<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Case of the Day: Strategic Technologies v. Procurement Bureau	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2020/12/07/case-of-the-day-strategic-technologies-v-procurement-bureau/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2020/12/07/case-of-the-day-strategic-technologies-v-procurement-bureau/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 10 Nov 2024 23:58:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Ted Folkman		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2020/12/07/case-of-the-day-strategic-technologies-v-procurement-bureau/#comment-3504</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ted Folkman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2020 14:09:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=29568#comment-3504</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Thanks Steven! That seems right, and (I hope) consistent with what I wrote. To say that the 1920 Act doesn&#039;t provide for recognition of a US judgment isn&#039;t to say that the common law leaves things to comity. My points about the Judgments Convention aren&#039;t really aimed at the UK, but at the usual suspects.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Steven! That seems right, and (I hope) consistent with what I wrote. To say that the 1920 Act doesn&#8217;t provide for recognition of a US judgment isn&#8217;t to say that the common law leaves things to comity. My points about the Judgments Convention aren&#8217;t really aimed at the UK, but at the usual suspects.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Steven Loble		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2020/12/07/case-of-the-day-strategic-technologies-v-procurement-bureau/#comment-3503</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steven Loble]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2020 13:46:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=29568#comment-3503</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Ted

The English Court does not recognise judgments or orders of American Courts as a matter of comity.  Instead, English Courts “regard the source of the territorial jurisdiction of the court of a foreign country to summon a defendant to appear before it as being his obligation for the time being to abide by its laws and accept the jurisdiction of its courts while present in its territory.” Adams v Cape [1990] Ch. 443.  
33.	 In the leading modern case on enforcement of judgments at common law (which is how US judgments may be enforced in England), so described by Dicey, the Court of Appeal in Adams v Cape stated that “comity or reciprocity is an inadequate ground for enforcement in England of the judgment of a foreign court.”  (Pages 455-56).  The court also made clear that it supported the authority of a foreign court to summon a defendant before it and obligate that defendant to abide by its laws and jurisdiction while in that territory. (Page 519).  

Steven]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ted</p>
<p>The English Court does not recognise judgments or orders of American Courts as a matter of comity.  Instead, English Courts “regard the source of the territorial jurisdiction of the court of a foreign country to summon a defendant to appear before it as being his obligation for the time being to abide by its laws and accept the jurisdiction of its courts while present in its territory.” Adams v Cape [1990] Ch. 443.<br />
33.	 In the leading modern case on enforcement of judgments at common law (which is how US judgments may be enforced in England), so described by Dicey, the Court of Appeal in Adams v Cape stated that “comity or reciprocity is an inadequate ground for enforcement in England of the judgment of a foreign court.”  (Pages 455-56).  The court also made clear that it supported the authority of a foreign court to summon a defendant before it and obligate that defendant to abide by its laws and jurisdiction while in that territory. (Page 519).  </p>
<p>Steven</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
