Interpool Ltd v Galani
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE BALCOMBE,LORD JUSTICE LLOYD |
| Judgment Date | 23 June 1987 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1987] EWCA Civ J0623-2 |
| Docket Number | 87/0589 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 23 June 1987 |
[1987] EWCA Civ J0623-2
Lord Justice Lloyd
Lord Justice Balcombe
87/0589
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR M. E. JONES, instructed by Messrs Coward Chance, appeared for the Appellant (Judgment Debtor).
MR J. N. GRUDER, instructed by Messrs Birkbeck Montague, appeared for the Respondent (Judgment Creditor).
I will ask Lord Justice Balcombe to give the judgment of the court.
This is the judgment of the court.
On 11th August 1978 Mr Galani, who is a Greek citizen and was then living in France, entered into written personal guarantees for all monies due to Interpool Limited by three shipping and transportation companies in which he had interests: they were Liberian, Greek and French companies. Interpool Limited is a company incorporated in one of the states of the United States of America.
On 21st October 1985 Interpool Limited obtained judgment on the guarantees against Mr Galani in the High Court of Paris in the sum of $U.S.8,196,000 with interest at 9% from 9th March 1979. The basis of the jurisdiction of the Paris court was that that was the court of Mr Galani's domicil. However, in 1985 Mr Galani came to live in North London and he still lives there with his wife and children.
On 9th May 1986 the judgment of the High Court of Paris was registered as a judgment in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice pursuant to the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933. The total amount for which the judgment was entered was $U.S. 13,742,909.64 including interest up to 24th April 1986; the sterling equivalent is £9,161,939.30. Mr Galani did not contest the registration or validity of the judgment. In the remainder of this judgment we refer to Interpool Limited as the judgment creditor and to Mr Galani as the judgment debtor.
On 30th July 1986 Master Grant made an order for the oral examination of the judgment debtor under Order 48 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, and that order was served on the judgment debtor on 25th September 1986. A charging order nisi was made in respect of the property in North London where the judgment debtor lives.
The examination of the judgment debtor began on 16th October 1986 before Deputy Master Hose and in the course of his examination the judgment debtor objected to answering questions save such as related to any assets he might have within the jurisdiction of this court. In the result the Deputy Master directed an issue to be referred to the judge in chambers pursuant to Order 32, rule 12 in the following terms:
"Is the judgment debtor obliged to answer any questions as to whether any, and if so what, debts are owing to the judgment debtor, and whether the judgment debtor has any, and if so what, other property or means of satisfying the judgment which are not within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, or to produce any books or documents in his possession relevant to such questions?"
The examination was to continue as to debts and other property or means of the judgment debtor within the jurisdiction, but otherwise was adjourned generally.
The issue came before Sir Neil Lawson, sitting as an additional judge of the Queen's Bench Division in chambers, on 22nd January 1987 and he answered the questions raised by the issue in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the judgment creditor. Prom that decision the judgment debtor has, with the leave of the judge, appealed to this court.
Order 48 is part of a group of Orders, comprising Orders 45 to 52 inclusive, prefaced by the general words "Enforcement of Judgments and Orders." Order 48 rule 1(1) is, so far as material, in the following terms:
"Where a person has obtained a judgment or order for the payment by some other person (hereinafter referred to as 'the judgment debtor') of money, the Court may, on an application made ex parte by the person entitled to enforce the judgment or order, order the judgment debtor…to attend before such master, registrar or nominated officer as the Court may appoint and be orally examined on the questions
"(a) whether any and, if so, what debts are owing to the judgment debtor, and
"(b) whether the judgment debtor has any and, if so, what other property or means of satisfying the judgment or order;
and the Court may also order the judgment debtor…to produce any books or documents in the possession of the judgment debtor relevant to the questions aforesaid at the time and place appointed for the examination."
It is to be noted that Order 48 contains no express reference to the locality of the debts, property and other means. In contradistinction Order 49, which deals with attachment of debts due to the judgment debtor, expressly provides that the person whose debt is to be attached ("the garnishee") must be within the jurisdiction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Société Eram Shipping Company Ltd v Cie Internationale de Navigation
-
Société Eram Shipping Company Ltd v Cie Internationale de Navigation
...debt in question was an English debt, the court's jurisdiction in relation to foreign debts did not fall for decision. Nor did it in Interpool Ltd v Galani [1988] QB 738, which concerned the examination of a judgment debtor under Order 48 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and not the makin......
-
Babanaft International Company S.A. v Bassatne
...of this court have held that the position is in any event different in principle once a judgment has been obtained. The first was Interpool Ltd. v. Galani (1987) 3 W.L.R. 1042 (C.A.) which decided that orders for the disclosure of assets after judgment pursuant to Order 48 could properly e......
-
Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd and Others
...48 are unavailable, the order for disclosure is necessary to render the plaintiffs' judgment against the I.T.C. effective. 11 Citing Interpool Ltd v Galani [1988] 738, the Court of Appeal also confirmed that the court had jurisdiction to order disclosure of assets outside the jurisdiction a......