Helpful link on recognition of foreign judgments

Over on China Law Blog is the following helpful and succinct practical law company link and summary on getting your judgment recognised and enforced in different foreign courts:

So today when a lawyer from a Middle East country emailed me to discuss enforcing a large judgment from that (intentionally unnamed) country in China, I had to figure out whether China enforces that country’s judgments or not (it doesn’t).  In doing that research, I came across this very helpful chart put out by the Practical Law Company, listing what countries enforce what foreign judgments.  This chart does not list the enforcement rules for every country, but it does list it for the following 32 and I am guessing that will cover at least 90 percent of the searches out there: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Canada, Cayman Islands, China, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Romania, Russian Federation, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, Turkey, USA, United Arab Emirates, and United Kingdom.

Two countries, two legal systems

Over the past few months, the Australian media has reported on the plight of two Australians - Marcus Lee and Matthew Joyce - who have been languishing under house arrest in Dubai, pending trial for criminal bribery. Lee and Joyce were both arrested in 2009 over bribery allegations relating to a 2007 property deal in Dubai. Joyce and Angus Reed, another man who returned to Australia before the arrests but was still tried in absentia, were convicted last month of fraud and sentenced to 10 years jail and $12 million fines, while Lee was acquitted. The Dubai prosecution has since indicated that it will be appealing Lee’s acquittal, making it unclear whether Lee will be able to leave Dubai in the near future.

The Australian reporting of the story has been the stuff of a typical good guy/bad guy Hollywood movie.  The media was quick to judge the unfairness of Dubai's legal system, well before the trial was complete and has been intent on supporting the perceived innocence of the Australians.  This has unfortunately led to the media peddling inaccurate representations of the legal situation at hand.

The property deal in question involved the Sunland property group, Prudentia, and its affiliate Hanley (investment companies), and a Dubai government development entity, Dubai Waterfront LLC or DWF. In 2007, Joyce was the managing director of DWF, Lee was the Director of commercial operations for the same company and Angus Reed was a director of Prudentia. It was alleged that Joyce and Reed misrepresented to Sunland Property group that a payment to Prudentia would be needed to secure the purchase of a block of land in Dubai, Plot D17. Sunland acted on the alleged representation of the two Australian men, paying Prudentia, but then later learned that the payment had been unnecessary. Lee  allegedly had a role in facilitating the payment.

Joyce and Reed also faced an Australian civil suit commenced by Sunland, brought under Australian legislation and common law and based on the same, or similar, factual circumstances to the Dubai prosecution. Lee, however, was not named as a defendant in the civil action. Justice Croft of the Victorian Supreme Court determined the Australian case in 2012, finding that the claims were not made out.  Justice Croft strongly criticized the grounds on which the Australian civil suit was brought, particularly disputing the reliability of the evidence relied on by Sunland.  It is this judgment and criticism that has led to the Australian media heralding the innocence of Lee and Joyce and declaring that the matter has been finally determined.

The problem with the media’s approach to the legal situation is that it fails to acknowledge that the  legal systems in Australia and Dubai are substantially different and therefore so were the cases brought in each country.  Specifically, the Australian matter was brought as a civil case by Sunland, who alleged that the men had breached the Australian Trade Practices Act and committed the common law tort of deceit, neither of which apply in Dubai.  As such, these laws were not the basis for the Dubai criminal case, brought by the Dubai prosecution. 

In fact, not only were the two cases brought under different laws, but the foundations of the two legal systems are significantly different.  Australia has a common law legal system, inherited from the British, and Dubai has a hybrid civil law and sharia legal system.  These two different foundations have a substantial bearing on case determinations as they provide distinct approaches to legal interpretation and evidentiary issues. 

Given these significant differences, it is incorrect to suggest that the Australian finding proves the innocence of the two men and that they have no case to answer in Dubai, as the Australian media has, at times, suggested.  Justice Croft clearly acknowledging the differences in the two legal systems, stopped short of commenting on the innocence of the men in relation to the Dubai prosecution – focusing his criticism on Sunland’s conduct, factual inaccuracies in the evidence provided and its bearing on the Australian civil claim.

Past Australian media criticism of foreign legal cases has at times negatively impacted on the process and outcome of these matters.  Therefore, while this is a truly tragic story for the men and their families involved, their situation is not assisted in any way by inaccurate media reporting, or a parochial representation of the legal system in Dubai.