## Facts

- British Midland Airways Ltd. (a U.K. airline) and International Travel, Inc. (a Washington travel company) entered an agency contract to arrange charter flights from western North America to the United Kingdom.
- The contract specified English law and required disputes to be litigated in the High Court of Justice in England and Wales.
- British Midland sued International in the English High Court for breach of contract based on nonpayment.
- The English court, using an Order 14 procedure comparable to U.S. summary judgment, granted International leave to defend only if it deposited security equal to the claimed damages.
- On appeal in England, the conditional security requirement was reaffirmed with a deadline; the court ordered that final judgment would enter if International failed to deposit the sum.
- International did not deposit the security and did not pursue further relief in England; the English court entered a final monetary judgment for British Midland.
- British Midland then filed suit in U.S. federal district court to enforce the English judgment; the district court enforced it.
- International appealed to the Ninth Circuit, challenging recognition and enforcement of the English judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether a U.S. court should recognize and enforce an English money judgment under principles of comity when the judgment followed a conditional leave-to-defend order requiring a security deposit.
2. Whether the English procedure requiring security as a condition of defending, and entering final judgment upon noncompliance, was so unfair as to violate basic due process or be repugnant to fundamental notions of justice.
3. Whether the English court’s jurisdiction was proper where the parties contractually selected English law and an English forum.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s enforcement of the English judgment.
- The court held the English judgment was rendered by a competent court with jurisdiction, supported by the parties’ contractual forum-selection and choice-of-law clause.
- The court rejected International’s claim that the Order 14 conditional security requirement denied due process or barred recognition on public-policy grounds.
- The court concluded that comity supported recognition because International had notice and procedural opportunities in England, including contesting the motion and pursuing an appeal.

## Legal Principles

- U.S. courts generally recognize and enforce foreign-country judgments under comity when the foreign court had jurisdiction and employed procedures consistent with basic fairness.
- A freely negotiated forum-selection and choice-of-law clause constitutes consent to the selected forum’s jurisdiction and ordinarily supports enforcement of resulting judgments.
- Differences between foreign and U.S. civil procedure, including conditional leave to defend conditioned on posting security, do not alone render a foreign judgment unenforceable.
- A foreign judgment may be denied recognition only when the foreign proceedings lack notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard, or when the procedures are repugnant to fundamental notions of justice.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit enforced the English High Court judgment, holding that the parties’ contractual selection of English law and forum established jurisdiction and that England’s conditional security-for-defense procedure did not render the judgment fundamentally unfair for purposes of U.S. recognition under comity.


British Midland Airways, Ltd. v. Int’l Travel, Inc., 497 F.2d 869 (9th Cir. 1974)