ABSTRACT
There are few defences which the defendant can raise. It will not influence the English court that the foreign judgment was based on mistaken facts63 or that the wrong law was applied, or the right law was applied wrongly.64 Such matters are for the internal system which produced the original judgment. A question that has raised difficulties concerns whether the foreign court may lack internal competence, that is, may lack jurisdiction under its own internal system of law. In terms of strict logic, it might be argued that that such a judgment would be void within its own system and ought not to be recognised. There is some authority to support this view in matrimonial cases, where the recognition rules are different.65 There is a dictum by Lindley MR in Pemberton v Hughes66 which has been much commented upon; the learned judge observed:
The learned judge was making the remarks in the context of a case turning on a procedural mistake by the foreign court. It would seem that a correct reading of the case and a prior ruling of the Court of Exchequer Chamber,67 is that procedural errors do not constitute substantial injustice, and will not act as a defence to an action for enforcement. The value of the dictum by Lindley MR lies in drawing the proper distinction between matters of internal competence and matters of international jurisdiction.
