Supreme Court Clarifies Conditions for Enforcing Foreign Judgments

The Parties’ Dispute

In 1997, the High Court in London ordered Yehoshua Waldorn, in the absence of one of the parties, to pay Emily Shipping Company Limited $399,737.19, plus interest and costs. The judgment was served on Waldorn in Israel on September 1, 2004, and an application to enforce it was filed on August 23, 2006. On September 27, 2012, the Tel Aviv District Court granted enforcement, after which Waldorn filed an appeal.

Two Types of Jurisdictional Review

Under Section 3(1) of the Law, the applicant must prove that the foreign court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute under the laws of its country. By contrast, Section 6(a)(3) allows the judgment debtor to argue that the foreign court lacked jurisdiction under the rules of private international law applicable in Israel. Accordingly, in the first instance the burden of proof rests on the applicant, and in the second it rests on the party opposing enforcement.

Reason for Remanding the Case

The company submitted an affidavit from an English lawyer, who asserted only briefly that, under English law, the court had jurisdiction to issue the judgment. The Supreme Court held that this statement was insufficient and that Waldorn’s arguments under Section 6(a)(3) were unsupported and lacked detail. Because the District Court had not examined either issue on the merits, the case was remanded to it to receive additional affidavits and examine the English court’s jurisdiction.

Time Limit and Procedural Costs

The enforcement application was filed more than five years after the foreign judgment was issued, but the Court did not overturn the finding that there was a special reason for the delay, as the company had difficulty locating Waldorn, who was not present at the address registered with the Ministry of the Interior. The Supreme Court also did not intervene in the requirement to deposit NIS 15,000 for the examination after Waldorn failed to appear, or in the personal costs of NIS 3,000 imposed on his attorney in favor of the State Treasury. The District Court’s judgment and the associated costs remain in effect for the time being; the Supreme Court made no order as to costs.

Latest legal news

• Court allows parents of late Maj. Ofek Bachar to use his sperm
• High Court issues order nisi over regional radio reform
• Supreme Court decision in BSA 8455/17 addresses appeal classification