1 / 4

Global Enforcement of Judgments: The Role of Public Policy in the 2019 Convention

This conference examines the role of public policy in the 2019 Judgments Convention and its impact on the uniformity and diversity in enforcing civil and commercial judgments globally. Topics include substantive and procedural public policy, the review of injunctions, and the distinction between the obligations of Contracting States and their courts.

kristenb
Download Presentation

Global Enforcement of Judgments: The Role of Public Policy in the 2019 Convention

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Inaugural Global Conference2019 HCCH Judgments Convention:Global Enforcement of Civil and Commercial JudgmentsThe Role of Public Policy in the 2019 Judgments Convention: Accommodating Divergence within the Bounds of Uniformity Hong Kong, 9 September 2019 Junhyok Jang Sungkyunkwan University

  2. Uniformity vs. diversity in interpreting the content of public policy • Public policy of the forum may intervene, within the limits allowed by the Convention. • Substantive public policy • Degree of uniformity in distinguishing compensatory and non-compensatory damages: • Any practical limits? • Public policy review of injunctions: • Stricter review of extra-territorial effect of injunction as opposed to intra-territorial effect? • Depending on the public policy of each requested State?

  3. Procedural public policy • Marginal possibility of reviewing indirect jurisdiction within the framework of public policy: Last resort for the defendants? • Later judgment of the requested State conflicting with an earlier foreign judgment, while the recognition procedure for the latter is sought: Inherent limit on the function of public policy? State A issues an earlier judgment -> State B, requiring a certain procedure for recognition, issues a conflicting judgment -> Public policy is invoked in State B • Later foreign judgment becomes quickly unappealable, while a conflicting foreign judgment, issued earlier, is yet to be recognized: A residual role for general public policy? State A issues an earlier judgment -> State B issues a judgment -> State B judgment becomes unappealable -> Public policy is invoked in State C for refusing to recognize State B judgment

  4. Distinction between the obligation of Contracting States and their courts • Art. 7: “Recognition or enforcement may be refused …” • Burden of invoking and proving the refusal grounds • Burden on the party resisting recognition or enforcement? • Ex officio review? • Meaning of the Art. 7 discretion • Is discretionary refusal mandatory? • Contracting State’s freedom to provide for mandatory refusal or bounded discretion • Art. 4(4): “… the court addressed may …” • Is each Contracting State free to provide for mandatory postponement or refusal?

More Related