Background
FW Aviation obtained an English High Court judgment against VietJet arising from aircraft leases. The judgment totalled US$181,529,550. After VietJet unsuccessfully sought a stay, the English court extended time for payment and required the principal sum to be paid in three instalments. It also ordered US$35,138,009 in default interest, likewise payable in instalments.
VietJet made a US$2 million part payment. FW Aviation then registered the English judgments in Queensland under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth). At the registration date, only the first two instalment dates had passed. VietJet sought to set aside registration, arguing that it included sums not yet immediately payable.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed VietJet’s appeal. It held that the English judgment imposed an immediate liability for the full judgment amount, although court enforcement of particular instalments could not occur before their respective due dates. The entire unpaid balance was therefore “payable” for the purposes of s 7(2)(a)(ii) of the Act when registered.
The Court also held that, even if the instalment obligations were contingent until their payment dates, “payable” in s 7(2)(a)(ii) includes amounts payable in the future. Registration and enforcement are distinct: the Queensland court retains control over enforcement and could prevent execution for an instalment not yet due. A US$1,000 overstatement in one paragraph of the registration orders was an obvious drafting error; properly construed, the orders registered the correct interest amount of US$35,138,009.
Key Takeaways
- A foreign money judgment payable by instalments may be registered for its full unpaid amount.
- “Payable” in s 7(2)(a)(ii) is not confined to amounts immediately enforceable.
- Registration does not permit enforcement in Queensland contrary to the foreign judgment’s instalment terms.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that the foreign-judgment registration regime is not a mechanism for re-litigating payment timing. A judgment debtor may still resist premature enforcement, but deferred instalments do not require the creditor to seek successive registrations as each due date arrives.
It also illustrates the Court’s practical approach to an evident numerical inconsistency in registration orders where the operative registration order states the correct amount.