Owens Bank Ltd v Bracco
A foreign judgment may be challenged in England on the ground that it was obtained by fraud, even if the allegation of fraud was raised and rejected in the foreign court, and the defendant need not produce new evidence.
Facts
Owens Bank obtained a judgment in St Vincent against Mr Bracco, an Italian businessman, for a large sum lent under loan agreements which Mr Bracco said were forgeries. The bank sought to register the judgment in England under the Administration of Justice Act 1920. Mr Bracco opposed registration, arguing that the judgment had been obtained by fraud, because the documents were forged and the bank's witnesses had committed perjury, although the St Vincent court had rejected his allegations of forgery.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that Mr Bracco was entitled to challenge the judgment on the ground of fraud, and that he was not required to produce fresh evidence which had not been available in the foreign proceedings. Lord Bridge said that the English courts had long allowed a foreign judgment to be impeached for fraud, even if this involved a retrial of issues which had been considered by the foreign court, following Abouloff v Oppenheimer, and that the 1920 Act did not change that rule. Although the rule was anomalous compared with the treatment of English judgments, it had been settled for so long that it was for Parliament to change it.
Related cases on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments
- Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433
- Emanuel v Symon [1908] 1 KB 302
- Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA [2018] UKSC 34
- Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100
- Krombach v Bamberski Case C-7/98, [2000] ECR I-1935
- Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2012] UKSC 46, [2013] 1 AC 236
- Schibsby v Westenholz (1870) LR 6 QB 155
Studying conflict of laws? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
