Recognition of civil and commercial judgments among member States of European Union—public policy exception to compulsory recognition—international public policy—English public policy—negotiation—Republic of Cyprus—‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’—United Nations Security Council resolutions 541 (1983), 1250 (1999), 1251 (1999) and 1789 (2007)—Treaty of Guarantee 1960—whether recognition of judgments of court of Republic of Cyprus in respect of land situated in territory under control of ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ contrary to international and English public policy The defendants (Mr and Mrs Orams) had bought land in the part of the island of Cyprus occupied by Turkish forces in 1974 and administered since 1983 by the government of the self-proclaimed ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’, a secessionist territorial-political entity claiming independent statehood vis-à-vis the Republic of Cyprus. The claimant (Mr Apostolides), who had fled northern Cyprus with his family on the Turkish invasion, claimed ownership of the land. To this end, he obtained two judgments from the District Court of Nicosia (the capital of the Republic of Cyprus, which has always remained under the effective control of the government of that State) by which the defendants were ordered, in short, to vacate the land and to pay various sums to the claimant. The claimant then applied to a master of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court in London to have the judgments recognized and enforced in England and Wales pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Regulation’). 1 Article 22(1) of the Regulation specifies that the courts of the member State in which immovable property is situated shall have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of the domicile of the claimant and defendant, over proceedings having as their object rights in rem in that property, and article 33 of the same obliges EU member States to recognize, without requirement of any special procedure, the civil and commercial judgments of another member State. Article 34(1) of the Regulation, however, provides that a judgment ‘shall not be recognized […] if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the member state in which recognition is sought’. The master ordered that the judgments be enforceable in England and Wales, but the defendants successfully challenged that order before Jack J. 2 The claimant now appealed.