English Court docket Enforces DIFC Court docket Judgment

English Court docket Enforces DIFC Court docket Judgment

English Court docket Enforces DIFC Court docket Judgment

The Business Court docket of the Queen’s Bench Division of the Excessive Court docket of Justice of England and Wales (Business Court docket) has granted an utility for abstract judgment on a declare to implement in England a judgment of the DIFC Courts (an English-language widespread regulation jurisdiction within the Dubai Worldwide Monetary Centre (DIFC), United Arab Emirates (UAE)). The case (Barclays Financial institution Plc v Shetty [2022] EWHC 19 (Comm)) is a useful reminder of the rules the English courts will undertake when requested to implement a overseas judgment at widespread regulation. 

The defendant, Dr. Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty (Dr. Shetty), the founding father of a overseas trade enterprise (UAEEC), had supplied a assure (Assure) by which Dr. Shetty assured the efficiency by UAEEC of its obligations below sure derivatives contracts with Barclays Financial institution PLC (Barclays), which have been topic to early termination following default by UAEEC. The Assure was ruled by English regulation and contained an unique jurisdiction clause in favor of the DIFC Courts. A cost demand was made below the Assure by Barclays, which Dr. Shetty had did not fulfill.  

Barclays commenced proceedings towards Dr. Shetty earlier than the DIFC Court docket of First Occasion (Barclays Financial institution PLC v Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty [2020] DIFC CFI 061), claiming the monies demanded below the Assure. By judgment dated 22 April 2021, Justice Martin granted Barclays’ utility for fast judgment (equal to abstract judgment), discovering that “not one of the issues raised on behalf of Dr Shetty present any real looking prospect of a profitable defence to Barclays’ declare towards him, nor every other compelling purpose why the case ought to go to trial.” Justice Martin famous that, following the listening to of the appliance for fast judgment, Dr. Shetty had embarked upon “a technique of seizing upon any level in anyway, regardless of its substance, in an try to delay the supply of [his] choice.” The decide additional ordered that the worldwide freezing order that Barclays had beforehand obtained would proceed in drive, modified to take away the earlier exceptions for authorized prices and cheap dwelling bills. 

By judgment dated 4 Might 2021, the DIFC Court docket of First Occasion rendered its judgment on quantum, ordering that judgment be entered within the quantity of US$131,440,346.22 plus easy curiosity on the charge of 9% every year on the excellent stability till satisfaction of the judgment in full.

In July 2021, Barclays served a Declare Kind and Particulars of Declare to implement the DIFC judgment in England and Wales and subsequently utilized for abstract judgment. Dr. Shetty made an utility for an adjournment of the abstract judgment proceedings on the idea that he was a litigant in individual and unable to defend the declare with out authorized illustration and recommendation. He acknowledged that he had been unable to interact any agency to behave for him because of freezing orders obtained in separate proceedings in India and required an adjournment so as to search to fluctuate the Indian orders and thereafter receive authorized recommendation and illustration in these proceedings.

ENFORCEMENT OF DIFC COURT JUDGMENTS AT COMMON LAW

In granting abstract judgment in favor of Barclays and dismissing the adjournment utility, Mr. Justice Henshaw referred to the rules related to the enforcement of DIFC judgments that he had beforehand summarized in FH Capital Restricted v Haigh and others [2020] EWHC 1269 (Comm). 

These rules, summarized within the FH Capital case, are as follows: 

  • There isn’t a treaty coping with the popularity and enforcement of judgments between the UK and UAE. As such, judgments of the DIFC Courts might be enforced solely at widespread regulation. 

  • At widespread regulation, the place a overseas court docket of competent jurisdiction determines {that a} sure sum is due from one individual to a different, a authorized obligation arises on the debtor to pay that sum, which might be enforced within the courts of England and Wales.

  • The Memorandum of Steerage as to enforcement between the DIFC Courts and the Business Court docket features a useful abstract of the necessities for enforcement of overseas judgments at widespread regulation:

    • The judgment of the overseas court docket should be closing and conclusive.

    • The Business Court docket is not going to implement sure kinds of judgments, for instance, judgments ordering the cost of taxes, fines, or penalties.

    • The overseas court docket will need to have had jurisdiction, in line with the English battle of regulation guidelines, to find out the subject material of the dispute. 

  • The Business Court docket will typically think about the overseas court docket to have had the required jurisdiction solely the place the individual towards whom the judgment was given qualifies as a result of any of the next: 

    • Was, on the time the proceedings have been commenced, current within the jurisdiction; or 

    • Was the claimant or counterclaimant within the proceedings; or

    • Submitted to the jurisdiction of the overseas court docket; or 

    • Agreed, earlier than graduation, in respect of the subject material of the proceedings, to undergo the jurisdiction of the overseas court docket. 

  • A overseas court docket judgment could also be challenged within the Business Court docket below the widespread regulation regime solely on restricted grounds. These grounds embrace:

    • The place the judgment was obtained by fraud; 

    • The place the judgment is opposite to English public coverage; and 

    • The place the proceedings have been carried out in a way that the Business Court docket regards as opposite to the rules of pure justice.

  • The Business Court docket is not going to re-examine the deserves of a DIFC Court docket judgment. The judgment is probably not challenged on the grounds that it incorporates an error of reality or regulation.

  • Most often, a celebration will likely be entitled to use to acquire abstract judgment with out trial below Half 24 of the Civil Process Guidelines. 

In making use of the check for granting abstract judgment, the Business Court docket discovered that Dr. Shetty didn’t have an actual prospect of efficiently arguing that the necessities for enforcement of the DIFC Court docket judgment in the UK had not been met and located that there was no different compelling purpose for a trial. Accordingly, the Business Court docket granted Barclays’ utility for abstract judgment and dismissed Dr. Shetty’s adjournment utility, which the court docket thought-about was a deliberate last-minute tactic to hunt to delay the proceedings. 

COMMENT

The case is a useful reminder of the provision of abstract judgment in proceedings to implement overseas judgments, akin to these of the DIFC Courts, in England and Wales below widespread regulation rules and incorporates a helpful abstract of the authorized assessments that the English Business Court docket will undertake when requested to implement such judgments below the widespread regulation regime, together with, particularly, the very restricted grounds accessible to problem the overseas judgment.

Share this content: