The res judicata effect in england of a US class action settlement

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 134-151

  Dixon, John C L ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70749126157     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020589300060140     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. In re Gen. Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig. 55 F.3d 768, 799 (3d Cir. 1995)
2. cert, denied sub nom General Motors Corp. v. French 133 L.Ed 2d 45, 116 S.Ct. 88;
3. Georgine v. Amchem Prods. Inc. 83 F.3d 610 (3d Cir. 10 May 1996).
4. The criteria generally used in determining whether a settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate are: (1) likelihood of recovery, or likelihood of success; (2) amount and nature of discovery or evidence; (3) settlement terms and conditions; (4) recommendation and experience of counsel; (S) future expense and likely duration of litigation; (6) recommendation of neutral parties, if any; (7) number of objectors and nature of objections: (8) the presence of good faith and the absence of collusion: H. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions (3rd edn, 1992), $11–43.
5. See ABA Section of International Law and Practice. Enforcing Foreign Judgments in the United States and United States Judgments Abroad (Ronald A. Brand (Ed.), 1992), p.93.
6. See also Dicey and Morris, The Conflict of Laws (12th edn. 1993). p.460 where the authors state that “several important foreign countries (including the United States) do not yet have treaties with the United Kingdom for the reciprocal enforcement and recognition of judgments”.
7. There is considerable English case authority confirming this. In Owens Bank Ltd v. Etoile Commercial SA [1995[ 1 W.L.R. 44 (PC)
8. Nothing has, as yet, come to fruition: Arthur T. von Mehren, “Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: A New Approach for the Hague Conference?” (1994) 57 Law & Contemp. Probs. 271–272.
9. See e.g. Dicey and Morris, Law & Contemp. Probs., p.454.
10. [1962] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 459, 473 (QB).
11. See e.g. Plummer v. Chemical Bank 668 F.2d 654, 660 (2d Cir. 1982).
12. [1967] 1 A.C. 853 (HL).
13. A.C., pp.909–910 (emphasis added).
14. A.C., p.933 (emphasis added).
15. A.C., p.918.
16. (1889) 15 App.Cas. 1.
17. [1985] 1 W.L.R. 490.494 (HL).
18. [1985] 1 W.L.R. 490.499.
19. W.L.R. p.494.
20. [1895] 1 Ch. 37.45. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal: idem, p.48.
21. (1898) 29 Can.S.C.R. 211.
22. [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1482 (CA).
23. (1867) L.R. 1 Sc. & Div. 117 (HL (Scot.)).
24. S.L.T., p.207.
25. Moon v. Atherton [1972] 2 Q.B. 435, 441 (CA).
26. [1992] 1 Q.B. 526, 543.
27. [1975] A.C. 591 (HL).
28. (1869) L.R. 4 Q.B. 653 (CA).
29. Co. v. Epstein 134 L.Ed 2d 6
30. [1893] A.C. 518, 522–523 (PC).
31. [1910] 2 K.B. 1021, 1039 (CA) (emphasis added).
32. [1990] 2 W.L.R. 117 (CA).
33. [1901] A.C 424.443 (HL).
34. [1981] Ch. 229, 254.
35. [1987] 1 N.Z.L.R. 260 (HC).
36. N.Z.L.R. p.271.
37. [1899] 1 Ch. 871.790 (CA).
38. (1927) 138 L.T. 386 (CA).
39. L.T., p.392.
40. L.T., p.390.
41. [1990] Ch. 433. On 24 Oct. 1989 the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords dismissed a petition by the plaintiffs for leave, to appeal.
42. Ch., p.498.
43. Ch., p.564.
44. Ch., p.565.
45. Ch., pp.566–567 (emphasis added).
46. Ch., p.565.