Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U. & Ors v The Republic of Argentina

A foreign first-instance judgment may support recognition and enforcement in England while an appeal remains available, because it is ordinarily final and conclusive unless and until set aside. If the judgment is later reversed before recognition or enforcement, the English court should decide what the interests of justice require. A stay may be preferable to setting aside service or dismissing the claim while foreign appellate recourse remains possible. The court should balance prejudice, costs, delay and the practical consequences of requiring proceedings to begin again.

The claimants sought recognition and enforcement in England of a judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Argentina. While the English jurisdiction challenge remained unresolved, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed that judgment and remanded the matter. Further appellate recourse remained possible.

Argentina sought to amend its jurisdiction challenge and have the English claim dismissed because the United States judgment was no longer final and conclusive. The claimants sought a stay. The central issue was what the interests of justice and appropriate case management required while the foreign appellate process continued.

1. The availability of an appeal did not prevent recognition and enforcement proceedings while the foreign judgment remained in force. Following reversal, however, the judgment was no longer final and conclusive, and a fresh claim could not then be commenced.
2. The court had to determine what the interests of justice required in relation to the existing claim. Erste Group Bank AG, London Branch v JSC ‘VMZ Red October’ & Others and ISC Technologies Ltd v Guerin concerned the timing of applications to set aside orders and did not resolve this case. Reichhold Norway ASA v Goldman Sachs International and Athena Capital Fund SICAV-FIS SCA v Secretariat of State for the Holy See concerned stays in a different context.
3. The approach in Motorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd supported an interim stay rather than repeatedly granting and revoking enforcement judgments.
4. The prejudice to Argentina was modest, while costs and delay for the claimants were manageable. The balance favoured a stay. The amendment application was allowed, but the new jurisdiction ground was not determined immediately. The amended ground and existing grounds were stayed, with liberty to apply.