ABSTRACT
It is well established that an English court will not recognise and enforce a foreign judgment if it is contrary to a prior English judgment on the same subject. That such a principle exists was established conclusively in Vervaeke v Smith,100 where the House of Lords upheld the refusal of Waterhouse J and the Court of Appeal to recognise a Belgian decree of nullity on the ground that it conflicted with a prior ruling of the High Court in the same matter.101 The same principle was applied in the commercial law context in the convoluted case of EF Man (Sugar) Ltd v Haryanto (No 2),102 where the Court of Appeal ruled that it could not recognise an Indonesian judgment as being contrary to a prior ruling of an English court. In a situation where there are two conflicting foreign judgments, then it would seem that the first in time should be recognised.103 A problem that awaits determination is the attitude the court should adopt where an English ruling is made subsequent to the foreign judgment for which recognition is sought. As a matter of principle, the English judge, if he were minded to refuse recognition, might be able to fall back upon some ground of public policy.
