Colt Industries Inc. v Sarlie (No. 2)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Master Of The Rolls,Lord Justice Davies,Lord Justice Russell |
| Judgment Date | 07 June 1966 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1966] EWCA Civ J0607-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 07 June 1966 |
[1966] EWCA Civ J0607-1
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Davies
Lord Justice Russell.
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
From the Lands tribunal
Mr. L.R. Blom-Cooper, instructed by Messrs. Theodore Goddard & Co., appeared for the Appellant (Defendant).
Mr. R. Southwell, instructed by Messrs, Rowe & Maw, appeared for the Respondents (Plaintiff).
As long ago as 26th November, 1958, an action was started in the supreme Court of the state of new York by Colt Industries, Inc., against Jacques Sarlie. There was a good deal of difficulty in getting the evidence available for that court. She plaintiffs had to come to this court twice, under their then name of Penn-Texas Corporation, so as to get the evidence for the New York court, see Penn-Texas Corporation v. Murat Anetalt (1964, 1 queen's Bench Division, page 40: 1964, 2 Queen's Bench Division, page 647). We made the orders and the evidence was obtained.
In 1965 the action was tried before His Honour Judge Brunt in New York state. Judgment was given in favour of the plaintiffs against Mr. Sarlie for a sun of nearly two and a half million dollars. She judgment was given on 24th May, 1965. Mr. Sarlie gave notice of appeal against His Honour Judge Brust's judgment. His appeal was heard in the Appellate Division of the state of New York on 28th April, 1966, of this year. It dismissed his appeal. On 31st May, 1966, just over a week ago, he made a motion to the Appellate Division of the State of New York, for reargument. The Appellate Division dismissed the motion, and refused Mr. Sarlio leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. we are told that an application for leave to appeal is being made to the Court of Appeals in New York, who can grant it If they think fit. That application is due to be heard on 6th July of this year.
There is no convention of this country with the United states providing for the reciprocal enforcement of judgments. So the plaintiffs seek to get a judgment in England against Mr. Sarlie. On 17th June, 1965, Colt Industries, Inc., issued a writ in this country against Mr. sarlie seeking an English judgment upon the New York judgment. The total sum converts into sterling was£872,189. The plaintiffs applied for summary judgment against Mr. Sarlie. The Master gave leave to defend conditional on the whole sum being brought into court. Mr. Justice Lyell gave Judgment without condition. Mr. Sarlie, by his counsel, Mr. Blom-Cooper, brings an appeal to this court. The main point made by Mr. Blom Cooper is that the New York judgment was not final and conclusive in the country of its origin; and, therofore, an action does not lie in England upon it.
At the present moment the appellate process in the State of New York is not exhausted. It is possible that the Court of Appeals may give Mr. Sarlie leave to appeal and may afterwards allow his appeal. But this is not sufficient of itself to show that the judgment is not final and conclusive. It is well established that, even though a judgment is subject to appeal, or under appeal, it is still final and conclusive so as to enable an action to be brought upon it. That was clearly stated in Nouvion v. Freeman (1889: 15 Appeal Cases, page 1).
Mr. Blom-Cooper admits that once the appellate process is exhausted in New York State (when the Court of Appeals of. New York refuses leave, or, if granted, dismisses the appeal) then the Judgment will be final and conclusive throughout the whole of the United states. It can be enforced in every State. It will then be final and conclusive in the country of its origin, and Judgment can be given here upon it.
But Mr. Blom-Cooper's point is this. He says that, until the appellate process is exhausted in New York state, then the judgment is only final and conclusive in the State of New York. It is not final and conclusive, he says, in the other states of the United states of America. It is only final and conclusive internally in New York state, and not externally. It therefore, not final and conclusive in the "country" of its origin.
I cannot accept Mr. Blom-Cooper's argument. It seems to me that, on the affidavits which have been put before us by the United States lawyers, the Constitution requires that a judgment in one of the States should be given "full faith and credit" in all the other states of the United states. It is clear that judgment can be given upon it in one of the other States. It may be that the courts of the other States would not enforce the judgment or would grant a stay of execution until the whole of the appellate process had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ex P Multi-Purpose Finance Bhd; Re Tan Ah Poi
-
Ruby Investment (Pte) Ltd v Candipark Pte Ltd
...of England (4th Ed) para 505 and the cases of Marchioness of Huntley v Gaskell [1905] 2 Ch 656 and Colt Industries Inc v Sarlie (No 2) [1966] 3 All ER 85, the word `final` merely means a conclusive determination of the principal matter in question and establishes the right of the plaintiff ......
- Candipark Pte Ltd; Ruby Investment (Pte) Ltd
- Adjodhia Persaud Singh v Chuni Lall
-
Foreign Judgment Enforceable At Common Law Despite Legislative Change Making It Unenforceable In State Of Origin
...(as a departure from the ordinary position that a pending appeal does not have such effect: see eg Colt Industries Inc v Sarlie (No.2) [1966] 1 WLR 1287). The judge did not accept that either category of case assisted the defendants. They merely reflected the fact that a foreign judgment mu......
-
The Recognition, and Res Judicata Effect, of a United States Class Actions Judgment in England: A Rebuttal of V
ivendi
...Desert Sun n 19 above, 1146, per Stuart-Smith LJ.91 Nouvion n 86 above, 12.92 FRCP 23(e).93 Colt Industries Inc vSarlie (No 2) [1966] 1 WLR 1287 (CA) 1293.94 Barrett n 79 above at [166]. Also: A. Turner, Spencer-Bower and Turner’s Doctrine of Res Judicata(London: Butterworths, 2nd ed, 1969)......