## Facts

- Jet Holdings Inc. and affiliated companies employed Bachu Patel as an accountant in California from about 1980/81 to 1983.
- After Patel’s dismissal in 1983 for alleged misappropriation of company funds, Patel denied wrongdoing and alleged threats and violence connected to Don Arden (the companies’ controller), including an extorted payment of US $100,000.
- In California civil litigation, the companies sued Patel for misappropriation, seeking compensatory and punitive damages; Patel filed an answer and cross-complaint based on alleged threats and violence.
- The California court ordered Patel to attend medical examinations and a deposition in California, requiring the companies to fund travel expenses and provide a security guard of Patel’s choosing.
- Patel twice failed to attend the ordered proceedings, giving a reason (lack of an airline ticket) that the evidence tended to contradict; his lawyers later withdrew.
- The California court struck Patel’s pleadings for noncompliance and entered default judgment, ultimately awarding about $186,000 compensatory damages and $500,000 punitive damages (crediting the $100,000 payment only to the extent accepted in the damages process).
- The companies sued in England to enforce the California money judgment at common law and obtained summary judgment; Patel appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether there was a genuine triable issue that the California judgment was obtained by fraud, barring enforcement in England.
2. Whether the California proceedings were contrary to natural justice because Patel lacked a fair opportunity to be heard.
3. Whether there was “some other reason” to deny summary judgment and allow a trial despite weak fraud and natural-justice defenses.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed Patel’s appeal and affirmed summary judgment enforcing the California judgment.
- Patel failed to show a real prospect of proving the judgment was procured by fraud aimed at the foreign court.
- Patel failed to show the California process was unfair; the default resulted from his noncompliance with reasonable court orders that included travel, funding, and security protections.
- No residual “other reason” justified a trial in England where no recognized defense to enforcement was realistically arguable.

## Legal Principles

- A final, conclusive foreign money judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction is enforceable at common law as a debt, subject to limited defenses (including fraud and denial of natural justice).
- For the fraud defense, allegations must substantially relate to fraudulent procurement of the foreign judgment (e.g., deception of the foreign court), not merely wrongdoing in the parties’ underlying relationship.
- The natural-justice defense focuses on whether the defendant had notice and a fair opportunity to be heard; nonattendance and noncompliance with reasonable foreign-court orders generally defeat the defense.
- On summary judgment in an enforcement action, the resisting party must show a genuine triable issue on an established defense; seriousness of allegations alone is not an “other reason” to require trial.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the California default judgment because Patel’s allegations of intimidation and extortion did not amount to evidence that the judgment was fraudulently procured, and the California proceedings afforded a fair opportunity to participate notwithstanding Patel’s failure to comply with orders crafted to address his asserted safety and cost concerns.


Jet Holdings Inc. v. Patel, 2 All E.R. 648 (Eng. C.A. 1989)