Foreign law in private international law means the law of a State other than the State of the

court seised, which may be applicable to a legal relationship with foreign elements (i.e. a
relationship with links with several States). In other words: when a case has elements of a
connection with more than one State (e.g. different citizenships of the parties, place of
conclusion of the contract in another State, property located in another country), the court
deciding the dispute must determine which law applies. That law may be: its own law (lex fori) -
the law of the State where the case is heard - or the foreign law - the law of another State,
indicated by the rules of private international law as applicable to the legal relationship

Foreign law is the law of any individual foreign country or, in some instances, of a certain
specific group of countries that have a common rules and regulations or a similar set of rules in
a specific con text of law.i Foreign laws are the laws of any jurisdiction having a distinguish
system of law from that enforced by court

considering an issue. In case where the finds the issue in regard to the foreign law the court has
to looked it from different point of view. Many a times we are in situation where we are unable to
understand that the question of foreign law is a question of law or a question of fact. But it is
clearly held in many cases by the Honourable courts that the question of foreign law is the
question of fact

But the application of foreign law may be excluded in these following four cases-

1. Public Policy- An eminent scholar stated public policy as the complex concept that refers to
those matters regarded by the Parliament and the Court as one the fundamental concerns of
the State and the society at large. In india, the Court can not recognise or enforce that contract
in which the fact of the contract opposed the concept of public [Link] an Indian Court
does not recognise any right of an individual which is against the public morality.

2. Foreign Penal Laws- A penal law is the law which contains some punishment for the breach
of duties in respect to the State. A court will not enforce the foreign penal laws both directly and
indirectly. Also when a particular law is both which contains penal as well as remedial provisions
in that case also the court will only enforce the law which are of remedial nature not the penal
[Link]

3. Foreign Revenue Law- It can also be seen on the same footing as the foreign penal laws.
The revenue law of foreign court can neither impose the burden nor confer a benefit on subjects
of any other states. The court can also not able to collect taxes of foreign countries irrespective
of the identity of the person. Only the court can entertain the foreign revenue laws for any other
legal purposes but will not enforce

4. Mandatory rules- This concept is of positive nature. The impact of enforcement of

mandatory rules is that a foreign domestic law which used to goven under choice of law is not
applied
Characterization as Procedural

Courts traditionally apply their own procedural law (lex fori) even when applying foreign
substantive law. If a foreign rule is characterized by the forum court as "procedural" rather than
"substantive," it will be excluded in favor of the local rule. The distinction can be complex, as
some rules may have both procedural and substantive aspects.

The Doctrine of Renvoi

The Doctrine of Renvoi (French for "send back") is a complex issue that can arise during the
application of foreign law. When a forum court's PIL rules point to the law of a foreign country, a
question arises: does "law" mean the foreign country's internal (substantive) law, or its whole
law, including its own PIL rules?

●​ If the foreign PIL rules refer the case back to the forum (remission) or to a third country
(transmission), a renvoi situation exists.
●​ Jurisdictions differ in their approach, with some accepting single renvoi(accepting a
reference back to the forum) and others accepting double renvoi(attempting to decide
the case exactly as a foreign court would, including its renvoi rules). Still other
jurisdictions (like the United States and, generally, in contractual matters in India) reject
renvoi to simplify the process and ensure predictability.

The "public policy exception" authorises a court that is asked to recognize and enforce a foreign
law to reject doing so if that court determines that its

enforcement would come into conflict with a fundamental public policy of the enforcing country.
The English law relating to preclusion of foreign law by operation of doctrine of public policy is
formulated by Dicey and Morris thus; The court will not enforce or recognise a right, power,
capacity, disability or legal relationship arising under the law of a foreign country, if the
enforcement or recognition of such right, power, capacity, disability or legal relationship would
be inconsistent with the fundamental public policy.

The areas where the doctrine of public policy has been applied:

(i) INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

English law cannot be invoked to assist private transactions which by their illegal purpose may
threaten to compromise friendly international relations between England the rest of the world. In
De Wutz v. Hendricks [(1824) 2 Bing 314] the English Court refused to enforce a contract made
in England for a loan of money intended to assist a rebellion by subjects of a friendly state.

(ii) TRADING WITH AN ALIEN ENEMY

Public policy will invalidate any act which would result in giving comfort or assistance to the
enemy in time of war. The test is the empirical one of the actual or probable result of the
transaction, not the intention of the parties, so that a contract which involves both enemy and
neutrals and only indirectly assists the enemy will be invalidated.

(iii) CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE

Contracts in restraint pf trades contracts involving trading with the enemy,

In Rousillon v. Rousillon, the English Court had to consider the validity of a French contract
alleged to be in restraint of trade. Although the particular contract was upheld and the dicta of
Fry J, made it clear that a contract, though made abroad, would not be enforced on the ground
of public policy if it was restraint of trade according to English Law.

(iv) LIABILITY OF PERMANENT MAINTENANCE OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN:

In re Macartney case, the mother of an illegitimate child sought to enforce in England against
the estate of the child’s deceased father a valid judgement of the court of the partie’s domicile
for the payment of maintenance to the child for the duration of his life. The English court
declined to enforce the judgment. Ashbury J, in this connection observed: ‘this is not a penal
action, nor is it directly a case so contract to general morality as could not be entertained in this
country. It is however a claim of a kind which would not only raise no cause of action here, but in
my judgment is contrary to public policy that is to say the general permanent recognition of
illegitimate children and their mothers as recognised in Malta, is contrary to the established
policy of this country.