- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rubin & Anor v Eurofinance SA & Ors
Factual and Procedural Background
Rubin Appeal. “Company A,” incorporated in The British Virgin Islands, created “The Consumers Trust” (“TCT”) to operate a voucher-based sales-promotion scheme across North America. When insolvency loomed, “Company A” asked the High Court in London to appoint two receivers (later recognised as “foreign representatives”) so that TCT could petition for Chapter 11 relief before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. In the course of those Chapter 11 proceedings the US court, in default of appearance, entered judgment for approximately US $10 million against several defendants (the present Appellants) under federal and state avoidance provisions. The receivers then asked the High Court to recognise and enforce that judgment in England.
New Cap Appeal. “Company B,” an Australian reinsurer, paid almost US $6 million to members of a Lloyd’s syndicate under commutation agreements shortly before entering external administration. The Australian liquidator successfully sued the syndicate before the Supreme Court of New South Wales for repayment of those sums as unfair preferences. A letter of request under section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986 followed, seeking enforcement of the Australian judgment (roughly US $8 million) in England.
Both cases reached the Court of Appeal, which enforced the judgments, albeit on different bases. The present appeals to the United Kingdom Supreme Court therefore concerned: (1) whether either judgment could be enforced at common law despite the defendants’ absence from, and non-submission to, the foreign courts; and (2) whether alternative statutory routes (the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 in Rubin; section 426 in New Cap) were available.
Legal Issues Presented
- Does the traditional common-law jurisdictional test for enforcing foreign judgments (as restated in the Dicey Rule) apply to avoidance judgments delivered in foreign insolvency proceedings?
- If not, should the common law recognise a special, more liberal rule grounded in “modified universalism” for such insolvency judgments?
- In Rubin, can the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (implementing the UNCITRAL Model Law) furnish power to enforce the US default judgment?
- In New Cap, can section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986 be used to enforce a foreign preference judgment, and does the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 apply?
- Did either set of defendants submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court so as to satisfy the Dicey Rule?
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Solomons v Ross (1764) | Early recognition of foreign bankruptcies | Illustrates long-standing cross-border cooperation in insolvency. |
| Galbraith v Grimshaw [1910] AC 508 | Single universal process for distribution | Quoted to support “modified universalism.” |
| Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 | Dicey Rule on presence/submission | Baseline common-law test the Court was asked either to follow or to relax. |
| Williams v Jones (1845) 13 M & W 628 | Theory that a foreign judgment creates a debt | Historical context for enforcement at common law. |
| Godard v Gray (1870) LR 6 QB 139 | Same as above | Cited as historic authority. |
| Owens Bank Ltd v Bracco [1992] 2 AC 443 | Limits of reform by judiciary vs legislature | Used to argue that major changes need legislation. |
| Cambridge Gas v Official Committee [2007] 1 AC 508 | Common-law assistance; bankruptcy orders distinct from in personam/in rem | Court distinguished but analysed to ascertain its reach. |
| Pattni v Ali [2007] 2 AC 85 | Clarifies scope of Cambridge Gas | Re-stated that Cambridge dealt with collective execution. |
| In re HIH Casualty [2008] 1 WLR 852 | “Modified universalism” principle | Key support for cooperative insolvency approach. |
| Re Maxwell Communication Corp 170 BR 800 (1994) | US adoption of modified universalism | Cited as comparative authority. |
| Re African Farms Ltd [1906] TS 373 | Active assistance concept | Historical example of stays in aid of foreign insolvency. |
| Banque Indosuez SA v Ferromet Resources Inc [1993] BCLC 112 | Discharge of injunction in deference to foreign proceedings | Illustrative assistance case. |
| Credit Suisse Fides Trust v Cuoghi [1998] QB 818 | Judicial cooperation without treaty | Supports flexibility at common law. |
| Re Impex Services Worldwide Ltd [2004] BPIR 564 | Orders for examination supporting foreign liquidation | Example of assistance. |
| Re BCCI SA (No 10) [1997] Ch 213 | Remittal of assets abroad | Illustrates court’s willingness to aid foreign liquidations. |
| Re Swissair [2010] BCC 667 | Same principle | Modern illustration. |
| Gourdain v Nadler (ECJ 1979) | Distinction between insolvency and civil matters in EU law | Used analogically to show separateness of insolvency orders. |
| Seagon v Deko Marty NV (ECJ 2009) | Actions “deriving directly” from insolvency | Model for categorising avoidance claims. |
| German Graphics v van der Schee (ECJ 2009) | Claims outside insolvency exception | Supports workable classification test. |
| Byers v Yacht Bull Corp [2010] EWHC 133 | Ownership dispute outside insolvency exclusion | Further illustration. |
| Oakley v Ultra Vehicle Design Ltd [2006] BCC 57 | Test for claims deriving from winding-up | English application of ECJ approach. |
| Gavin Gibson v Gibson [1913] 3 KB 379 | Enforcement of foreign judgment for company debt | Shows ordinary Dicey Rule operation. |
| Berliner Industriebank v Jost [1971] 2 QB 463 | Bankruptcy-ascertained debt enforced under Dicey | Same point. |
| Gourmet Resources v Paramount Capital (1993) | Enforcement after submission | Contrasts with present non-submission facts. |
| Morguard v De Savoye [1990] 3 SCR 1077 | Canadian “real & substantial connection” test | Considered but not adopted. |
| Beals v Saldanha [2003] 3 SCR 416 | Extension of Morguard to foreign judgments | Same as above. |
| In re Flightlease (Ireland) Ltd [2012] IESC 12 | Irish rejection of Cambridge Gas reasoning | Used to test competing approaches. |
| Williams & Glyn’s Bank v Astro Dinamico [1984] 1 WLR 438 | What amounts to submission | Guided analysis in New Cap. |
| Rein v Stein (1892) 66 LT 469 | Submission principles | Historical underpinning. |
| Akai Pty Ltd v People’s Insurance Co [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 90 | Submission in foreign-judgment context | Applied when assessing syndicate’s conduct. |
| Desert Sun Loan Corp v Hill [1996] 2 All ER 847 | Same topic | Referenced for completeness. |
| Industrial Maritime Carriers (The Eastern Trader) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 585 | Effect of taking steps abroad | Cited on waiver/submission. |
| Ex p Robertson, In re Morton (1875) LR 20 Eq 733 | Proof of debt equals submission | Crucial to conclusion that syndicate submitted. |
| In re Lines Bros Ltd [1983] Ch 1 | Bankruptcy may incidentally decide rights | Quoted in submission analysis. |
| In re Paramount Airways Ltd [1993] Ch 223 | Territorial reach of avoidance remedies | Discussed when considering sufficient connection. |
| The Siskina [1979] AC 210 | “Exorbitant” service out jurisdiction | Used to rebut reciprocity argument. |
| Amin Rasheed Shipping v Kuwait Insurance Co [1984] AC 50 | Same | See above. |
| Spiliada Maritime v Cansulex [1987] AC 460 | Forum conveniens | Cited peripherally. |
| In re Trepca Mines Ltd [1960] 1 WLR 1273 | Jurisdiction not conceded for reciprocity | Supports majority view. |
| Société Eram Shipping v HSBC [2004] AC 260 | Limits of freezing orders | Mentioned in Lord Mance’s concurrence. |
| F-Tex SIA v Jadecloud-Vilma (Case C-213/10) | ECJ on insolvency exclusion | Supports analysis of 1933 Act scope. |
| New Cap v Renaissance Reinsurance [2002] NSWSC 856 | Character of preference actions | Used in New Cap reasoning. |
| New Cap v Grant [2009] NSWSC 662 | Same | Detailed procedural history. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
(1) Applicability of the Dicey Rule. The majority held that avoidance judgments are ordinary in personam orders. Accordingly, they are enforceable only if the judgment debtor was present in, resident in, or had submitted to, the foreign court—conditions not met in Rubin.
(2) Modified Universalism. While acknowledging Lord Hoffmann’s dicta on universalism, the Court ruled that creating a new, insolvency-specific enforcement rule would be a policy change better left to legislation. Extending recognition without reciprocity would expose UK defendants to default judgments without adequate safeguards.
(3) Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations (CBIR). Articles 21, 25 and 27 empower English courts to grant procedural relief (e.g., stays, information gathering) but do not implicitly authorise enforcement of money judgments against third parties. Therefore the US judgment could not be enforced via the CBIR.
(4) Section 426, Insolvency Act 1986. Section 426(4) enables English courts to provide “aid and assistance” (for example, ordering oral examination or asset realisation) but not to register or enforce foreign money judgments. Hence it did not assist the Australian liquidator unless the syndicate had submitted.
(5) Submission Analysis. The Lloyd’s syndicate had lodged proofs of debt, attended creditors’ meetings and voted under the Australian liquidation, thereby “taking the benefit” of the process. Following Ex p Robertson, those acts constituted submission, rendering the Australian judgment enforceable at common law (and registrable under the 1933 Act). The Rubin defendants, by contrast, neither appeared nor participated, so no submission occurred.
Holding and Implications
Rubin: the appeal was ALLOWED. The US default judgment is not enforceable in England either at common law or under the CBIR.
New Cap: the appeal was DISMISSED. Because the Lloyd’s syndicate had submitted to the Australian court, the preference judgment is enforceable in England; registration should proceed under the 1933 Act.
Implications. The decision reins in the expansive approach adopted by the Court of Appeal. Unless and until Parliament legislates, foreign avoidance judgments will only be enforced where the traditional Dicey jurisdictional gateways are satisfied or the defendant has clearly submitted. The ruling preserves predictability for UK-based defendants but may complicate recovery strategies for foreign office-holders.
Alert