No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Rubin v. Eurofinance SA (U.K. Sup. Ct.)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
Extract
In October 2012, the United Kingdom Supreme Court (the Court), by a 4-1 majority, signaled a sweeping return to a more traditional approach to the enforceability of foreign judgments in avoidance in Rubin v. Eurofinance SA. The Court rejected the more liberal rule previously advocated by the Court of Appeal, which gave English courts discretion to allow enforcement of in personam judgments in avoidance where they were related to insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings. The central issue in Rubin v. Eurofinance was whether an in personam judgment, entered in default but made as part of, or pursuant to, insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings abroad could be enforced at English common law. The Court held that the American default judgment at issue in Rubin was not enforceable in English courts.
- Type
- International Legal Documents
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2013
References
1 Rubin v. Eurofinance, [2012] UKSC 46 [hereinafter Rubin].
2 Rubin v. Eurofinance, [2010] EWCA (Civ) 895 (Eng.) [hereinafter Rubin Appeal].
3 Rubin v. Roman (In re The Consumers Trust), Ch. 11 Case No. 05-60155 (REG), Adv. No. 07-03138 (REG), slip op. at ¶ 43 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2008) [hereinafter Rubin Bankruptcy].
4 Rubin, supra note 1, ¶ 65.
5 Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws ¶ 14R-054 (Lord Collins of Mapesbury et al., eds., 15th ed. 2012)Google Scholar.
6 Cambridge Gas Transp. Corp. v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Navigator Holdings Plc, [2007] 1 AC 508.
7 Rubin Appeal, supra note 2, ¶ 62.
8 Rubin, supra note 1, ¶¶ 91, 115.
9 Id. ¶¶ 128-129.
10 Id. ¶ 132.
11 Id. ¶ 130.
12 Rubin Bankruptcy, supra note 3, ¶ 43.
13 Rubin, supra note 1, ¶ 168.
14 N.Y. C.P.L.R. §5225 (McKinney 2005).
15 See Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda, 911 N.E.2d 825 (N.Y. 2009).