## Facts

- An English manufacturer agreed in 1961 to sell paper-making machinery to a German buyer for about £1.21 million.
- As part payment, the buyer accepted 20 bills of exchange drawn, negotiated, and payable in London, with maturities between 1963 and 1968.
- The buyer later alleged delay and defects and refused to honor the bills as they matured; two dishonored bills returned to the seller.
- In 1972, the seller sued on those two bills in a German court; the German trial court dismissed the claim as time-barred under a three-year limitation period, without addressing the merits.
- The seller also began proceedings in England (service out of the jurisdiction) on the same two bills.
- After the German trial-court dismissal, the German defendant sought to set aside the English writ and service, arguing the German judgment was “conclusive” under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933.
- While the English matter was pending, the German appellate court reversed the limitation ruling; a further German appeal remained pending.

## Issues

1. Whether a foreign judgment dismissing a claim solely on limitation grounds is “conclusive” under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 so as to bar an English action on the same cause of action.
2. Whether the 1933 Act displaced the common-law rule that a foreign limitation dismissal bars the remedy in that foreign forum but does not extinguish the right for purposes of suing in England.
3. What role, if any, extrinsic materials (including public committee reports preceding the statute) may play in construing the 1933 Act.

## Decision

- The House of Lords allowed the appeal and reversed the Court of Appeal.
- The German limitation dismissal was conclusive only as to the matter actually decided (that the claim was time-barred in Germany at that stage), not as to the substantive merits of liability on the bills.
- Section 8(1) of the 1933 Act did not abrogate the common-law rule that a foreign limitation bar, where it affects only remedy and not right, does not create a cause-of-action estoppel in England.
- The case was remitted with an order staying further English proceedings pending the final outcome of the German appeal, with liberty to apply.

## Legal Principles

- A foreign judgment is conclusive only “as to any matter thereby adjudicated upon”; it does not become conclusive on matters the foreign court did not determine.
- A foreign dismissal based solely on limitation, in a system where limitation bars the remedy but does not extinguish the underlying right, does not bar an English action on the same substantive claim if the English limitation period has not expired.
- Statutory construction seeks the meaning of the enacted words, not a free-standing inquiry into subjective legislative intention.
- Public background materials (including prior committee reports) may be consulted to identify context and mischief, but cannot override clear statutory language.
- English courts may stay proceedings to avoid inconsistent outcomes and manage parallel litigation where related foreign proceedings remain pending.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords held that a foreign judgment dismissing a claim purely as time-barred was conclusive only on that limitation issue and did not extinguish the claimant’s ability to sue in England on the underlying bills of exchange; in construing the reciprocal enforcement statute, courts focus on the meaning of enacted text while using extrinsic materials only as contextual aids.


Black-Clawson Int’l Ltd. v. Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg A.G., [1975] A.C. 591 (H.L. 1975)