I. PRESENT ATTITUDE TOWARD ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN MONEY JUDGMENTS

A. Describe the receptiveness of your government (including courts) toward enforcement of foreign money judgments.

The Government of Papua New Guinea is generally receptive to the enforcement of foreign money judgments. That attitude is reflected by the adoption of the Judgment Enforcement (Reciprocal Arrangements) Act 1976 as amended (included in the Revised Laws of Papua New Guinea and styled the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act Ch. 50) (“the Act”), selected provisions of which are set out in Appendix 1, and the reciprocal arrangements which Papua New Guinea has entered into to give effect to the Act. The countries with which Papua New Guinea has reciprocal arrangements for the enforcement of judgments are set out in Appendix 2. That Papua New Guinea is receptive toward the enforcement of foreign judgments is also reflected by the adoption, as part of the underlying law of Papua New Guinea, of the common law of England as at Independence (16 December 1975) which, as indicated in the United Kingdom chapter, results in foreign judgments being more easily enforced than in many other countries.

Where the Act recognizes the judgment of a foreign court, that judgment may be enforced in accordance with the Act. In other cases, if in general terms the Papua New Guinea courts consider that the foreign court had jurisdiction according to Papua New Guinea rules relating to conflict of laws, the judgment of that court will be able to be sued upon in Papua New Guinea by an action based on that judgment.

B. Briefly describe recent illustrative attempts, whether successful or unsuccessful, to enforce a foreign money judgment in your country, particularly with regard to enforcement of any judgments from United States courts.

There are few reported authorities relating to the registration of foreign money judgments. In Tuxworth v. Eggars, the defendants sought to set aside registration in Papua New Guinea of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia. The Queensland writ had been served on one defendant, although both instructed a solicitor who filed an appearance for both. In due course the plaintiff served a notice for trial on the defendant’s solicitors 6 to 7 weeks before the trial. The defendants did not appear at the trial and the plaintiff obtained judgment. That judgment was subsequently registered in Papua New Guinea pursuant to the Act. The defendants then applied to have registration set aside. The defendants argued that section 5(1)(a)(iii) of the Act had not been complied with in that personal service of the Queensland writ and notice for trial of the Queensland proceedings had not been effected. The court rejected both arguments.