FOREIGN JUDGMENTS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) BILL [Lords]. (Hansard, 21 March 1933)

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This is a Bill designed to facilitate the recovery in other countries of sums for which judgments have been obtained in this country. The Bill is based upon the idea that if we can secure the reciprocal advantages from other countries we shall by means of Orders in Council put the Bill when it becomes an Act into effect in this country. It will not need any radical alteration in the substance of our law. At the present time in this country, by means of a process which at first sight sounds a little superfluous but which is really very direct, we do enforce judgments obtained in foreign countries. It is true that a new action must be begun, but the defences to the action are very limited. They are such defences as that the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud, or by methods contrary to natural justice, or is based upon some 249 course of action contrary to public policy. But in general, once the action is begun in this country upon the foreign judgment, judgment is given by our courts almost as a matter of course. In foreign countries, however, the same facilities do not exist for enforcing judgments obtained in this country. Very often business men in this country have to pursue the defendant, their debtor, to other countries where his assets are to be found. That has been the subject of complaint among commercial men for a long time.

A step in the process of facilitating the recovery of judgment debts outside Great Britain was taken in 1920 as the result of a report of a committee presided over by Lord Sumner. It was a committee appointed by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Finlay, but the experiment was then confined to the Dominions. The scheme is, that by registering in a foreign country, or in this country, as the case may be, a judgment obtained in the other country, the registered judgment has exactly the same effect as a judgment obtained in an ordinary action. Part II of the Act of 1920 applies only to the Dominions. The plan has worked well. It was a reciprocal scheme, that is to say the scheme applied only to those Dominions who gave us the same advantages, and it was applied to a Dominion by an Order in Council. It is now proposed by the Act to extend the scheme and to apply it to the cases of foreign countries. Some of them have been consulted as to whether they would be prepared to fall in with such an arrangement. They have indicated their assent, and the Bill carries out the proposals.

There is one Clause in the Bill which is interesting. It is Clause 9. The intention of that Clause is to give the Government of this country, not so much a weapon as an inducement which will bring other countries into a frame of mind to agree to join in a reciprocal plan under the Act. The Clause in question empowers an Order in Council to be made refusing to the foreign country who will not join in the scheme the rights now enjoyed in respect of the enforcement of foreign judgments. The Bill is one which naturally contains a certain number of technical details, but I think that they are not difficult to follow. It has been prepared as the result of a report of a 250 committee presided over by Lord Justice Greer, and a number of eminent persons served upon the committee. I see my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Somervell) sitting there; he was a member of the committee. The report was a unanimous report, and if the Bill, which has come from another place, is accepted by the House, it will meet a long-felt grievance, and I believe that it will be to the advantage of the commercial community in this country.