iefingexhibiting a certified copy of the foreign judgment, ismade ex parte to the Judicial Greffier, an officer ofthe Royal Court who is similar to a Master in theEnglish High Court.A foreign judgment will not be registered if, at thedate of the application, it has been wholly satisfied,or could not be enforced by execution in the foreigncountry itself. However, the Royal Court has thepower to register the outstanding balance due undera partially satisfied foreign judgment, and to registera foreign judgment insofar as it provides for thepayment of a money sum whilst ignoring any nonregistrableelements (such as an order for specificperformance). Any sum payable in a foreign currencywill be converted to pounds sterling at the prevailingrate. The registered judgment will include anyinterest due under the law of the foreign country upto the time of registration, plus the reasonable costsof the registration process in Jersey.Once registered, a written notice of registration mustbe served on the judgment debtor, who has a periodof time (usually 14 or 28 days, subject to anyextensions) within which to apply to set aside theregistration. A registered judgment cannot beenforced until either that time period has expired orany application to set aside the registration has beendisposed of, at which point it can be enforced in thesame way as a judgment given in Jersey.Jurisdiction of the foreign courtWhether the foreign court had jurisdiction is acomplex issue to be determined by the Royal Courtas a matter of Jersey law. The jurisdictional rulesapplied by the foreign court itself are generallyirrelevant. In summary, the foreign court will bedeemed to have had jurisdiction only:• In the case of a judgment given in an action inpersonam (excluding proceedings regardingmatrimonial matters, the administration of estatesof deceased persons, bankruptcy, winding up ofcompanies, lunacy, or guardianship of infants), ifthe judgment debtor agreed to submit or submittedto the jurisdiction of the foreign court (for example,by voluntarily appearing or expressly agreeing tosubmit to the foreign court's jurisdiction in acontractual jurisdiction clause), he was the plaintiffor a counterclaimant, he was resident in (or if abody corporate had its principal place of businessin) that foreign country, or he had an office or placeof business in that country and the proceedingswere in respect of a transaction effected throughthat office or place.• In the case of an action regarding immovableproperty or an action in rem regarding movableproperty, if the property was, at the time, situate inthe foreign country.Setting asideIn order to set aside a judgment, the judgment debtormust apply, within the relevant time period, to theRoyal Court by way of summons supported byaffidavit evidence. The grounds for such anapplication include the following:• a failure to comply with the requirements forregistration;• the foreign court lacked jurisdiction, as discussedin further detail below;• the judgment debtor did not (notwithstanding thathe may have been duly served under the law of theforeign court) receive notice of the foreignproceedings in sufficient time to enable him todefend the proceedings and did not in fact appear;• the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud; or• enforcement of the judgment would be contrary topublic policy in Jersey.Where the judgment debtor satisfies the Royal Courtthat an appeal of the foreign judgment is pending orpossible, the Royal Court may adjourn theapplication to set aside for a reasonable period toallow any such appeal to be pursued or disposed of 5 .5Article 7(1), and ED& F Man (Sugar) Ltd v Haryanto  JLR169• In any other case, if the jurisdiction of the originalcourt is recognised by the law of Jersey.Notwithstanding these general rules, there arecertain circumstances where the foreign court will notbe deemed to have had jurisdiction, for example,where the subject matter of the proceedings wasimmovable property outside the foreign countryconcerned.Enforcement at common lawWhere registration is not available, a foreign moneyjudgment may be enforced by commencing freshproceedings in Jersey. The right to enforce such ajudgment arises as a matter of Jersey law, on thebasis that the judgment of a foreign court ofcompetent jurisdiction imposes an obligation on thejudgment debtor to pay the judgment debt, and istherefore not dependent on principles of comity orreciprocity 6 .As the 1960 Law codified the existing common lawposition relating to enforcement, the present commonlaw rules largely mirror those described above. Insummary, to enforce a foreign judgment in personamat common law, the judgment must be final andconclusive, for a debt or definite sum of money (but6Showlag v. Mansour  JLR 113 at 118 (Privy Council).Whilst Article 10 of the 1960 Law grants the States of Jerseythe power to bar the enforcement of judgments from countrieswhich do not reciprocate (i.e. which give Jersey judgmentssubstantially less favourable treatment than Jersey affords itsjudgments), to date no Act has been made under this Article.
iefingnot payable in respect of taxes or similar charges ora fine or other penalty), and given by a court ofcompetent jurisdiction, but must not be impeachableon the grounds of fraud, or contrary to public policy,or natural justice.In practice, the key question is usually whether or notthe foreign court had jurisdiction. This is determinedby the Royal Court according to Jersey law. As notedabove in the context of registration, the jurisdictionalrules applied by the foreign court itself are generallyirrelevant.The foreign court will be held to have jurisdiction overthe judgment debtor if, for example, he wasphysically present and served with the foreignprocess within that court's territorial jurisdiction, hevoluntarily appeared in the foreign proceedings tocontest the action on it merits 7 , he was the plaintiff orcounterclaimed in those proceedings, or he expresslyagreed to submit to the foreign court's jurisdiction (forinstance, in a contractual jurisdiction clause).Where the above criteria are met, the defencesavailable to a judgment debtor are limited, and theJersey courts ought not to enquire into the merits ofthe original action, nor review the measure ofdamages awarded.Non-money judgmentsNon-money judgments fall outside the scope of the1960 Law and, historically, have also not beenenforceable at common law 8 . However, on 16September 2008, the Royal Court handed downjudgment in Brunei Investment Agency v Fidelis JRC 152. After a review of recent authoritiesbefore the Privy Council, the Supreme Court ofCanada and the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands,the Royal Court decided that the common law shouldbe changed. In the interests of comity and to reflectmodern-day commercial practices, the common lawwas expressly amended so that the Royal Court nowhas a discretion to enforce non-money judgments,albeit this discretion should be exercised"cautiously". It is not yet clear how this cautiousextension of the common law will be applied inpractice.RecognitionForeign judgments which cannot be registered orenforced at common law may nevertheless berecognised by the Jersey courts as conclusivebetween the parties in all proceedings founded onthe same cause of action, and may be relied upon byway of defence or counterclaim in any suchproceedings.Special casesThe whole of any foreign judgment providing formultiple damages, including the compensatoryelement, is unenforceable in Jersey, whether byregistration or by action at common law, by virtue ofSection 5 of the Protection of Trading Interests Act1980 (Jersey) Order 1983.A separate regime applies to the registration andenforcement of maintenance orders pursuant to theMaintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement)(Jersey) Law 2000. Divorces and legal separationsmay be recognised under the Recognition ofDivorces and Legal Separations (Jersey) Law 1973.The enforcement of a foreign judgment with respectto a Jersey trust will be subject to Article 9 of theTrusts (Jersey) Law 1984 (as amended), which insimple terms provides that no such judgment shall beenforceable to the extent that the foreign court hasfailed to apply Jersey law. A full consideration of thisissue is outside the scope of this briefing.For further information, please contact:Mark Taylormark.email@example.comAnthony Robinsonanthony.firstname.lastname@example.orgOctober 200878The judgment debtor is unlikely to be held to have voluntarilyappeared in the foreign proceedings if he appears solely tocontest the foreign court's jurisdiction or, perhaps, if he hasassets within the foreign court's jurisdiction and his appearancewas solely to preserve assets which have been seized by thatcourt.Although in Lane v Lane [1985-86] JLR 48 the Royal Courtgave effect to a declaratory judgment of the English High Courtin the interests of comity under its equitable jurisdiction withoutreference to the common law. Similar principles have beenapplied in cases involving Jersey trusts.