The recognition of foreign judgments lacking reasons raises several policy issues. Reason-giving is perceived by the European Court of Human Rights as critical to ensure an effective access to justice. Yet, foreign judgments often lack reasons because the defendant failed to appear before the foreign court, and it may be right to sanction this strategy of foreign court avoidance. Finally, the European Union has begun to implement its policy of efficiency of cross-border enforcement, which commands states to recognize such judgments irrespective of any other consideration. This article explores whether these conflicting issues can be reconciled.

There have been several cases reported over the last few years on the meaning of “habitual residence”. This comparatively new phrase is much in use not only in domestic legislation but also in various Hague Conventions on the reform of private international law and it is in widespread use by the European Commission. Habitual residence is the basis for allocating jurisdiction to that State's court, especially in relation to matrimonial causes and child custody. For example, it has been proposed by the European Commission as a replacement for domicile in the new Convention on the Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters. Habitual residence is also extremely important in connection with tax matters and social security. It is additionally used in the Immigration Act 1971. Other than its purpose in allocating jurisdiction, habitual residence is beginning to be adopted as a connecting factor for choice of law, for instance the Rome Convention on Choice of Law in Contract.

Though generally uncontroversial in England, the rules on pleading and proof of foreign law are nevertheless of interest from the comparative point of view by reason of the diversity of approaches found in different European countries. There is, moreover, a feeling on the part of some Continental lawyers that the English rules undermine the objectives of international and EU initiatives on conflict of laws and that the United Kingdom does not, therefore, fully carry out its international and EU obligations in this regard. These accusations have been levelled in particular with regard to the Rome Convention.1 In view of this, a comparative study of the different approaches in the main European countries might be timely; it might also provide an appropriate background for an examination of the question whether the Rome Convention requires any modification of the traditional English approach.