The UK Supreme Court has rejected the test that the Supreme Court of Canada has enunciated for recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments. Yesterday’s decision in Rubin v. Eurofinance (in full, here) comes in the context of a request for enforcement of a judgment from the US Federal Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The $10 million award was based on fraudulent conveyances and transfers. But the judgment was in default of appearance, meaning that the defendant, who was not a US resident, had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the US court.
English law holds that the country’s courts will not enforce foreign judgments against defendants who are not resident of the court pronouncing the judgment and who do not submit to the jurisdiction of that court. The UK Supreme Court rejected the argument that the rule should be expanded in the context of insolvency proceedings.
In doing so, the UK Supreme Court explicitly rejected the “real and substantial connection” test approved by the Supreme Court of Canada as the test for Canadian courts to use in deciding whether to recognize and enforce foreign judgments. ”There is no support in England for [the real and substantial connection] approach except in the field of family law,” the UK court stated in refusing to recognize the US judgment.