Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and others

Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and others

Foreign avoidance judgments in insolvency proceedings are in personam and subject to the traditional common law rules for enforcement (Dicey Rule); they are not subject to a special rule of recognition and enforcement outside those rules. Enforcement requires presence or submission to the foreign court's jurisdiction. Modified universalism does not justify judicial innovation in this area; changes should be left to legislation. The Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 and section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986 do not provide a basis for enforcement of foreign judgments against third parties. In New Cap, enforcement is allowed due to submission by the Syndicate; in Rubin, enforcement...

Parties
Respondents: Rubin and another; Appellants: Eurofinance SA and others; Respondents/cross Appellants: New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (In Liquidation) and another; Appellants/cross Respondents: A E Grant and others as Members of Lloyd's Syndicate 991 for the 1997 Year of Account and another
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in Rubin; appeal dismissed in New Cap
Legal Topics
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Insolvency Judgments, Modified Universalism, Avoidance Proceedings, Submission to Jurisdiction, Cross Border Insolvency Assistance
Insolvency Conflict of Laws International Law Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Insolvency Judgments Modified Universalism Avoidance Proceedings Submission to Jurisdiction Cross Border Insolvency Assistance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rubin and another

Respondents

Eurofinance SA and others

Appellants

New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (In Liquidation) and another

Respondents/cross Appellants

A E Grant and others as Members of Lloyd's Syndicate 991 for the 1997 Year of Account and another

Appellants/cross Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether foreign avoidance judgments in insolvency proceedings can be enforced in England against parties not subject to the foreign court's jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether enforcement may be effected through the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 or section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986
  3. 3 Whether submission to jurisdiction occurred

Ratio Decidendi

Foreign avoidance judgments in insolvency proceedings are in personam and subject to the traditional common law rules for enforcement (Dicey Rule); they are not subject to a special rule of recognition and enforcement outside those rules. Enforcement requires presence or submission to the foreign court's jurisdiction. Modified universalism does not justify judicial innovation in this area; changes should be left to legislation. The Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 and section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986 do not provide a basis for enforcement of foreign judgments against third parties. In New Cap, enforcement is allowed due to submission by the Syndicate; in Rubin, enforcement...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in Rubin; appeal dismissed in New Cap

Orders

  • Rubin: Appeal allowed, enforcement of US Bankruptcy Court judgment refused
  • New Cap: Appeal dismissed, enforcement of Australian judgment allowed due to submission by Syndicate