Somportex Ltd. v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp.
Citation and Court
453 F.2d 435 (3d Cir. 1971)
Facts
Somportex, an English company, obtained a default judgment against Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp. in an English court. Philadelphia Chewing Gum had not appeared in the English proceeding, arguing that the English court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. Somportex then sought enforcement of the judgment in U.S. federal court.
Issue
Whether an English default judgment against a U.S. defendant that did not appear in the English proceedings should be recognized in U.S. courts, and whether the defendant waived its objection to English personal jurisdiction by not raising it in the English court.
Holding
The English judgment is entitled to recognition on principles of comity; by failing to appear and contest jurisdiction in the English proceedings, the defendant waived its objection to that court’s personal jurisdiction for purposes of recognition in the United States.
Rule / Doctrine
A foreign country’s judgment is entitled to recognition under comity principles where the rendering court had jurisdiction, the proceedings were conducted with basic fairness, and no other recognized ground for non-recognition exists. A defendant who had the opportunity to contest jurisdiction in the foreign proceeding but did not appear generally cannot re-litigate jurisdiction as a defense to enforcement.
Significance
Somportex is a leading Third Circuit case on foreign judgment recognition and illustrates how courts treat the waiver of jurisdictional objections when a defendant defaults in the foreign proceeding. It reinforces the general rule favoring recognition of foreign judgments from countries with fair legal systems.