In Lenkor Energy Trading DMCC v Irfan Iqbal Puri  EWHC 75, the English High Court decided that the judgment of a Dubai Court (the "Dubai Judgment") should be recognised in England, and it awarded summary judgment in respect of the Claimant (judgment creditor)'s common law claim brought on the judgment debt.
The Defendant (judgment debtor) had argued that it would be contrary to English public policy to recognise/enforce the Dubai Judgment:
- in view of a finding, in parallel arbitration proceedings, that the underlying transactions to which the Dubai Judgment related were tainted by illegality;
- since English law would not have imposed personal liability on the Defendant;
- on the basis that the interest ordered by the Dubai Court constituted a penalty.
That defence failed, and summary judgment was awarded to the Claimant, for the following reasons:
- The public policy defence only operated if the recognition/enforcement of the foreign judgment, as opposed to the underlying transaction on which it was based, offended English public policy.
- Although there are some circumstances in which an English Court might enquire into the underlying transactions giving rise to a foreign Court judgment, no such circumstances existed here. That was because the Dubai Judgment was based on the self-contained and independent consequences of signing cheques under Dubai law for which there was a powerful rationale. Although different from English law, this did not offend any principle of English public policy.
- Even if it were permissible to consider the underlying transactions, enforcing the Dubai Judgment would not amount to the indirect enforcement of an obligation to pay monies which, by reason of the underlying illegality, the parallel arbitration proceedings had determined did not exist.
- The fact that English law, unlike Dubai law, would not have imposed personal liability on the Defendant did not mean that English public policy would be offended by recognising/enforcing the Dubai Judgment.
- The rate and period of interest imposed by the Dubai Judgment diverged little from English law, and so it was unrealistic to characterise the interest ordered as amounting to a penalty.
Downloads – Download Document
February 28 2020
Visit us at mayerbrown.com
Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.
© Copyright 2020. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.
This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.