Free Zone Utilities Lftz Enterprise v Bancore Global Services Limited & Ors

Registration of a foreign judgment may proceed where the judgment debtor was carrying on business within the foreign jurisdiction or voluntarily submitted, or agreed to submit, to that jurisdiction. A settlement expressly providing for personal liability and entry as a judgment is generally binding where the signatory understood its effect. An agreed lodging of settlement terms does not require a further hearing or advance notice where it creates no procedural unfairness. The registering court retains a discretion under Administration of Justice Act 1920, section 9(1), and may register the judgment where enforcement is just and convenient and no public policy obstacle arises.

The claimant obtained a judgment in the High Court of Lagos State, Nigeria, recording settlement terms under which the second defendant assumed personal liability for payments totalling US$726,000. Master Eastman subsequently made an order permitting registration of that judgment against the defendants under Part II of the Administration of Justice Act 1920 and CPR rule 74.6.

The second defendant applied to set aside the registration order. He argued that the Nigerian court lacked jurisdiction, that he had not received notice of the Nigerian hearing, that the settlement was invalid through fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation, and that the claimant lacked capacity to sue. The central issues were whether registration was barred by section 9(2) and whether registration should nevertheless be refused in the court’s discretion.

1. Application dismissed. The registration order was upheld.
2. Registration was not barred by section 9(2)(b) of the Administration of Justice Act 1920. Although the second defendant was not ordinarily resident in Nigeria, the court found that he was carrying on business there through his close involvement with Bancore’s business. In any event, his role in negotiations, payments and the settlement established an undoubted submission, or agreement to submit, to the Nigerian court’s jurisdiction.
3. The absence of notice of the attendance on 30 May 2024 did not create procedural unfairness or breach natural justice. The parties had agreed that the settlement terms would be filed and made a judgment of the Nigerian court. The event was therefore a lodging or filing of agreed terms, rather than a hearing requiring further notice.
4. The settlement terms imposed personal liability on the second defendant. Their wording was clear, and his email of 6 May 2024 showed that he understood what had been agreed and had time to consider the document. His signature bound him, and the allegations of fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation were unsustainable.
5. The claimant was a body corporate and juristic personality with capacity to enforce its contract. The court also refused permission to rely on the DCS report because it was not Part 35 compliant, was not reasonably required, and was insufficiently fact-specific.
6. Section 9(1) conferred a discretion. In the circumstances, it was just and convenient to enforce the Nigerian judgment in the United Kingdom. No public policy ground prevented registration.

Master Eastman made the registration order on 4 November 2024. The present court dismissed the second defendant’s application to set that order aside.