David Tyler Moss & Ors. v Brian Martin & Anor.

Foreign judgments in personam may be enforced at common law where they are final and conclusive, were given by a court recognised as having jurisdiction, and order payment of a fixed sum.

Enforcement may be refused for procedural unfairness only where the proceedings caused substantial injustice judged by English standards. The availability of a remedy in the foreign jurisdiction is relevant. A party relying on Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, section 33(1)(c), must show that its participation was solely to protect or recover property from seizure. Defending the merits, pursuing a counterclaim for damages, giving evidence or appealing on the merits is inconsistent with that limited purpose.

The claimants applied for summary judgment to enforce two Texas judgments. The first, given in 2016, awarded damages against Brian Martin for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, tortious interference and conspiracy. The second, given in 2022, awarded sums against Martin and Holly Bone for fraudulent transfers and related claims.

Martin argued that the 2016 judgment resulted from defective service and denied him a proper opportunity to defend, engaging natural justice, public policy and the Human Rights Act 1998. He said that enforcement of the 2022 judgment therefore also failed. Bone argued that she had not submitted to the Texas court’s jurisdiction because her participation was directed to protecting property, relying on section 33(1)(c) of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.

1. Enforcement requirements. Each judgment was final and conclusive, notwithstanding that the 2022 judgment was under appeal, and was for a fixed sum. The jurisdictional requirement was satisfied or, in Bone’s case, depended on whether she had submitted to the Texas court.
2. Natural justice. Applying Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch. 433, the relevant question was whether a procedural defect caused substantial injustice by English standards. The exception is not confined to want of notice or opportunity to be heard. Any available foreign remedy may be relevant, depending on the defect, its timing, the defendant’s knowledge and the reasonableness of using that remedy.
3. Martin had no realistic prospect of establishing such a defect. He provided no evidence explaining defective service. He attended trial, was represented without objection, took the benefit of that representation, and appealed without raising the alleged defects. There was therefore no proper basis for refusing enforcement on natural justice, public policy or human-rights grounds.
4. Submission to jurisdiction. Section 33(1)(c) of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 protects a party who appears solely to protect or obtain release of seized or threatened property. It does not protect a party who contests the general merits. The court rejected any distinction based on proceedings concerning ownership of assets. Bone filed a general defence, participated in preparation and trial, gave evidence, advanced a counterclaim seeking declarations and damages, and appealed. She had therefore submitted to the Texas jurisdiction.
5. Martin’s objection to the 2022 judgment depended on his objection to the 2016 judgment and consequently failed. The court granted judgment for the claimants and reserved the precise form of order, costs and consequential matters, including any stay, for further submissions.

First-instance summary judgment application. The judgment records that the 2016 Texas judgment had been affirmed on appeal and that an appeal against the 2022 Texas judgment was pending, but this court granted enforcement.