Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
THE DEATH OF HENRY v GEOPROSCO
Adrian Briggs*
IGCF SPV 21 v Al Jomaih
Power
A brief mention must mark the judicial eradication of the atrocity that had been the 1975 decision of the Court of Appeal in Henry v Geoprosco International Ltd.1 It had been disposed of in England by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, s.33 but had retained a zombie-like existence in certain jurisdictions of the common law. One such jurisdiction was the Cayman Islands, for the benefit of which it was decisively killed off by the Privy Council in IGCF SPV 21 Ltd v Al Jomaih Power Ltd and Another.2 There will not have been a wet eye in the house.
It is to be recalled that the Court of Appeal had held, in effect, that when a defendant applied to a foreign court for an order that it not exercise its jurisdiction, say on the basis of there having been an arbitration agreement or a discretion in the court of the forum non conveniens kind, the very making of that application was to be seen as a submission to the foreign court sufficient to render any subsequent judgment on the merits of the case entitled to recognition in England as res judicata.3 The reasoning appeared to be that, in asking a court to exercise a judicial power (to dismiss or to stay), one is accepting that the court has a right to say no and to draw the consequences (to adjudicate) liable to follow from that. But Denning LJ had famously said4 that:
“I cannot see how anyone can fairly say that a man has voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of a court, when he has all the time been vigorously protesting that it has no jurisdiction. If he does nothing and lets judgment go against him in default of appearance, he clearly does not submit to the jurisdiction. What difference in principle does it make, if he does not merely do nothing, but actually goes to the court and protests that it has no jurisdiction? I can see no distinction at all.”
The Court of Appeal in Geoprosco had been perfectly content to say that Denning LJ had been quite wrong: indeed, there was something rather distasteful in the way in which it did it. But the Privy Council, speaking through Lord Hamblen, has now
* KC; Emeritus Professor of Private International Law, University of Oxford.
1. [1975] 2 Lloyd's Rep 148; [1976] QB 726.
2. [2025] UKPC 54, affirming the decisions of the Grand Court and the Court of Appeal.
3. The Court of Appeal had refrained from dealing directly with the case in which the sole basis for the application to the foreign court was the contention that it had no jurisdiction at all, discretion forming no part of the analysis. To the extent that that drew a dividing line between certain “jurisdictional” objections and others, no rational person had even spoken up for it.
4. Re Dulles’ Settlement (No 2) [1951] Ch 842, 850.
2