Munib Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL and Teyseer Contracting Company WLL

• Jurisdiction: Bermuda
• Judgment Date: 19 November 2009
• Date: 19 November 2009
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal 2009 No. 7
• Court: Court of Appeal (Bermuda)

In The Court of Appeal for Bermuda

Before: Zacca, P; Evans, JA; Ward, JA

Civil Appeal 2009 No. 7

BETWEEN:

CONSOLIDATED CONTRACTORS INTERNATIONAL COMPANY SAL

Appellant

and

MUNIB MASRI

Respondent

Mr A Layton, QC and Ms N Tovey for the Appellant

Mr J Elkinson and Mr B Adamson for the Respondent

Abstract:

Application to set aside registration of judgments made in the UK - Appeal against dismissal - Whether judgments obtained by fraud - Whether just or convenient - Lack of evidence

JUDGMENT of EVANS, JA

1. This is an unmeritorious appeal against the dismissal by the Hon. Mr. Justice Kawaley of an application which he described as follows -

"16. Overall, the application appeared to be one which should simply be summarily dismissed both because it is wholly unmeritorious and because it is improperly motivated and constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court."

2. Undeterred, the Appellants obtained a Ruling that they were entitled to appeal to this Court as of right, that is to say, without first applying for and being given leave to appeal: judgment of the Court of Appeal, June 2009.

3. The Appeal was heard on 13 November 2009 when the Appellants were represented by Alexander Layton QC making his first appearance before the Courts in Bermuda. We are grateful to him for his skilled and restrained submissions, notwithstanding that their content was of so little merit.

4. In this respect, we found ourselves in the same situation as Kawaley J. was. His Judgment (para. 16) continued -

"However, due to the history of this litigation elsewhere and in deference to the sheer volume of paper which has been deployed in support of the present application (not to mention the elegant style, if not content, of the arguments advanced on the Applicants' behalf [by Mr. Delroy Duncan]), it seems appropriate to deliver a fully reasoned judgment on the merits. It is to be hoped that similar applications in the future in this jurisdiction can, where appropriate, be dealt with in a more summary manner."

5. For our part, we propose to confine this judgment to the two specific issues which Mr. Layton identified for us, out of four or more grounds which originally were put forward. As for the sheer volume of paper put before the Court, ostensibly in support of the appeal, we made it clear at the outset of the hearing that we considered this wholly indefensible in the present case. Not only does it increase the physical burden on the Court staff, not to mention the lawyers who produce and have to handle it, but it becomes more difficult for counsel to present the parties' cases in Court. In our view, the time has come, indeed it is long past, when specific costs penalties should be imposed on parties and even their legal representatives for this particular abuse.

The Application

6. The Application was made to the Supreme Court to set aside the registration of three judgments given in the Commercial Court in London, in favour of the Respondent to this Appeal, Mr. Masri, against the Appellant company, Consolidated Contractors

International Company SAL, whom we will call "CCIC". They were dated 15 June 2007, 5 October 2007 and 11 February 2008 for a total of US $49,964,644 (see the Judgment para.1). All were certified by the High Court of England and Wales under section 10 of the Administration of Justice Act 1920 on April 18 and 14 March 2008, respectively.

7. The three judgments were given in two actions which were consolidated and heard together by Gloster J. in the summer of 2006. Her judgment is dated 28 July 2006. Briefly, Mr. Masri claimed damages for breach by CCIC (and by associated companies who are not involved in this Appeal) for breach of a contract to share the costs of and the profits arising out of an oilfield PSA (Production Sharing Agreement) in the state of Yemen.

8. The judgments were registered in Bermuda under the Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1958 ("the 1958 Act"). The 1958 Act provides for registration on the application of the judgment creditor (section 3) and that any party against whom it may be enforced may apply to the Court for the registration to be set aside (section 4). Here, the registration was dated 13 June 2008 and CCIC's Application was made on 25 November 2008. Difficulties of service intervened which need not detain us here. The Application was heard by Kawaley J. on 28-29 January 2009.

9. The grounds for setting aside a registration listed in the 1958 Act include the following -

"Setting aside registration

4 (1) On an application in that behalf duly made by any party against whom a registered judgment may be enforced, the registration-

(a) shall be set aside if the Supreme Court is satisfied -

(i)

...