defence to recognition, then the foreign judgment will be recognised and enforced. If a wants to use the foreign judgment as a sword, then he will need to bring new proceedings in English common law using the foreign judgment as evidence to his claim. The rules cannot and do not distinguish foreign courts with a reputation for excellence and foreign courts with less rigorous standards. Under the common law rules, the English court will not recognise judgments unless they are held to be final in their court of origin. This means that the matter cannot be reopened by the court which made the ruling. The matter may be subject to an ordinary appeal, but that will not be determined as a court reopening a matter. An interlocutory matter may be recognised if it represents the final word of the court on the point in issue. A difficulty arises in relation to default judgments which will often be liable to re-opening in the court in which they were entered. English courts form the basis of recognition on: Presence; meaning that the defendant was present in the foreign jurisdiction when proceedings began; or Submission; that the defendant to a foreign adjudication submitted to accept the foreign court's adjudication. Nationality is no longer credible reasoning for recognition of foreign judgments. Present when proceedings were begun The first category of recognition is where the defendant was present when proceedings began. Two primary definitions exist: one relating to individuals, the second to corporations. Academic criticism has extended from the use of presence rather than residence; however, residence on the date of when proceedings were begun creates uncertainty. It is difficult to determine whether a party who spends two years aboard is resident there. However, authority suggests that residence without presence at the material time would still suffice if the relevant time was at the service of process representing the start of legal proceedings.<ref>' State Bank of India v Moriani Marketing Group (unreported, 27 March 1991)</ref> The leading authority within is Adams v Cape Industries, setting out that presence, as distinct from residence is necessary. With regard to individuals, the court has held that it will mean that the defendant must be within the jurisdiction of a court when the proceedings were instituted, meaning service or notice that proceedings had begun. Presence at the time of the trial is not used as a defendant could simply