ABSTRACT
R E C OV E RY O F DA M AG E S AWA R D E D B Y A F O R E I G N C O U RT
15.19 One factor relating to foreign judgments but not to English awards of damages of relevance to the matters considered in this chapter is a particular aspect of remoteness. It can happen that the basis upon which a foreign court awards damages is different from the basis upon which an English court awards damages. In Die Elbinger AG v Armstrong6, the defendant agreed to supply the plaintiffs with a quantity of wheels and axles. At the time of the agreement the plaintiffs were under a contractual obligation to supply similar goods to a Russian company. That contract contained a penalty clause in the event of delay. The defendant knew about that contract but neither the precise day of delivery nor the penalty clause was brought to his attention. As a result of delay in delivery by the defendant, the plaintiffs became liable to pay a penalty to the Russian company which they agreed between them at £100 13s. The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendant for delay and claimed the £100 13s by way of damages. The trial judge directed the jury to enter a verdict for £100 13s. The matter came before the Court of the Queen’s Bench on the issue of whether the plaintiffs were only entitled to nominal damages. It was argued that the loss was too remote — this was rejected on the basis that the natural and almost inevitable consequence of the delay was that the plaintiffs would suffer loss. Blackburn J said:7
“We have had more diffi culty in determining whether the plaintiffs are entitled to keep the verdict for the amount as it stands. If we thought that this amount could only be come at by laying down as a proposition of law that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the penalties actually paid to the Russian company, we would pause before we would allow the verdict to stand.”
