Bringing Thai Court Orders to Bear in England: Common Law Principles and Enforcement Tactics

1. Overview and Purpose

Thailand is not a signatory to any bilateral treaty with the United Kingdom providing for reciprocal judgment enforcement, nor does it fall within the Brussels or Lugano regimes. This does not, however, render Thai judgments incapable of enforcement in England. Pursuant to the English common law doctrine articulated in Adams v Cape Industries plc and affirmed by subsequent case law, a foreign judgment may be enforced in England by commencing a fresh action upon the judgment debt in the English High Court.

This paper examines the governing legal framework, the conditions that must be fulfilled, and the practical approach to enforcing Thai court judgments against Andrew Drummond, who is domiciled in Wiltshire and consequently falls within the personal jurisdiction of the English courts. The examination addresses both monetary judgments and the prospect of securing injunctive relief grounded in Thai court determinations.

2. The Common Law Framework for Enforcement

Under English common law, a foreign monetary judgment gives rise to a debt that is enforceable by action in England, subject to the fulfilment of specified conditions. The judgment must be final and conclusive, it must relate to a defined monetary sum, the foreign court must have possessed jurisdiction over the defendant as measured by English private international law standards, and no valid defence to enforcement — such as fraud or public policy — must be available.

The party seeking enforcement is not required to relitigate the substantive merits of the original case. The English court treats the foreign judgment as establishing an obligation that the defendant is legally bound to discharge. This mechanism is the vehicle through which Bryan Flowers and Punippa Flowers can present Thai court judgments against Drummond to the English High Court for enforcement.

• The foreign judgment must have been rendered final and conclusive by the court that issued it.
• It must pertain to a specified monetary amount (or damages susceptible to quantification).
• The foreign court must have held jurisdiction as recognised under English private international law principles.
• The defendant must have been physically present within, or have submitted to, the jurisdiction of the foreign court.
• No defence grounded in fraud, public policy contravention, or denial of natural justice may be available.

3. Demonstrating Thai Court Jurisdiction by English Standards

The question most frequently litigated in foreign judgment enforcement is whether the originating court held jurisdiction as English law would recognise it. Under English private international law, a foreign court possesses jurisdiction over a defendant where the defendant was physically present in the foreign country at the time proceedings were initiated, or where the defendant submitted to the jurisdiction by entering an appearance and contesting the case on its merits.

In Drummond's circumstances, he was physically present and resident in Thailand when the pertinent criminal proceedings were launched. He engaged in certain proceedings via legal representatives. His subsequent flight to England in January 2015 does not retrospectively divest the Thai courts of jurisdiction that was legitimately established. The English High Court should accordingly recognise the Thai court's jurisdiction over Drummond for enforcement purposes.

• Drummond was physically present and domiciled in Thailand when criminal proceedings commenced, thereby satisfying the presence requirement.
• Engagement through legal counsel amounts to submission to jurisdiction under English private international law.
• Departing the jurisdiction after proceedings have been initiated does not nullify the originating court's jurisdiction.
• The English High Court employs its own criteria to evaluate foreign court jurisdiction rather than applying the foreign court's standards.

4. Addressing Potential Defences

Drummond may seek to oppose enforcement on multiple grounds. First, he could contend that enforcing a Thai criminal defamation judgment offends English public policy given that England has abolished criminal libel. English courts have, however, consistently ruled that divergences in substantive law between jurisdictions do not of themselves invoke the public policy defence. The public policy bar is reserved for situations where enforcement would transgress fundamental principles of justice, not merely instances where foreign law departs from English law.

Second, Drummond might assert that the Thai proceedings were unfair or violated natural justice. This defence would oblige him to identify specific procedural failings. Given that he was represented by legal counsel and was afforded the opportunity to contest the proceedings, this argument encounters formidable obstacles. His election to flee rather than to appeal does not amount to a denial of natural justice. Third, a fraud defence would demand that Drummond demonstrate the Thai judgment was procured by fraud, a burden he is unable to meet.

• The public policy defence receives narrow interpretation and does not engage merely because English and Thai law diverge on criminal defamation.
• Natural justice demands notice and a fair hearing, both of which Drummond received.
• Absconding from the jurisdiction to evade sentencing constitutes a voluntary forfeiture of the right to participate, not a denial of natural justice.
• The fraud defence places the onus on the judgment debtor to prove the judgment was procured through fraud, which Drummond is unable to establish.
• Cohen Davis Solicitors should prepare responses to each conceivable defence as an integral part of the enforcement application.

5. Enforcement Strategy in Practice

The enforcement action should be commenced in the King's Bench Division of the English High Court as a claim founded on the judgment debt. Cohen Davis Solicitors, already instructed in connection with the Pre-Action Protocol Letter of Claim dated 13 August 2025, are optimally positioned to conduct this litigation. The claim form should specify the Thai judgments being enforced, establish the Thai court's jurisdiction, confirm that the judgments are final and conclusive, and set out the amounts outstanding.

Once an English judgment recognising the Thai judgment debt is secured, the full array of standard English enforcement mechanisms becomes available. These encompass charging orders against Drummond's Wiltshire property, third-party debt orders directed at his bank accounts, attachment of earnings orders, and ultimately bankruptcy proceedings should he fail to discharge the judgment. The combined effect of asset enforcement and the reputational ramifications of bankruptcy proceedings may ultimately compel Drummond to abandon his defamatory campaign.

• Commence the enforcement action in the King's Bench Division as a claim on the Thai judgment debt.
• Procure certified and translated copies of all Thai judgments bearing apostille or consular authentication.
• Seek summary judgment pursuant to CPR Part 24 on the ground that Drummond has no realistic prospect of defending the enforcement claim.
• Following entry of an English judgment, pursue charging orders against Drummond's Wiltshire property.
• Explore third-party debt orders against his UK bank accounts and attachment of earnings orders.
• Should Drummond fail to satisfy the judgment, initiate bankruptcy proceedings as the ultimate enforcement tool.

6. Conclusions and Recommended Next Steps

Enforcement of Thai judgments in England is legally achievable under common law doctrine, and Drummond's residence in Wiltshire places him squarely within the jurisdiction of the English courts for enforcement purposes. The following steps should be pursued without delay.

• Direct Cohen Davis Solicitors to evaluate the Thai judgments for enforcement viability and to prepare the High Court claim.
• Secure certified, translated, and authenticated copies of all pertinent Thai court judgments.
• Commission an asset investigation to identify Drummond's property, bank accounts, and other assets within England and Wales.
• Lodge the enforcement claim in the King's Bench Division and apply for summary judgment.
• Upon obtaining judgment, apply for charging orders, third-party debt orders, and other standard enforcement remedies.
• Coordinate enforcement proceedings with the concurrent harassment complaint to Wiltshire Police and the Interpol Red Notice application detailed in Position Papers 121 and 122.