Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns a reclaiming motion brought by the Plaintiff against Company A and individual Defendants. The litigation spans nearly fifteen years, originating from the Plaintiff's removal from the offices of Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of a company known as DRX Inc on 5 December 1989. The Plaintiff alleged that this removal was the result of a conspiracy by the Defendants and others. After failing to prove the conspiracy at trial, the Plaintiff claimed that the failure was due to fraud on the court by the Defendants through perjured evidence.
The current proceedings relate to attempts by the Plaintiff to challenge judgments given against him in American courts (Delaware and Colorado). The Plaintiff seeks declarators that certain cost orders and judgments from those courts are not enforceable in Scotland, alleging they were obtained by fraud. The Plaintiff also seeks interdicts to prevent enforcement of these judgments in Scotland and elsewhere.
The Defendants gave an irrevocable undertaking not to seek enforcement of these foreign judgments in Scotland, leading to pleas-in-law asserting that the action was unnecessary and incompetent. The Lord Ordinary dismissed the action on these pleas, and the Plaintiff now reclaims that interlocutor.
The procedural history includes multiple actions and appeals in various jurisdictions, all unsuccessful for the Plaintiff. These include actions in Delaware, Colorado, England, and New York, with courts consistently rejecting the Plaintiff’s claims and finding some of his proceedings to be vexatious or an abuse of process.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court of Session has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings seeking to review and set aside foreign judgments from competent courts in Delaware and Colorado.
- Whether the declarators sought by the Plaintiff have legal effect or are competent in Scottish law.
- Whether the proceedings constitute an abuse of process given the extensive prior litigation and unsuccessful attempts by the Plaintiff to relitigate settled issues.
- Whether interdicts preventing enforcement of foreign judgments can be granted by this court, especially in light of the Defendants' undertaking and the Brussels Convention.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The Plaintiff contended that the foreign judgments were obtained by fraud on the court and thus should not be enforceable in Scotland.
- The declarators sought might have practical utility, including assisting the Plaintiff in future proceedings in England or other jurisdictions, defending proceedings brought by the Defendants elsewhere, or aiding in obtaining finance and employment.
- The Plaintiff submitted that the court should allow a proof before answer to examine the allegations of fraud and conspiracy.
- The Plaintiff argued that the court had jurisdiction based on prior determinations and submission by the Defendants, and sought to amend interdict conclusions to remove the words "and elsewhere" to comply with legal constraints.
Defendants' Arguments
- The Defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to review or set aside foreign judgments from competent courts, citing the principle of comity and the precedent of Westergaard v Westergaard.
- They submitted that the declarators sought have no legal consequences in Scotland and are therefore incompetent under Scottish law.
- The Defendants highlighted the irrevocable undertaking not to enforce the foreign judgments in Scotland, rendering the action unnecessary.
- They contended that the proceedings amount to an abuse of process, referencing prior decisions that found the Plaintiff’s repeated litigation vexatious and an abuse of court process.
- The Defendants relied on established legal principles such as the rule in Henderson v Henderson to argue against relitigation of settled issues.
- They emphasized that the court could not grant the interdicts sought, particularly anti-suit injunctions, due to the Brussels Convention and recent European Court of Justice authority.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Westergaard v Westergaard (1914 SC 977) |
Scottish courts must respect decrees of competent foreign courts and have no jurisdiction to review such decrees. |
The court relied on this principle to refuse the reclaiming motion, holding it lacked jurisdiction to review the foreign judgments. |
| Sime v J & A D Grimond (1920 1 SLT 270) |
A declaratory action must have legal consequences to be competent; a declarator without consequential right is incompetent. |
The court found the declarators sought had no legal consequences in Scotland and were therefore incompetent. |
| Wilson v Inverclyde Council (2003 S. 366) |
Declarators may be granted where they have legal consequences affecting status or rights. |
The court distinguished this case, noting the declarators sought here lacked such consequences and thus were not comparable. |
| Henderson v Henderson (1843 3 Hare 100) |
Parties must bring their whole case before the court in one litigation; successive suits on the same matter are an abuse of process. |
The court referred to this rule to support the conclusion that the Plaintiff’s repeated litigation was an abuse of process. |
| Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529 |
Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and misuse of its procedures. |
The court acknowledged this power and noted it might be appropriate to apply it here, although it was unnecessary for the decision. |
| Fennoscandia Ltd v Clarke [1999] EWCA Civ 591 |
Proceedings that constitute abuse of process can be dismissed with costs. |
The court cited this as precedent for dismissing vexatious litigation and abuse of process. |
| Turner v Grovit (ECJ C-15/02, 2004) |
Contracting States under the Brussels Convention are precluded from granting anti-suit injunctions. |
The court accepted that interdicts seeking to restrain proceedings "elsewhere" could not be granted under this authority. |
| Barrow v Bankside Agency and Others (1996 1 W.L.R. 257) |
Explanation of Henderson v Henderson rule and its application to prevent oppressive successive litigation. |
Used to support the Defendants’ submission that the Plaintiff’s multiple actions were an abuse of process. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by recognizing the long procedural history and multiple litigations involving the same parties and issues. It emphasized the fundamental principle that Scottish courts must respect the judgments of competent foreign courts and lack jurisdiction to review or set aside such judgments absent questions of recognition or enforcement.
The court applied the principle from Westergaard v Westergaard, reinforced by Article 29 of the Brussels Convention, to conclude that it could not entertain the Plaintiff’s attempt to review foreign judgments substantively.
It further analyzed the nature of the declarators sought, noting that declaratory actions must have legal consequences to be competent. Given the Defendants’ irrevocable undertaking not to enforce the foreign judgments in Scotland, the declarators would have no legal effect within the jurisdiction and thus were incompetent.
The court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that the declarators could have practical utility in other jurisdictions, holding that this did not justify granting declarators without legal effect in Scotland.
Regarding the interdicts, the court acknowledged that the Defendants’ undertaking rendered enforcement proceedings in Scotland unlikely, and that the Brussels Convention precluded the court from granting anti-suit injunctions restraining proceedings "elsewhere."
The court also considered whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of process. It noted the extensive history of unsuccessful litigation by the Plaintiff on the same issues in multiple jurisdictions, some of which courts had explicitly described as vexatious and abusive. While the court did not base its decision solely on abuse of process, it recognized the court’s inherent power to prevent misuse of its procedures and suggested this case might be appropriate for such intervention.
Holding and Implications
The reclaiming motion is refused.
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the foreign judgments substantively and that the declarators sought are incompetent as they have no legal effect in Scotland. The interdicts sought cannot be granted in light of the Defendants’ undertaking and the Brussels Convention. The decision directly ends the Plaintiff’s current attempt to relitigate these issues in Scotland. No new legal precedent was established beyond reaffirming existing principles of comity, jurisdiction, and abuse of process. The court also indicated its inherent power to control abuse of process, which may be relevant in future proceedings.