Platt v Platt
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 07 November 1957 |
| Date | 07 November 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 7. |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
1ST DIVISION.
Lord Hill Watson.
International LawForeign decreeEnforcementRegistration of judgment of New Zealand CourtPetition to have registration set aside"Judgment"Reduction of assignationOrder to accountOrder to pay costsAdministration of Justice Act, 1920 (10 and 11 Geo. V, cap. 81), secs. 9 (1) and 12 (1).
The Administration of Justice Act, 1920, enacts by sec. 9 (1) that certain judgments of superior courts in British Dominions may, with a view to their enforcement, be registered in the Court of Session. "Judgment" is defined, by sec. 12 (1), as "any judgment or order given or made by a court in any civil proceedings whereby any sum of money is made payable."
A husband granted in favour of his wife an ex facie absolute assignation of his whole interest in his grandfather's estate. The parties were then resident in New Zealand. Shortly afterwards they entered into a mutual deed of separation and the wife left New Zealand. Subsequently the husband brought an action in New Zealand against his wife and his grandfather's trustees in order to have the assignation set aside. The trustees did not enter appearance, and, after a proof at which the wife was not represented, the Court pronounced an order which,inter alia, set aside and rescinded the assignation, ordained the wife to account to the husband for all sums received by her from the grandfather's estate, and awarded expenses to the husband against the wife. Thereafter, in an action of multiplepoinding brought in the Court of Session to determine the final disposal of the grandfather's estate, both the husband and the wife lodged claims, that of the wife being based on the assignation. The husband thereupon presented a petition for warrant to register, in terms of the Act, the New Zealand order setting aside the assignation. The order having been registered in accordance with the procedure laid down in respect of proceedings under the Act, the wife presented a petition to have the registration set aside on the ground, inter alia, that the order was not a judgment coming within the ambit of sec. 9 (1).
Held that the main provisions of the order of the New Zealand Court did not constitute a judgment under which any sum of money was made payable; that the inclusion in the order of an award for costs and disbursements did not make the whole order one by which a sum of money was made payable; and, accordingly, that the order was not one which could be registered in terms of sec. 9 (1) of the Act.
Mrs Maud Platt presented a petition to the Court of Session to set aside the registration of an order of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, dated 5th April 1948, which had been registered in Scotland by her husband, Charles Lawton Platt, in terms of the Administration of Justice Act, 1920,1 and Rule 261 of the Rules of Court, 1948.
The circumstances in which the petition was presented are fully stated by the Lord President in his opinion.
Answers to the petition were lodged by Charles Lawton Platt.
The petitioner averred, inter alia:(Stat. 6) "The said judgment of 5th April 1948, and in particular the portion thereof which declares the said deed of assignment to be set aside and rescinded, is not a judgment to which the provisions of section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1920, apply "
The respondent pleaded, inter alia:"(3) Said judgment being a judgment to which the provisions of section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1920, apply, the petition should be refused."
The judgment of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, which had been pronounced in proceedings at the instance of the respondent against the petitioner and against his grandfather's
trustees, narrated that at the trial there had been no appearance on behalf of the defendants and adjudged, ordered and declared as follows:"1. That the defendant Maud Platt do account to the plaintiff for all monies received by her from the estate of Charles John Leith, late of Aberdeen in Scotland, manufacturer, who died on or about the 11th day of September 1936. 2. That the defendant Maud Platt do transfer, assign and set over to the plaintiff all such investments and securities in her hands or standing in her name and representing the whole or any part of any monies received by her from the said estate. 3. That such further accounts and inquiries as may from time to time appear to be necessary to do justice between the parties be had upon the application of any of them; and that leave be (and it hereby is) reserved unto each of the parties to make application accordingly. 4. That at all times the defendant Maud Platt held as trustee for the plaintiff the deed of assignment of the plaintiff's interest under the will of the said Charles John Leith, executed by the plaintiff in her favour on or about the 1st day of February 1938. 5. That the said deed be (and it hereby is) set aside and rescinded. 6. That the sum of 100 ordered to be paid into this Honourable Court in accordance with the judgment of this Court dated the 17th day of October 1947, towards the travelling expenses of the defendant Maud Platt, be refunded to the plaintiff. 7. That the defendant Maud Platt...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yearwood v Yearwood
...seeks to enforce, is even more plainly an order for the payment of a sum of money. 23 The Board should deal with the case of Platt v Platt [1958] SC 95 as Mr Joseph sought to derive support from this for this aspect of his argument. Platt v Platt was not, however, concerned with the sort of......