegations that a judgment was deliberately wrong, or influenced by corruption, require cogent evidence, but may proceed to trial where the evidence raises a real issue.

Rosgosstrakh sought summary judgment to recognise and enforce three Russian judgments concerning liability under a reinsurance policy, together with interest and costs judgments. The defendants resisted enforcement on two grounds: that the Russian court which gave the principal judgment lacked jurisdiction, and that the judgments were procured by bias or improper influence.

The reinsurance policy was governed by Russian law and submitted disputes to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Russia. The parties relied on conflicting expert evidence concerning Russian jurisdictional rules and the proper interpretation of the policy. The central issue was whether either defence had no real prospect of success, or whether there was another compelling reason for a trial.

1. Summary judgment test. The claimant bore the burden of showing that the defences had no realistic prospect of success and that there was no compelling reason for a trial. Disputed facts generally had to be taken in the defendants’ favour. Conflicting expert evidence on difficult questions of foreign law was unsuitable for final determination on the application.
2. Jurisdiction. Whether there had been submission to the jurisdiction of a foreign court was a question of English private international law. However, whether the parties’ clause amounted to submission to the particular Russian court was a question of contractual construction governed by Russian law. The court therefore had to consider the relevant Russian procedural law, not merely whether the parties had agreed to submit generally to Russian courts. The reasoning in Vizcaya Partners Limited v Picard [2016] UKPC 5 supported that approach.
3. The conflicting expert evidence gave the defendants a real prospect of establishing that the Russian court lacked jurisdiction and that the judgment was incapable of recognition or enforcement under the principles in Dicey. The jurisdiction defence therefore required a trial.
4. Bias and improper influence. A foreign judgment may be impeached for fraud, including fraud on the part of the court, and recognition may be refused on public policy or natural justice grounds. Applying Maximov v OJSC Novolipetsky Metallurgichesky Kombinat [2017] EWHC 1911 (Comm), the defendants had to show more than error or incompetence. They had to establish that the decisions were deliberately wrong, or so wrong that they evidenced bias, supported by cogent evidence.
5. The evidence concerning the reasoning of the Russian courts, the conduct and influence allegedly exercised by relevant individuals, and the differing outcomes in the Russian proceedings raised a real issue requiring investigation at trial. The original agreement to submit disputes to Russian courts did not prevent a later challenge based on alleged bias. The claimant’s summary judgment application was dismissed on both grounds.