## Facts

- Libya granted Nelson Bunker Hunt an oil concession (Concession No. 65) in 1957.
- In 1960, Hunt and BP Exploration Company (Libya) Ltd. entered a joint venture arrangement documented by a letter agreement and operating documents under which:
  - Hunt would convey BP a one-half interest in the concession plus a production payment.
  - BP would fund exploration and development costs initially, with limited recoupment rights from production; Hunt had no personal liability for BP’s advances beyond specified production proceeds.
- After development and production, Libya nationalized the concession, eliminating the parties’ interests.
- BP sued Hunt in the English High Court (Commercial Court); the English court authorized service by mail after attempts at personal service failed, and Hunt appeared to contest personal jurisdiction.
- The English court entered judgments adverse to Hunt (June 30, 1978 and March 26, 1979), concluding the contract was frustrated by expropriation and awarding BP restitution for benefits conferred before frustration; Hunt pursued appeals in England that remained pending.
- Hunt then filed a federal declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of Texas seeking declarations that BP owed him money and that he owed BP nothing.
- BP moved for summary judgment in Texas, arguing the English judgment should be recognized and given preclusive effect.

## Issues

1. Whether the English judgment should be recognized by a federal court sitting in Texas under common-law comity principles.
2. Whether summary judgment or other preclusive effect could be imposed in the U.S. action while appeals of the English judgment were still pending.

## Decision

- The court held the English judgment was entitled to recognition under principles of comity.
- The court rejected Hunt’s objections based on alleged lack of personal jurisdiction/service defects, public policy, and lack of reciprocity.
- The court declined to grant summary judgment because the English judgment was still on appeal and therefore not sufficiently final for preclusion purposes at that time.
- The court stayed the U.S. proceedings until the English appellate process was exhausted.

## Legal Principles

- A foreign-country judgment from an established legal system may be recognized under comity when the foreign proceedings were fundamentally fair and the rendering court had an acceptable basis for jurisdiction.
- Recognition may be denied on public policy grounds only when enforcement would be repugnant to fundamental notions of justice in the forum; mere differences in substantive law do not suffice.
- Reciprocity is not a mandatory prerequisite to recognition of a foreign-country judgment under modern comity analysis.
- When a foreign judgment is recognizable but subject to pending appeals, a U.S. court may stay domestic proceedings rather than give immediate preclusive effect.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the English Commercial Court’s judgment met standards for recognition in the United States, but it stayed the Texas action because the foreign judgment’s pending appeals prevented treating it as final for summary judgment and preclusion.


Hunt v. BP Expl. Co. (Libya) Ltd., 492 F. Supp. 885 (N.D. Tex. 1980)