- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Joint Stock Company (Aeroflot -Russian Airlines) v Berezovsky & Anor
Factual and Procedural Background
The claim concerns the recognition and enforcement in England and Wales of two Russian judgments: a judgment dated 29 November 2007 of the Savelovsky District Court in Moscow ("the second Savelovsky judgment") and a judgment dated 31 May 2011 of the Golovinsky District Court in Moscow ("the second Golovinsky judgment"). The judgments relate to compensation awarded to Company A for fraud committed by two individuals, the first and second respondents, during the 1990s. The respondents were convicted of defrauding Company A and ordered to compensate it. The second Golovinsky judgment increased the compensation amount significantly by applying indexation for inflation, a claim made by Company A after the initial judgments had been rendered. The respondents challenged recognition and enforcement of these judgments in England, leading to summary dismissal of Company A's claim by the trial judge on the basis of the finality principle, a common law and Strasbourg jurisprudence principle preventing re-opening of disputes except by appeal or in cases of fraud. This appeal concerns whether summary judgment was appropriate or whether the matter requires a full trial, particularly focusing on whether the second Savelovsky judgment was final and binding under Russian law.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the trial judge was correct to summarily dismiss the claim on the basis that the finality principle barred recognition and enforcement of the second Golovinsky judgment.
- Whether the question of finality and binding effect of the second Savelovsky judgment should be determined according to English law or Russian law.
- Whether the finality principle as recognized in Strasbourg jurisprudence and English common law applies to foreign judgments in the context of recognition and enforcement.
- Whether a breach of the finality principle must be "flagrant" to justify refusal of recognition under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- The relevance of other issues such as international jurisdiction over the respondents, election between remedies, estoppel, and delay in making claims.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 | Principle that a party may not raise by fresh proceedings claims which could have been raised earlier. | Referenced in relation to the finality principle and issue estoppel; court held it does not automatically apply to foreign judgments for summary dismissal. |
| Johnson v Gore Wood [2002] AC 1 | Discretionary application of Henderson v Henderson principle. | Noted that the principle is discretionary and was not relied on by the judge for summary judgment. |
| Varnien v Lithuania (App No 42916/04) | Explanation of the finality principle in Strasbourg jurisprudence emphasizing legal certainty and res judicata. | Used as a starting point to define the finality principle relevant to the case. |
| Asito v Moldova [2005] ECHR 40663/98 | Finality principle and limitations on re-examination of final judgments under article 6 ECHR. | Supported the Strasbourg court’s approach to finality principle applied here. |
| Brumarescu v Romania (App no 28342/95) | Contextual example of state official involvement in reopening judgments under Soviet legal systems. | Referenced to contrast with the current case where no such state intervention was alleged. |
| Pravednaya v Russia (App no 69529/01) | Similar to Brumarescu, concerning review of judgments influenced by state officials. | Referenced for context on Strasbourg jurisprudence. |
| Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd [1967] AC 853 | Choice of law principles in recognition of foreign judgments and issue estoppel. | Confirmed foreign law governs the finality and binding nature of foreign judgments. |
| Nouvion v Freeman (1889) App Cas 1 | Foreign judgment finality assessed by foreign law; English courts should not give greater effect to foreign judgments than foreign law would. | Applied to support the need to apply Russian law to determine finality of the second Savelovsky judgment. |
| Merchant International Company Ltd v Natsionalna Aktsionenra Kompaniya Naftogaz [2012] 1 WLR 3036 | Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments; application of finality principle and article 6 ECHR. | Confirmed choice of law rules and application of finality principle consistent with Strasbourg jurisprudence. |
| Soering v United Kingdom (App No 14038/88) | Article 6 ECHR requires refusal of extradition only in cases of "flagrant" denial of fair trial. | Referenced in discussion of whether a "flagrant" breach of article 6 is required to refuse enforcement. |
| Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey (Apps No 46827/99 and 46951/99) | Definition of "flagrant" breach of fair trial rights under article 6 ECHR. | Used to clarify the meaning of "flagrant" in the context of enforcement of foreign judgments. |
| Government of the USA v Montgomery [2004] 1 WLR 2241 | Application of Soering test to extradition requests from non-Convention states. | Discussed in relation to the threshold for refusing enforcement on article 6 grounds. |
| Lindberg v Sweden (App No 48198/99) | Requirement of flagrant denial of justice for refusal of enforcement under article 6. | Suggested the same test applies to Convention and non-Convention states. |
| Maronier v Larmer [2003] QB 620 | Strong presumption that foreign court procedures comply with article 6 ECHR. | Referenced to explain presumption of compliance with Convention rights. |
| Israel Discount Bank v Hadjipateras [1984] 1 WLR 137 | Defences to recognition of foreign judgments must have been raised in foreign proceedings if possible. | Discussed regarding parties’ failure to raise defences or claims in foreign courts. |
| Republic of India v Indian Steamship Co Ltd [1998] AC 878 | Left open whether Henderson v Henderson principle applies to foreign judgment recognition. | Referenced to note uncertainty regarding application of Henderson v Henderson to foreign judgments. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by outlining the three conditions for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments under English law: finality and conclusiveness of the judgment, absence of defences, and international jurisdiction. The trial judge summarily dismissed the claim based on the finality principle, which prevents re-opening disputes except by appeal or fraud. The appellate court found this summary dismissal premature because it required a factual determination of whether the second Savelovsky judgment was final and binding under Russian law. The court emphasized that the question of finality is governed by the foreign law of the country where the judgment was given, citing authoritative precedents such as Carl Zeiss Stiftung and Nouvion v Freeman. The court reasoned that English law sets the requirements for finality but the incidents of the foreign judgment must be determined by foreign law to avoid injustice and maintain international comity.
The court further analyzed the finality principle in the context of Strasbourg jurisprudence, particularly the right to a fair trial under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It noted that a breach of the finality principle may justify refusal of recognition if the breach is "flagrant," but did not conclusively decide the threshold in this case. The court also discussed the presumption that foreign courts comply with article 6, which can be rebutted by clear evidence of breach.
Other issues such as international jurisdiction over the respondents, estoppel, election of remedies, and delay were considered but the court held these could not be resolved summarily without a full trial. The court found that the principle in Henderson v Henderson, while relevant to finality, does not automatically exclude recognition of foreign judgments and is a discretionary rule not properly applied on summary judgment here.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the factual and legal complexity, including conflicting expert evidence on Russian law, necessitated a trial to determine the finality and binding nature of the foreign judgments before deciding on recognition and enforcement.
Holding and Implications
The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL and held that the application by the respondents for summary judgment against Company A must be dismissed. The matter requires a full trial to resolve the issues of Russian law concerning whether the second Savelovsky judgment was final and binding, and whether the second Golovinsky judgment breached the finality principle.
The direct effect is that Company A's claim for recognition and enforcement of the second Golovinsky judgment will proceed to trial. No summary dismissal is appropriate at this stage. The court did not establish any new precedent but reaffirmed established principles on choice of law and the finality principle in the context of foreign judgment recognition.
Alert