This is the sentences. It's really long and complicated and I'm not native English speaker. The end is not clear for me and I don't understand the parts about foreign law and award and etc.

Slade conceded, However, that if a foreign law were to provide for the plaintiff to serve a notice specifying a sum claimed as damages, and then for a default judgment to be entered for that sum without proof or judicial assessment, such a procedure would usually be considered unobjectionable, provided that, after due allowance had been made for differences between the foreign law and English law in levels of award and in substantive law, the amount of the actual award was not irrational.

  • It is long and complicated. Which particular bit[s] of it are you confused about? Saying "all of it" counts as proofreading, which is off-topic. – Mick Dec 7 '17 at 9:04
  • 2
    probably better suited to SE:Law – JMP Dec 7 '17 at 9:07
  • @Mick Thanks. I made it more clear. My problem was with the end of it. – Moradnejad Dec 7 '17 at 9:09
  • The whole section is about foreign law; your question includes the term "reward" which is not in the text. The law site would be better. – Xanne Dec 7 '17 at 9:14
  • it's funny that this question was asked in Law Stack Exchange, and they referred to this site. law.stackexchange.com/questions/24624/… – Moradnejad Dec 16 '17 at 11:00

I think it means that where foreign courts are making an award for damages - they may do so - that process is acceptable - as long as the award is deemed to be 'reasonable' by the English court - presumably within the limits of what is considered 'normal' for such an award, in England.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice - I am a native English speaker. Hope that helps!

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.