Introduction
The Hague Conference on
Private International Law adopted its Convention
on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial
Matters (“Convention”) on July 2 at the Hague Conference’s 22nd
Diplomatic Session. The Convention will
go into effect after two countries have signed; one country – Uruguay – has already
signed. The Hague Conference began work on the Convention in 1992.
If many countries sign,
the Convention will be a major improvement in international legal
cooperation. Enforcement of foreign judgments is highly
restricted, or not available, in several big countries which impose a
reciprocity requirement, such as the People’s Republic of China, the Russian
Federation, India, Germany, Japan, and Austria.
The Convention eliminates
reciprocity as a prerequisite for enforcement.
Highlights
of the Convention
The Convention requires that
a judgment given by a court of a Contracting State (the “State of Origin”)
shall be recognized and enforced in other Contracting States (the “Requested
State”) – without any review of the merits (Art. 4) -- if it is in effect in
the Contracting State (art. 4) and if the judgment meets any one of a long list
of conditions are met (Art. 5). Those
conditions, which are similar to the conditions for jurisdiction in the common
law in Canada, include:
a.) the
judgment debtor was habitually resident in the State of Origin;
b.) the
judgment debtor had its principal place of business, or at least a branch,
there;
c.) the
judgment debtor attorned to the jurisdiction (e.g. by suing there, by consenting
to jurisdiction in a forum selection clause, or by arguing the merits of the
case without contesting jurisdiction);
d.) the
judgment pertains to a lease of real property located in the State of Origin;
and
e.) the
judgment pertains to a tort arising from death, physical injury, or damage
to/loss of property, and the act/omission causing the harm occurred in the State
of Origin.
Recognition and
enforcement may (not must) be refused only on specific grounds set out in the
Convention, which grounds are similar to the defences found in the common law
of Canada, such as a breach of natural justice, more specifically if the
defendant was not properly notified of the court proceeding in the State of
Origin, or, if the defendant was in the Requested State, he/she was notified of the proceeding in a manner
incompatible with the fundamental principles of the Requested State regarding
service of documents. Enforcement
may also be refused if the judgment:
a.) is
inconsistent with another judgment in the Requested State;
b.) is
inconsistent with an earlier judgment from another state;
c.) was
issued in a proceeding that was contrary to a forum selection clause;
d.) is
manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the Requested State; or
e.) was
obtained by fraud.
Enforcement may also be refused, or postponed, if
there is a court proceeding in the Requested State involving the same parties
and subject matter, provided that the court was seized before the court in the
State of Origin and there is a close connection between the dispute and the
Requested State. Enforcement may also be refused to the extent the judgment
imposes non-compensatory damages, e.g. punitive damages.
Unfortunately, Art. 18 allows a State that has a
“strong interest in not applying .. [the] Convention to a specific matter” to
exempt that matter. In addition, Art.
19 allows a State that is a party to the judgment to exempt itself from
enforcement. This can be extended to a
natural person acting for the State, or a government agency or person acting
for that agency.
Judgments in some types
of cases are excluded from the Convention, such as family law, insolvency,
wills and estates, defamation, intellectual property, some maritime law cases,
and the carriage of passengers and goods.
Nor does the Convention apply to judgments in tax or customs matters or
law enforcement. However, the mere fact
a government is a party to the proceeding does not by itself exclude the case
from the reach of the Convention.
Commentary
Overall, the Convention will
substantially improve international cooperation in legal matters, and
substantially improve the efficacy of court judgments.
However, the Convention
unfortunately will probably not remedy the problems of excessive delays or
bureaucratic requirements for enforcement proceedings seen in some countries (e.g.
Mexico, India). Although the Convention
says the court in the Requested State “shall act expeditiously”, the Convention
does not attempt to streamline procedures. It allows each country to follow its
own procedures for enforcement.
The Convention provides
welcome protection to consumers who are judgment debtors in consumer contract
cases and to employees who are judgment debtors in employment contract
cases. Contracts of adhesion often
contain forum selection clauses that are unfavourable to the consumer or
employee. See for example the clause for
Uber drivers in Heller v Uber 2019
ONCA 1. The court in the State of Origin does not have jurisdiction, for the
purpose of enforcement, based on the consumer’s or employee’s consent to the
court’s jurisdiction unless that consent was addressed to the court, i.e. not
given merely by way of a forum selection clause.
The Convention does not
clearly indicate whether judgments for injunctions or other monetary relief are
enforceable. The Convention’s definition of judgment (Art.
3) does not address the type of remedy, other than to exclude interim measures
of protection. Article 7 sets out six
permissible grounds for refusing to enforce a judgment; the fact
a judgment imposes a non-monetary the remedy is not among them. Article 10 permits a State to refuse to
enforce a judgment if it imposes a certain kind of remedy, namely damages such
as punitive damages that do not compensate for actual loss or harm. That article too is silent about non-monetary
remedies. I would conclude the
Convention applies to non-monetary judgments.
However, even if the
Convention does not exclude such judgments, and even if it implicitly allows
enforcement, the Convention does not provide much help in enforcing them. Judgments in many of the main areas of law
where such remedies are given are excluded from the Convention, for example family
law (orders for access), defamation (injunctions to not publish defamatory
material), anti-trust (injunctions restraining anti-competitive tactics) and
intellectual property (injunctions to prevent or stop infringement).
All in all, the Convention
advances international cooperation and sets a clear path toward for the wide-spread
international enforcement of judgments and thus better access to justice. Congratulations to the Hague Conference!