Views
Nothing Found
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria
News
No reciprocity for Swiss and German judgments in Jordan
Two recent rulings of the Supreme Court of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan refused recognition and enforcement of German and Swiss judgments on maintenance on grounds of no reciprocity.
I. First case: No reciprocity with Germany
- The facts
The applicant was the wife of the respondent, both Jordanian nationals. She filed several applications before German courts in Stuttgart, and obtained a number of final judgments ordering payments for alimony to her benefit. Due to non payment by the husband, she filed an application for the recognition and enforcement of the German judgments in Jordan. The Court of first instance declared the judgments enforceable in Jordan in 2009. The husband appealed. The Amman Court of Appeal issued its decision January 2015, revoking the appealed decision. The wife filed a second appeal (cassation).
- The ruling of the Supreme Court of Cassation
Initially, the Supreme Court underlined the lack of a judicial cooperation agreement between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Germany, which leads to the application of the Jordan law on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The Supreme Court stressed out that for the purposes of a foreign judgment being executed in Jordan, the conditions stipulated in the Law on Execution of Foreign Judgments No. (8) of 1952 must be met. It then referred to the provisions of Article (7/2) of the law, which states that the court may reject the application requesting the execution of a judgment issued by a court of any country whose law does not allow the recognition of judgments issued by the courts of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
The Supreme Court refers then to the order of the Amman Court of Appeal to the applicant, by virtue of which the latter was invited to provide evidence whether German laws allow the recognition of judgments issued by Jordanian courts. Based on the letter received by the Ministry of Justice in December 2014, the Court of Appeal concluded that there is no reciprocity between Jordan and Germany to recognize judgments issued by their courts.
On the grounds aforementioned, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation and confirmed the ruling of the Amman Court of Appeal [Jordan Court of Cassation, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Ruling issued at 9/2 /2020].
II. Second case – No reciprocity with Switzerland
- The facts
The parties were a Romanian wife (applicant in Jordan and claimant in Switzerland) and a Jordanian husband (defendant in Switzerland and appellant in Jordan). The applicant obtained a set of decisions against the respondent, including the right of guardianship over the child resulting from their marriage, and maintenance. In 2019, the wife filed an application for the recognition and enforcement of a number of judgments issued by Zurich courts. Both the North Amman Court of First Instance and the Amman Court of Appeal allowed the recognition of the Swiss judgments. The husband lodged a second appeal in March 2020, invoking a number of grounds for cassation. The focus is on the 9th and 10th ground, namely the following:
a. The instance courts erred and violated the text of Article 7/2 of the Foreign Judgment Execution Law by not responding to his request, that Swiss courts do not recognize judgments issued by Jordanian courts.
b. The Court of Appeal was mistaken by not allowing evidence to be presented, demonstrating that Swiss courts do not accept rulings issued by Jordanian courts
- The ruling of the Supreme Court of Cassation
In response to the above, the Supreme Court stated that for the purposes of the foreign judgment being executed within the Kingdom, it is imperative that the recognition meets the conditions stipulated in the Law on Execution of Foreign Judgments No. (8) of 1952. By referring to the provisions of Article (7/2) of the same law, the Supreme Court reproduced the wording of the provision, namely, that the court may also reject the application requesting the execution of a judgment issued by one of the courts of any country whose law does not permit the recognition of judgments issued by the courts of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. What is learned from this text, the Supreme Court continues, is that reciprocity must be available, and the ruling does not violate public order.
The Supreme Court granted the appeal with the following reasoning:
- the Court of Appeal omitted to examine whether there was reciprocity between Jordan and Switzerland to mutually recognize judgments issued by their courts;
- it also failed to address the Ministry of Justice to clarify whether there was reciprocity, and that the judgments issued by the Jordanian courts are recognized by the courts of Switzerland, and then to evaluate the respective evidence.
Based on the above, the Supreme Court decided to refuse recognition of the Swiss judgments [Jordan Court of Cassation, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Ruling issued at 21/9/2020].
Canada’s Top Court to Hear Enforcement Dispute
By Stephen G.A. Pitel, Western University
The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave in H.M.B. Holdings Limited v Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda. Information about the appeal is available here. The decision being appealed, rendered by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, is available here. In the usual course the appeal will be heard in the late spring or early fall of 2021. The grant of leave is notable because Canada’s top court only hears a small handful of conflict of laws cases in any given year.
In 2014 the Privy Council rendered a judgment in favour of HMB against Antigua and Barbuda for over US$35 million including interest. In 2016 HMB sued at common law to have the Privy Council judgment recognized and enforced in British Columbia. Antigua and Barbuda did not defend and default judgment was granted in 2017. HMB then sought to register the British Columbia decision (not the Privy Council decision) under Ontario’s statutory scheme for the registration of judgments of other Canadian common law provinces. This required the Ontario courts to engage in a process of statutory interpretation, with one of the central issues being whether the scheme applied to the recognition and enforcement judgment or only to what have been called “original judgments”.
The procedure used by HMB for getting the Privy Council decision enforced in Ontario might seem odd. The Ontario application judge referred to the process as involving a “ricochet judgment”. As to why HMB did not bring a common law action on the Privy Council judgment in Ontario, as it had done in British Columbia, there appears to be some issue that such an action could be outside the applicable limitation period. British Columbia (10 years) has a longer limitation period than Ontario (2 years) for common law actions to enforce foreign judgments.
The Ontario courts held that the scheme did not apply to the British Columbia judgment or, in the alternative, if it did, Antigua and Barbuda were entitled to resist the registration on the basis that it was not “carrying on business” in British Columbia (which is a defence to registration under the Ontario scheme). The majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, perhaps proceeding in an inverted analytical order, held that because Antigua and Barbuda was not carrying on business in British Columbia it did not need to address the (more fundamental) issue of the scope of the scheme. The dissenting judge held Antigua and Barbuda was carrying on business in British Columbia and so did address the scope of the scheme, finding it did apply to a recognition and enforcement judgment.
In my view, it is unfortunate that all of the Ontario judges focused quite particularly on the language of various provisions of the statutory scheme without greater consideration of the underlying policy question of whether the scheme, as a whole, truly was meant to allow knock-on or ricochet enforcement. Ontario’s scheme is explicitly limited to allowing registration of judgments of other Canadian common law provinces. It strikes me as fundamentally wrong to interpret this as covering all foreign judgments those other provinces themselves choose to enforce. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court of Canada resolves the appeal solely on the basis of the intended scope of the registration scheme or instead devotes significant attention to addressing the meaning of “carrying on business”.
ECJ in the case of Ellmes Property Services, C-433/19, on Article 24(1) and Article 7(1)(a) of the Brussels I bis Regulation
On 11 November 2020, the ECJ decided in the case of Ellmes Property Services, C-433/19, on Article 24(1) and Article 7(1)(a) of the Brussels I bis Regulation (for our post on AG Szpunar’s Opinion on the case see here). The Court held that:
“1. Point 1 of Article 24 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action by which a co-owner of immovable property seeks to prohibit another co-owner of that property from carrying out changes, arbitrarily and without the consent of the other co-owners, to the designated use of his or her property subject to co-ownership, as provided for in a co-ownership agreement, must be regarded as constituting an action ‘which has as its object rights in rem in immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that that designated use may be relied on not only against the co-owners of that property, but also erga omnes, which it is for the referring court to verify.
2. Point 1(a) of Article 7 of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the designated use of immovable property subject to co-ownership provided for by a co-ownership agreement cannot be relied upon erga omnes, an action by which a co-owner of immovable property seeks to prohibit another co-owner of that property from carrying out changes, arbitrarily and without the consent of the other co-owners, to that designated use must be regarded as constituting an action ‘in matters relating to a contract’, within the meaning of that provision. Subject to verification by the referring court, the place of performance of the obligation on which that action is based is the place where the property is situated.”
The full text of the judgment is here.