Tag Archives: Recognition and Enforcement

Case of the Day: Resorts World v. Chan

The case of the day is Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd. v. Chan (D. Hawaii 2016). Resorts World sued Chan in the Singapore High Court on a debt. The Singaporean court entered judgment for Resorts World for $882,644. Resorts World brought an action for recognition and enforcement in Hawaii. Chan moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process. She also asserted that the Singapore judgment was void because she had not properly been served with process in that proceeding, and that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Resorts World v. Chan

Paper of the Day: Oluwaseun Ajayi on Recognition of Foreign Country Money Judgments Connected to Criminal Proceedings

Readers, you may be interested in a new paper by practitioner Oluwaseun Ajayi on the recognition of foreign money judgments that are connected with criminal proceedings. It was published in the February 2016 edition of the Banking Law Journal. Unfortunately, the publisher, LexisNexis A.S. Pratt, refused the author’s request for reprint permission, so I cannot provide a link to a copy of the paper here. Tsk, tsk, LexisNexis A.S. Pratt.
Continue reading Paper of the Day: Oluwaseun Ajayi on Recognition of Foreign Country Money Judgments Connected to Criminal Proceedings

Case of the Day: In re Frau R

The case of the day, courtesy of Peter Bert of Taylor Wessing, is In re Frau R (German Fed. Constitutional Ct. 2015). Yes, I know that’s not the proper form for citing German cases, but it will have to do. Frau R., a Romanian national, sued a Romanian widow for a share of her dead husband’s estate on the grounds that the widow and her husband had adopted her. The widow denied the adoption, and so Frau R. sought recognition, in Germany, of the Romanian adoption. The lower court that heard the case failed to request the record of the adoption from the Romanian court under Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001, the EU regulation on judicial assistance, even though Frau R. had presented a letter from the Romanian authorities indicating that they would be receptive to a request from the German court. On appeal, the Federal Constitutional Court held that the lower court had violated Frau R.’s constitutional right to effective judicial protection.
Continue reading Case of the Day: In re Frau R