¹ [2004] 1 WLR 692.Google Scholar

² Under Part n of the Administration of Justice Act 1920 or Part I of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933.Google Scholar

³ 18 USC 1964 (c).Google Scholar

⁴ Although the defendants tried to argue on appeal that the trebling of damages under the RICO Act was an automatic entitlement, this argument was rejected by Nelson, J (Lewis v Eliades and others [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 850 at 862) who said that the trebling of damages was clearly not automatic. An application to treble RICO damages can be withdrawn or the claimant can undertake not to enforce any multiple element. Nelson J also stressed that the trebling of damages could not be automatic because s 1964 of RICO relates to the [recovery] of damages and that it is within the power of a litigant to waive a right to recover damages or part thereof.Google Scholar

⁵ Lewis v Eliades and others [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 850.Google Scholar

⁶ The claimant had requested that the trebled damages awarded for the violation of RICO be entered in a separate judgment to pre-empt problems arising under the Act. However, Nelson J stated (ibid at 863) that when RICO damages are trebled, the operation of s 5 of the Act cannot be avoided by those damages being awarded in a separate judgment.

⁷ It is unclear why the claimant's withdrawal of his motion to treble the RICO damages was not successful. However, the claimant was still able to comply with the conditions imposed by Nelson, J by not seeking to enforce the claim for multiple damages against the defendants.Google Scholar

⁸ [1911] 2 KB 93.Google Scholar

⁹ Lewis n 1 at 706.Google Scholar

¹⁰ ibid.

¹¹ Dicey & Morris: The Conflict of Laws (12th edn) vol 1 at 547 (the 13th edn contains the same text on this point, at 566).Google Scholar

¹² [1984] QB 142 at 161.Google Scholar

¹³ British Airways Board v Lakers Airways Ltd [1985] AC 58 at 89.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See generally Dicey & Morris: The Conflict of Laws (13th edn) vol 1 Rule 35 at 474.Google Scholar

¹⁵ (1889) 22 QBD 425.Google Scholar

¹⁶ ibid at 427.

¹⁷ See S A Consortium General Textiles v Sun & Sand Agencies [1978] QB 279, at 309 per Lord Denning MR.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Collins, L ‘Blocking and Clawback Statutes: The United Kingdom Approach’ in Essays in International Litigation and the Conflict of Laws' (OxfordClarendon Press 1994) at 348.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Lewis n 1 at 706.Google Scholar

²⁰ Dicey & Morris: The Conflict of Laws (13th edn) vol 1 Rule 52 at 565.Google Scholar

²¹ British Airways v Laker Airways [1984] QB 142;Google ScholarBritish Airways Board v Lakers Airways Ltd [1985] AC 58.Google Scholar

²² [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 850.Google Scholar

²³ However, in practice this undertaking proved to be unsuccessful as the original judgment was replaced with a new judgment, rather than just being supplemented by the addition of a multiplied element.Google Scholar

²⁴ It is unclear whether this would leave open the possibility that the multiplied element of the compensatory award could then still be enforced outside England.Google Scholar

²⁵ [1911] 2KB 93.Google Scholar

²⁶ Albeit when he was discussing whether the judgment in Lewis v Eliades was one ‘arrived at] by multiplying a compensatory sum, n 1 at 706.Google Scholar