The Recognition, and Res Judicata Effect, of a United States Class Actions Judgment in England: A Rebuttal of Vivendi

Modern Law Review

Volumn 75, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 180-211

  Mulheron, Rachael ^a  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Class actions; Group litigation; Multi jurisdictional class actions; Private international law; Res judicata

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857732224     PISSN: 00267961     EISSN: 14682230     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00896.x     Document Type: Article

References (203)

1. Defined, for the purposes of this article, to mean: a class member domiciled in England; who is not a named representative claimant to the US class action; who falls within the defined class in the US class action, because that class includes English class members; who does not actively participate in the US class action in any respect; and who does not opt-out of the US class action. References to 'English'/'England' should be taken to include 'Welsh'/'Wales' throughout.
2. eg, McKenna v Gammon Gold Inc [2010] ONSC 1591 (McKenna) at [87] per Strathy J. The issue of recognition/preclusive effect of a Canadian class actions judgment/settlement is presently disputed in Nutech Brands Inc v Air Canada Cargo (Ont SCJ, 20 June 2007), in which the writer is an expert witness for one of the defendants. For an insightful and detailed consideration of Canadian courts' willingness to certify multi-jurisdictional classes, see, eg, J. Brown, 'Seeking Recognition of Canadian Class Action Judgments in Foreign Jurisdictions: Perils and Pitfalls' (2008) 2 Canadian Class Action Rev 220, 223-227; and Brown, 'Canada-US Cross-Border Class Actions: Class Certification and the Enforcement of the Resulting Class Action Judgments' (Paper for 2011 ABA Annual Meeting, Toronto, 5 August 2011).
3. ie, the damages class action contained in r 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP).
4. eg, In re Parmalat Securities Litig 497 F Supp 2d 526 (SDNY 2007).
5. eg, Kruman v Christie's Intl plc 284 F 3d 384 (2d Cir 2003).
6. th Cir 2007).
7. Case No M:06-cv-01793-CRB (ND Cal 2008), with settlement website at: (last visited 2 December 2011). See especially, under 'Important Documents', Notice to Claimants (Long Form Notice), Claim Form, Settlement Agreements, and Final Hearing Transcript.
8. An argument developed further by this writer in, eg, 'The Case for an Opt-Out Class Action for European Member States: A Legal and Empirical Analysis' (2009) 15 Columbia J of European Law 409, 441-448; Reform of Collective Redress in England and Wales: A Perspective of Need (Research Paper for the Civil Justice Council of England and Wales, February 2008) 107-112; and The Class Action in Common Law Legal Systems: A Comparative Perspective (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2004) ch 4. Also, R. Nagareda, 'Aggregate Litigation Across the Atlantic and the Future of American Exceptionalism' (2009) 62 Vanderbilt LR 1, 36-37 (non-recognition of US judgments abroad may 'spur further the development in European nations of their own distinctive avenues for aggregate redress for their citizens'); and In re Vioxx Litig 395 NJ Super 358, 374, aff'd, 936 A 2d 968 (2007) (England's limited civil procedure landscape is not 'a ticket to relief elsewhere, but rather, as a subject for legislative or court reform, should such be warranted').
9. 242FRD 76 (SDNY 2007), involving German, Austrian, French, English and Dutch sub-classes.
10. 103 (similar conclusion re France/the Netherlands, but the opposite concluded for Germany/Austria); with the position re French class members aff'd: 2009 US Dist LEXIS 31198 (SDNY, 31 March 2009).
11. Given the writer's conclusion that a US class actions judgment/settlement will not be entitled to recognition in England, the bar on ECMs recovering additional damages, per the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, s 34 would not apply (but for settling ECMs, see text accompanying notes 51-54 below); in any event, the criterion of 'same parties, or their privies' in s 34 will be lacking (see text accompanying notes 115-129 below).
12. Discussed, eg, in: Mulheron, 'The Case for Opt-out' n 8 above, 441-448.
13. Gullone n 6 above; Vioxx n 8 above.
14. eg: F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v Empagran SA 542 US 155 (2004) (re non-application of the Sherman Act).
15. ie, where a class of foreign claimant investors sues a foreign issuer in an American court for violations of Securities Exchange Act §§10(b), 29(a), 15 USC § 78a (1934), based on securities transactions which occurred on foreign stock exchanges. See, eg H. Buxbaum, 'Multinational Class Actions Under Federal Securities Law: Managing Jurisdictional Conflict' (2007) 46 Columbia J of Transnational Law 14.
16. 130S Ct 2869 (24 June 2010). Discussion of Morrison, and of its possible legislative reversal, lies outside this article's scope, but see: L. Wasserman, 'Transational Class Actions and Interjurisdictional Preclusion' (2011) 86 Notre Dame LR 313; and for Morrison's impact on the Vivendi litigation: 765 F Supp 2d 512 (SDNY 2011).
17. McKenna n 2 above at [85] and [105] per Strathy J.
18. For other interesting and thought-provoking academic consideration of the issue, see, eg J. Dixon, 'The Res Judicata Effect in England of a US Class Action Settlement' (1997) 46 ICLQ 134; M. Stiggelbout, 'The Recognition in England and Wales of United States Judgments in Class Actions' (2011) 52 Harvard Intl LJ 433; J. Harris, 'The Recognition and Enforcement of US Class Action Judgments in England' (2006) 22 Contratto e Impresa/Europe 617; A. Pinna, 'Recognition and Res Judicata of US Class Action Judgments in European Legal Systems' (2008) 1 Erasmus LR 31.
19. In England: Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433, 513 per Slade LJ (Adams), citing Pemberton v Hughes [1899] 1 Ch 781, 791; and see too Desert Sun Loan Corp v Hill [1996] CLC 1132, 1145 per Roch LJ (Desert Sun). In the US, Bersch v Drexel Firestones Inc 519 F 2d 974, 996-997 (2d Cir 1975) (Bersch).
20. th ed, 2006) vol 1 (D&M) 589-590, 620; Pinna, n 18 above, 37-38; Dixon, n 18 above, 139; A. Jaffey, Introduction to the Conflict of Laws (London: Butterworths, 1988) 223.
21. Vivendi n 10 above, 20. Various expert opinions are quoted in Vivendi and In re Alstom SA Securities Litig 253 FRD 266, 281 (SDNY 2008) (Alstom) which, at the time of writing, were unavailable on the settlement websites (eg (last visited 24 November 2011)) or in other publicly-available forums; but some expert opinions are available in In re Royal Ahold Securities and 'Erisa' Litig 437 F Supp 467 (2006) and In re Royal Dutch/Shell Transport Securities Litig 2004 WL 3929259, 2004 WL 5728796, 2005 WL 6317464, 2005 WL 6317472 (DNJ) (per Westlaw (International Directory, 'ALLFEDS' library)), including, re the position of ECMs, (conflicting) expert Declarations by Prof Edwin Peel, Prof Jonathan Harris, and the Rt Hon Sir Christopher Staughton.
22. eg, Dixon, n 18 above, 139-140; Peel Declaration, ibid at [13]; Harris Declaration, ibid at [34]; Stiggelbout, n 18 above, 436.
23. eg, Vivendi n 9 above, 102.
24. [1962] 2 Lloyd's Rep 459.
25. th ed, 2002) §2.2.
26. 140 F Supp 82 (SDNY 1956).
27. n 24 above, 473, citing a 'similar' case, Rossano v Manufacturers Life Ins Co [1962] 1 Lloyd's Rep 187.
28. Conte and Newberg, n 25 above, §1.9, and cited by Vivendi n 9 above, fn 17.
29. 'US Class Actions and the "Global Class"' (2009) 19 Kansas J of Law and Public Policy 91, 93.
30. FRCP 23(b)(3) requires that the representative claimant demonstrate that 'a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy'.
31. As in, eg, Bersch n 19 above, 986; Alstom n 21 above, citing Vivendi n 9 above, 95.
32. Phrase used in Robertson v Thomson Corp (1999), 43 OR (3d) 161 (Gen Div) at [44] per Sharpe J.
33. See further, eg, Mulheron, 'The Case for Opt-Out' n 8 above, 445-446; Pinna, n 18 above, 34-36; Bermann, n 29 above, 94-95; M. Murtagh, 'The Rule 23(b)(3) Superiority Requirement and Transnational Class Actions: Excluding Foreign Class Members in Favor of European Remedies' (2011) 34 Hastings Intl and Comp LR 1; M. Jasilli, 'A Rat Res? Questioning the Value of Res Judicata in Rule 23(b)(3) Superiority Issues for Foreign Cubed Class Action Securities Litigation' (2009) 48 Columbia J of Transnational Law 114; T. Monestier, 'Transnational Class Actions and the Illusory Search for Res Judicata ' (2011) 86 Tulane LR 1, 9-13.
34. eg, Phillips Petroleum Co v Shutts 472 US 797, 799 (1985) (Shutts) (class members were domiciled 'in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and several foreign countries'), with academic critique that 'the Court regarded the foreign claimants as adding nothing to the jurisdictional due process analysis, [but] such a conclusion is flawed': D. Bassett, 'US Class Actions Go Global: Transnational Class Actions and Personal Jurisdiction' (2003) 72 Fordham LR 41, 56.
35. n 19 above, 986 (class members from England, France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland), and cited in: Tri-Star Farms Ltd v Marconi plc 225 F Supp 2d 567, 577 (WD Pa 2002). Also, CL-Alexanders Laing & Cruickshank v Goldfeld 127 FRD 454, 459 (SDNY 1989).
36. n 9 above, 102-103.
37. n 21 above, 289 (French courts had exclusive jurisdiction re disputes between Alstom and its shareholders).
38. Buxbaum, n 15 above, 34. For critique, see, eg, Jasilli, n 33 above, 129 ('[t]he [Vivendi] opinion contains little more than laundry lists of assertions by experts'); Monestier, n 33 above, 21-25 (adding, eg, that 'expert witnesses are necessarily partisan'); Stiggelbout, n 18 above, 458-459.
39. Murtagh, n 33 above, 32, albeit that 'one must ... remember that foreign governments and courts will eventually decide for themselves whether a [US] class action judgment is enforceable' (at 28).
40. In re Intl Air Transport Surcharge Antitrust Litig 2008 US Dist LEXIS 50415 (ND Cal, 25 April 2008, Judge Breyer), referring to settlement agreements dated 15 February 2008 approved pursuant to FRCP 23(e).
41. Long Form Notice, n 7 above, 4 (qualifying flights listed in 'Attachment A').
42. n 40 above, order 3, 3-4.
43. order 4, 5-6.
44. order 1, 3 (emphasis added).
45. eg, C. Ruckin, 'Cohen Milstein Lands $200m BA-Virgin Settlement' Legal Week 15 February 2008. Cf earlier differential settlements, eg Kruman n 5 above, and In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litig 2001 US Dist Lexis 1713 (SDNY 2001).
46. Claim Form, n 7 above, 1 (emphasis added).
47. Long Form Notice, n 7 above, cl 7, under heading, '7. What does the Settlement provide?'
48. Dixon, n 18 above, 134.
49. Long Form Notice, n 7 above, cl 13.
50. Mulheron, 'The Case for Opt-out' n 8 above, 431-434.
51. 1998 US Dist LEXIS 1199 (SDNY, 4 February 1998) at 44-45.
52. Either by submitting in writing or online (see n 7 above).
53. n 40 above, 8.
54. Long Form Notice, n 7 above, 5, cl 10, 'If I file a claim and remain in the Class, what claims am I giving up?'
55. cl 9; Settlement Agreements, cl 1.26, 1.27, 8.5; and Final Hearing Transcript, 17.
56. McKenna n 2 above at [98].
57. Bermann, n 29 above, 95.
58. (2005) 74 OR (3d) 321 (Ont CA) [27].
59. Long Form Notice, n 7 above, 1 (opening statement).
60. In re US Financial Sec Litig 69 FRD 24, 48 (SD Cal 1975). Also, Cromer Finance Ltd v Berger 205 FRD 113 (SDNY 2001) (Cromer).
61. Vivendi n 9 above, 107.
62. ie, the Group Litigation Order (Pt 19.III of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)); the representative rule (CPR 19.6); test/lead actions (CPR 19.15); consolidation (CPR 3.1(2)(g), (h)); or joinder (CPR 19.2(2)). For discussion of these various devices, see, eg R. Mulheron, 'From Representative Rule to Class Action: Steps rather than Leaps' (2005) 24 CJQ 424; and 'Some Difficulties with Group Litigation Orders - and Why a Class Action is Superior' (2005) 24 CJQ 40.
63. eg, Competition Act 1998, s 47B (a follow-on action for competition law infringements), and critiqued in: Mulheron, Reform of Collective Redress n 8 above, ch 8.
64. R. Mulheron, 'Recent Milestones in Class Actions Reform in England: A Critique and a Proposal' (2011) 127 Law Quarterly Review 288, analysing the class actions proposal in the Financial Services Bill 2010, cll 18-25.
65. Draft Rules of Court for Collective Proceedings (February 2010) at (last visited 25 November 2011). The writer was a member of the working group commissioned to prepare the relevant generic rules.
66. Vivendi n 9 above, 107; Cromer n 60 above, fn 32.
67. Sir Rupert Jackson, Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report (January 2010) ch 12.
68. Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill 2010-11 (HC Bill 205), cll 41-43.
69. R. Mulheron and P. Cashman, 'Third Party Funding of Litigation: A Changing Landscape' (2008) 27 CJQ 312.
70. Vivendi n 9 above, 106.
71. eg: Manitoba LRC, Class Proceedings (Rep 100, 1999) 30-32; Dixon, n 18 above, 135; N. Tadmore, 'Recognition of Foreign In Personam Money Judgments in Australia' (1995) 2 Deakin LR 129, 133.
72. McKenna n 2 above at [88] per Strathy J, citing, as internal quote: Currie n 58 above at [15] per Sharpe JA.
73. A judgment which imposes a personal liability on a party (eg, to pay damages): Oxford Dictionary of Law (Oxford: OUP, 2006) 296.
74. n 19 above, 1144.
75. See D&M, n 20 above, 566, fn 1, for reference to the American Law Institute's Draft Statute on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (2005); and 573.
76. Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933; Administration of Justice Act 1920; Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (incorporating into English law the Brussels and Lugano Convention).
77. D&M, n 20 above, 567.
78. nd ed, 2008) 199; Wasserman, n 16 above, 316; Stiggelbout, n 18 above, 461.
79. eg, Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd [1967] 1 AC 853, 909-910, 933 (Carl Zeiss); Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93, 104; Good Challenger v MetalExportImport SA [2003] EWCA Civ 1668 at [58]; Barrett v Universal Island Records Ltd [2006] EWHC 1009 (Ch) at [176]; Al Qahtani & Sons Beverage Industry Co v Antliff [2010] EWHC 1735 (QB Comm) at [53].
80. rd ed, 2001) 109-117.
81. D&M, ibid rules 41-45 ( fraud, natural justice, public policy, specific statutes such the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980, s 5, which provides that a judgment for multiple damages shall not be enforced by any UK court, conflicting or inconsistent judgments, a foreign judgment was in breach of arbitration or jurisdiction clauses, and that the judgment was invalid under foreign law).
82. Jaffey, n 20 above, 223-224, citing: Schibsby v Westenholz (1870) LR 6 QB 155 (Schibsby). See rationale 3 below.
83. Barnett, n 78 above, 38; and Briggs, n 78 above, 149.
84. cf the other limb of res judicata, issue estoppel (for the distinction, see, eg, R v Mahalingan [2008] SCC 63 at [16]; Arnold n 79 above, 104-105). Cause of action (not issue) estoppel is the focus of this article.
85. Good Challenger n 79 above at [58].
86. Lockyer v Ferryman (1877) 2 App Cas 519, 530; Nouvion v Freeman (1889) 15 App Cas 1, 7 (Nouvion).
87. Lewis v Eliades [2003] EWHC 368 at [25]-[27], citing Beatty v Beatty [1924] 1 KB 807.
88. Carl Zeiss n 79 above, 909-910, 918-919, citing: Nouvion n 86 above, 9.
89. Desert Sun n 19 above, 1146, per Stuart-Smith LJ.
90. Nouvion n 86 above, 12.
91. FRCP 23(e).
92. Colt Industries Inc v Sarlie (No 2) [1966] 1 WLR 1287 (CA) 1293.
93. nd ed, 1969) 37 ('[a]ny judgment or order ... made in pursuance of the consent and agreement of the parties' can have res judicata effect); Wasserman, n 16 above, 341-342; Stiggelbout, n 18 above, 468-469; Dixon, n 18 above, 140-141.
94. D&M, n 20 above, 577-579, citing Beatty n 88 above.
95. Tadmore, n 71 above, 149.
96. Long Form Notice, n 7 above, cl 7, under 'What does the Settlement provide?'
97. See n 7 above, especially Final Hearing Transcript, 16-17 (objection to that point of difference between the settlement classes not upheld).
98. Tracomin SA v Sudan Oil Seeds Co Ltd [1983] All ER 404 (QB, Comm) 413-414 per Staughton J.
99. DSV Silo-und Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Owners of the Sennar [1985] 1 WLR 490, 493-494.
100. Baker v Ian McCall Intl Ltd [2000] CLC 189, 201; Desert Sun n 19 above, 1141.
101. nd Cir 1990); and discussed in, eg, Conte and Newberg n 25 above, §§11.41, 11.43-11.51; and Mulheron, The Class Action, n 8 above, 397-407.
102. nd Cir 1974), and see too Dixon, n 18 above, 142; Stiggelbout, n 18 above, 468-469.
103. th ed, 2002) 193-195 citing, eg Jacobson v Frachon (1927) 44 TLR 103 (CA). For absent class members, 'minimal procedural due process protection [means] [t]he plaintiff must receive notice plus an opportunity to be heard and participate in the litigation, whether in person or through counsel': Shutts n 34 above, 811-812.
104. Collier, n 80 above, 120-122. Also, see Stiggelbout, n 18 above, 469-473, and Harris Declaration, n 21 above, [22]-[24], and the authorities cited therein.
105. Bersch n 19 above.
106. Pinna, n 18 above, 40-41. Also: BIICL, Collective Redress and the Brussels I Regulation (London: Research Project for the Ministry of Justice, April 2010) 52 (whether English court would consider US class action judgment contrary to public policy 'is unclear. There are different views').
107. Alstom n 21 above, 289.
108. Vivendi n 9 above, fn 19.
109. Mulheron, n 64 above, and more generally: CJC, Improving Access to Justice Through Collective Actions: Final Report (London: November 2008) especially Pts 4 and 7.
110. See, eg, Mulheron, 'From Representative Rule' n 62 above, 442-443; The Class Action n 8 above, 34-38; and 'Opting In, Opting Out, and Closing the Class: Some Dilemmas for England's Class Actions Law-Makers' (2011) 50 Canadian Business LJ 376, and discussion of cases therein, eg, EMI Records Ltd v Kudhail [1985] FSR 36; Howells v Dominion Ins [2005] EWHC 552 (QB); Independiente Ltd v Music Trading On-Line (HK) Ltd [2003] EWHC 470 (Ch); PNPF Trust Co Ltd v Taylor [2009] EWHC 1693 (Ch).
111. Pinna, n 18 above, 43; Dixon, n 18 above, 148-151; Stiggelbout, n 18 above, 472; Harris Declaration, n 21 above, [21]-[26], [40]-[59]; Peel Declaration, n 21 above, [10.3]; BIICL Research Project, n 108 above. Cf the contrary view in Staughton Declaration, n 21 above, [35]-[40].
112. Tadmore, n 71 above, 150.
113. Barnett, n 78 above, 65.
114. See Barrow v Bankside Members Agency Ltd [1996] 1 WLR 257 (CA) 260 (re whether the extended principle in Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, 67 ER 313 applied to group litigation, and critiqued in R. Mulheron, 'Justice Enhanced: Framing an Opt-Out Class Action for England' (2007) 70 Modern Law Review 550, 572-575).
115. Clarkson and Hill, n 80 above, 147.
116. Conte and Newberg n 25 above, §1.3, 19, and cited in Wyly v Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP 12 NY 3d 400, 410 (Ct App NY, 2009).
117. Shutts n 34 above, 809-810.
118. Conte and Newberg, and see too Fauvergue v US 2009 US Lexis 43, 14-15 (Ct App Fed Ct, 2009), citing Amer Pipe & Construction Co v Utah 414 US 538, 550-551, 554.
119. Dixon, n 18 above, 143.
120. CPR 19.6(4)(b).
121. Ventouris v Mountain (Italia Express) [1990] 1 WLR 1370, 1372, aff'd [1991] 1 WLR 607 (CA) (represented person under the representative rule not a party for purposes of discovery).
122. nd ed, 2006) [12.25].
123. Barnett, n 78 above, 68.
124. citing examples thereof.
125. Dadourian Group Intl v Simms [2006] EWHC 2973 (Ch) at [715] citing Carl Zeiss n above 79, 909-910 and Gleeson v Whippell [1977] 1 WLR 510 (Ch) 515.
126. Barnett, n 78 above, 70-71, and Gleeson requiring 'a sufficient degree of identification between the two'. Views differ on this: some consider that the requisite 'privity of interest' would not exist, per the Staughton and Peel Declarations, n 21 above at [41] and [18]-[25] respectively; whereas the Harris Declaration, n 21 above at [37]-[39], and Stiggelbout, n 18 above, 466-468, 475, 485-487, explore whether a wider interpretation of 'privity of interest' could cover a representative claimant and an absent class member.
127. Buchanan v Rucker (1808) 9 East 192, 194, 103 ER 546.
128. ie, by agreeing in advance, expressly and explicitly, to accept the foreign jurisdiction, via contractual provision. See, eg, Nygh and Davies, n 105 above, 175-176, citing, eg, Singh v Rajah of Faridkote [1894] AC 670 (PC) 686, and Vogel v RA Kohnstamm Ltd [1973] 1 QB 133; and D&M, n 20 above, 600. Cf Briggs, The Conflict of Laws, n 78 above, 141 (any implied agreement 'only in the clearest of cases').
129. eg, Adams n 19 above, 517-519; Schibsby n 82 above, and cited recently in: Masri v Consolidated Contractors Intl Co SAL [2011] EWHC 1024 (QB Comm) at [254]. See too Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth [2009] EWCA Civ 1328 at [187]-[195]; and D&M, n 20 above, 588-608; Barnett, n 78 above, 35-36.
130. Schibsby ibid; and cited in D&M, n 20 above, 595.
131. Acknowledged in Vivendi n 9 above, 102 (English law has 'consistently discuss[ed] the competency of a foreign court in terms of whether there was jurisdiction over the defendant'); and Alstom n 21 above, 288.
132. McKenna n 2 above at [105].
133. n 31 above, 289 (emphasis added). Also Stiggelbout, n 18 above, 462-466; and strong support for this rationale in, eg, the Harris Declaration, n 21 above at [9]-[16], [29]-[36]), citing with approval Barnett, n 78 above, 73.
134. Barnett, n 78 above, 66-67, citing, eg, Gleeson v Wippell & Co Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 510 (Ch) 516, and Drouot Ass SA v Cons Metallurgical Industries [1998] ECR I-3075.
135. [1962] 2 Lloyd's Rep 459 (QB).
136. See Rationale 3 below.
137. Adams n 19 above, 519.
138. (2004) 70 OR (3d) 53 (Ont SCJ) at [21] per Cullity J (decision affirmed on appeal, n 58 above).
139. The phrase used, eg, in Vivendi n 9 above, 94, citing Shutts n 34 above, 806-814.
140. n 136 above (emphasis added).
141. [1962] 2 Lloyd's Rep 459 (QB).
142. Desert Sun n 19 above, 1145 (emphasis added). Also, Midgulf Intl Ltd v Groupe Chimiche Tunisien [2009] EWHC 963 (QB) at [46] citing: Akai Pty Ltd v People's Ins Co Ltd [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep 90 (QB) 96.
143. Henry v Geoprosco Intl Ltd [1976] QB 726 (CA) 748.
144. See n 7 above, and the steps outlined in Long Form Notice, cll 12, 20.
145. Pinna, n 18 above, 58.
146. Briggs and Rees, n 80 above, 782-783, with the Peel Declaration, n 21 above, concurring, at [17], but Stiggelbout, n 18 above, disagreeing, at 483-485.
147. (1862) 142 ER 1037.
148. See text accompanying n 113 above.
149. Bassett, n 34 above, 87-89. Also, Monestier, n 33 above, 7 ('[a]n opt-in class action for foreign claimants eliminates the res judicata problem altogether' and 'presents a more principled approach to the inclusion of foreign claimants in US class actions') and 60-78.
150. Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma v Marks & Spencer Ltd [1991] RPC 351 (CA) 357-358, 368.
151. Irish Shipping Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Co plc (The Irish Rowan) [1991] 2 QB 206 (CA).
152. [2010] EWCA Civ 1284 at [7]; the class was 'a very extensive group ... geographically': at [2].
153. Dixon, n 18 above, 145-147, concluding (at 150) that a US class settlement had a 'good chance of being upheld in England'; and supported in the Harris Declaration, n 21 above at [42]-[52]. cf Stiggelbout, n 18 above, 490-493.
154. Vivendi n 9 above, 103 (citations and internal references to affidavit evidence omitted).
155. Reference to 'comity' occurs in the headnote catchwords, but not in the Vivendi judgment itself.
156. Oxford Dictionary of Law (Oxford: OUP, 2006) 101. For judicial discussion: Somportex Ltd v Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp 453 F 2d 435, 440 (3rd Cir 1971); Gordon and Breach Science Publishers Ltd v Am Institute of Physics and Amer Physical Socy 905 F Supp 169, fn 8 (SDNY 1995); Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye [1990] 3 SCR 1077, 1096. For academic discussion: Tadmore, n 71 above, 134-136; Collier, n 80 above, 387-389; D&M, n 20 above, 5-9, 569-570; F. Juenger, 'The Recognition of Money Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters' (1988) 36 Am J of Comp Law 1, 6-10.
157. 159US 113, 163-164, 212, 228 (1895) per Gray J (US Supreme Court refused to recognise French judgment, because of lack of reciprocity in French law for recognising US judgments).
158. [1938] AC 485, 502-503.
159. (1870-71) LR 6 QB 139; cf Schibsby n 82 above, 159, which rejected that contention in 1870.
160. eg: In re Dulles' Settlement (No 2) [1951] 1 Ch 842 (CA); Travers v Holley [1953] P 246 (CA) 257 per Hodson LJ; Perrini v Perrini [1979] Fam 84; although Hodson LJ said, after Travers, that the comity principle did not extend beyond matrimonial causes: Re Trepca Mines Ltd [1960] 1 WLR 1273 (CA) 1282.
161. (1845) 13 M&W 628 (Exch) 633, 153 ER 262, having espoused the doctrine of obligation slightly earlier in Russell and Wife v Smyth (1842) 9 M&W 810.
162. Tadmore, n 71 above, 137, citing H. Yntema, 'Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Anglo-American Law' (1935) 33 Michigan LR 1129. Also, Briggs and Rees, n 80 above, 784, fn 1.
163. B. Caffrey, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Sydney: CCH Australia Ltd, 1985) 57.
164. [2010] EWCA Civ 895 at [34], [35] per Ward LJ, citing: Adams n 19 above, 513 per Slade LJ.
165. eg: Schibsby n 82 above; Grant v Easton (1883) LR 13 QBD 302 (CA); Nouvion n 86 above; Emanuel v Symon [1908] 1 KB 302.
166. [1990] Ch 433 (CA) 513; and endorsed in, eg, Murthy v Sivasjothi [1998] EWCA Civ 1646.
167. Briggs, n 78 above, 138; D&M, n 20 above, 603-605.
168. Collier, n 80 above, 116.
169. Hilton v Guyot 159 US 113, 212 (1895). And, as an opt-in device, nor does the Group Litigation Order resemble a FRCP 23(b)(3) action: Mulheron, 'Some Difficulties' n 62 above.
170. n 9 above, 103.
171. See, eg, Mulheron, The Class Action n 8 above, 77-94; 'From Representative Rule' n 62 above, 427-431; and 'Opting In, Opting Out' n 113 above, 386-391.
172. eg, Prudential Ass Co Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1981] Ch 229 per Vinelott J (proposing a 'common ingredient' test); and earlier, eg, Wood v McCarthy [1893] QB 775; Moon v Atherton [1972] 2 QB 435 (CA).
173. The representative rule recently again proved unsuitable for claims in which class members sought individual damages recovery: Emerald Supplies n 158 above. Critiqued in R. Mulheron : 'A Century Later, the Ghost of Markt Lives On' (2009) 8 Comp LJ 159 (first instance); and: ' Markt and Failed: Missing a Gem of an Opportunity for the Representative Rule' (2012) EBLR [forthcoming] (appeal).
174. CPR 19.6(4). See Millharbour Management Ltd v Weston Homes Ltd [2011] EWHC 661 (TCC) at [22(5)].
175. PNPF Trust n 113 above at [49].
176. Financial Services Bill 2010, cl 19(6)(b).
177. Draft Rules of Court, n 65 above, cll 19.16(2)(g), (h)(iii), 19.22(1)(g)(ii), 19.24(1)(b)(ii).
178. Alberta's Class Proceedings Act, SA 2003, s 17(1)(b), as amended by the Class Proceedings Amendment Act 2010; British Columbia's Class Proceedings Act, RSBC 1996, s 16(2).
179. See Explanatory Notes accompanying the court rules at (last visited 1 December 2011) 11, heading 5, 'Non-Domiciled Class Members'.
180. Class Actions (Rep No 85, 2000) at [232].
181. Boland v Simon Marketing Inc and McDonald's Corp (Cir Ct of Cook Cty, Illinois, Settlement Agreement and Certification Order approved 8 April 2003).
182. citing Muscutt v Courcelles (2002), 60 OR (3d) 20 at [95]-[100].
183. Ibid at [22], [25].
184. n 143 above at [55]-[58].
185. n 58 above at [31], [34]-[43].
186. Eg Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye [1990] 3 SCR 1077; Hunt v T&N plc [1993] 4 SCR 289 at [59]; Saldanha v Beals (2003) 3 SCR 416; McKenna n 2 above at [89]-[90]; Ramdath v George Brown College [2010] ONSC 2019.
187. Eg J. Castel, 'The Uncertainty Factor in Canadian Private International Law' (2007) 52 McGill LJ 555; J. Walker, 'Recognizing Multijurisdiction Class Action Judgments within Canada: Key Questions: Suggested Answers' (2008) 46 Canadian Business LJ 450; C. Jones and A. Baxter, 'Fumbling Toward Efficacy: Inter-jurisdictional Class Actions' (2006) 3 Canadian Class Action Review 405; Monestier, n 33 above, 52-59; Brown, 'Canada-US Cross Border Class Actions' n 2 above, 9 ('one of the broadest tests for determining whether jurisdiction can be assumed').
188. Indyka v Indyka [1969] 1 AC 33.
189. [2006] IEHC 193 at [5.3], referring to the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations Act 1971. Also, Agbaje v Akinnoye-Agbaje (Rev 1) [2010] UKSC 13 at [5].
190. Briggs and Rees, n 80 above, 784, fn 1. Also D&M, n 20 above, 605-606 ('no authority in England suggests that this is the appropriate test for the recognition/enforcement of foreign judgments in personam').
191. Briggs, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law (Oxford: OUP, 2008) 349-350, fn 40.
192. Briggs, Conflict of Laws n 78 above, 138-139, citing Morguard n 194 above.
193. Per CPR 6.37(3) and Astrazeneca UK Ltd v Albemarle Intl Corp [2010] EWHC 1028 (Comm) at [33].
194. [1987] AC 460, 478-482 per Lord Goff. Also Cecil v Bayat [2010] EWHC 641 (Comm) at [23], [144]; Cherney v Deripaska [2009] EWCA Civ 849 at [20]; AK Investment CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7 at [5].
195. Rubin n 170 above at [37] per Ward LJ, citing Beals, n 194 above.
196. [2006] IEHC 193 at [5.9], [5.15]-[5.18] per Clarke J.
197. The Guidelines, produced by the Taskforce on International Procedures and Protocols for Collective Redress, and adopted by the IBA's Legal Practice Division on 16 October 2008, are available at (last visited 25 November 2011). The writer is a member of that Taskforce.
198. 7 at [7], especially arts 1.02, 4.04, and cited in: Ramdath n 194 above at [87], per Strathy J.
199. rd ILA Conference, Rio de Janeiro, 17-21 August 2008, Prof Catherine Kessedjian (France) as chair) at [120], and the accompanying 'Guidelines of Best Practices on Transnational Group Litigation', 10.1-10.3; Bassett, n 34 above, 89-90.
200. Briggs and Rees, n 80 above, 782, footnotes 1, 5; 784 (noting that any change in the law would have to be legislative); Briggs, Conflict of Laws, n 78 above, 138; J. Fawcett, 'Multi-party Litigation in Private International Law' (1995) 44 ICLQ 744, 769.
201. Castrique v Imrie (1869-70) LR 4 HL 414, 435 per Blackburn J.
202. Currie n 58 above at [27].
203. F. Perez-Correa, 'Enforcement and Recognition of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards in Mexico' (2010) 77 Defence Counsel J 384, 384.