Background
Premium Contractor Solution LLC obtained a default judgment against Ying Kang in Ohio for US$2,633,262.25 arising from litigation concerning allegedly counterfeit face masks. Premium then brought proceedings in England and obtained a default judgment for £2,156,000.32, followed by a charging order over Kang’s Bristol property and a claim seeking its sale.
Kang applied to set aside the English default judgment and sought reverse summary judgment or strike-out. She maintained that she had lived in China when the proceedings were commenced, had not submitted to the Ohio court’s jurisdiction, and did not learn of the English proceedings until returning to the Bristol property in January 2025. Premium argued that her application was not prompt and later contended that its English claim was a freestanding debt claim for which the Ohio judgment was merely evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court allowed Kang’s application, set aside the English default judgment, and granted judgment in her favour on the reverse-summary-judgment application. Under English conflict-of-laws principles, the Ohio judgment was unenforceable because Kang was neither physically present in the United States when the proceedings began nor shown to have submitted to the Ohio court’s jurisdiction.
The Court rejected Premium’s attempt to recast the proceedings as a freestanding claim on the underlying debt. The claim form and particulars plainly sought enforcement of the Ohio judgment, and a default judgment lacking factual findings could not serve as evidence establishing the underlying liability. Amendment could not rescue that claim; Premium would need to bring a new English action on the underlying cause of action if it wished to proceed.
Although Kang’s set-aside application was not prompt even when time was measured from January 2025, the delay did not justify preserving an English judgment that purported to enforce a foreign judgment having no effect under English law. Attempting to enforce that unenforceable judgment was an abuse of process.
Key Takeaways
- A foreign money judgment is enforceable at common law only if the foreign court had jurisdiction according to English conflict-of-laws rules, in addition to the judgment being final and for a definite sum.
- Absent submission, a defendant’s physical presence in the foreign country when proceedings commenced is critical to establishing jurisdiction for English recognition purposes.
- A claimant cannot avoid the rules governing foreign judgments by relabelling an enforcement action as a debt claim, particularly where the pleadings rely on the judgment itself rather than facts establishing the underlying cause of action.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a foreign court’s own basis for jurisdiction does not determine whether its judgment will be enforced in England and Wales. Claimants must satisfy English recognition rules before using a foreign default judgment to obtain domestic enforcement measures against English assets.
It also shows that procedural delay may not preserve a default judgment founded on an underlying foreign judgment that English law treats as having no effect. Where recognition is unavailable, the claimant may have to plead and prove the underlying cause of action afresh.