ENGLAND & WALES Law and Practice Contributed by: James Herring, Nathalie Allen and David Wigg, Addleshaw Goddard
3.5 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Foreign Judgments Under the Recast Brussels Regulation, the neces - sary steps to take in order to be in a position to start enforcement action in England and Wales should be relatively inexpensive and swift. This is, how - ever, always subject to any challenge by the judg - ment debtor that can change the position. If there is no challenge, it should be possible to start English enforcement proceedings almost immediately. If registration is required (all other EU/EFTA judgments, the Hague Convention 2005, the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 and the statutory regimes), it may take a few weeks for the registration process to com - plete before enforcement procedures can be started. If the common law regime applies and fresh proceed - ings are required, even if an application for summary judgment is successful, the minimum period for an enforceable judgment is likely to be several months from the date of issue of the new claim, and could be longer. Under any of the routes outlined above, challenges by a judgment debtor will delay the process and increase the cost, even if ultimately unsuccessful. 3.6 Challenging Enforcement of Foreign Judgments The routes to challenge enforcement depend on which regime applies to the judgment. Under the European Regime and the Lugano Convention There are limited grounds for challenging enforce - ment. A judgment will not be recognised if recogni - tion is manifestly contrary to UK public policy, nor if the judgment: • is given in default (if the defendant was not served with the proceedings), unless the defendant failed to challenge the proceedings when it was possible for them to do so; • is irreconcilable with a judgment given between the same parties in the UK;
• is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment in another member state including the same cause of action and between the same parties; • conflicts with the special protection for consumers, employees or insureds (weaker parties) under the European Regime; or • is under challenge in the state of origin, or an appli - cation has been made in the UK to refuse enforce - ment. Under the Hague Convention 2005 and Hague Judgments Convention 2019 Fraud is a ground for refusing recognition. Other grounds for refusing recognition include the following. • The choice of court agreement was null and void, unless the court of origin determined that it was valid (Hague Convention 2005 only). • A party lacked the capacity to conclude the choice of court agreement (Hague Convention 2005 only). • The document that instituted the proceedings was: (a) not notified to the defendant in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable the defendant to arrange its defence, unless the defendant presented its case without contesting notifica - tion in the court of origin, provided that the law permitted notification to be contested; or (b) notified to the defendant in the requested state in a manner that is incompatible with the fundamental principles of the requested state concerning service of documents. • Recognition or enforcement would be manifestly incompatible with UK public policy, including where the proceedings leading to the judgment were incompatible with the fundamental principles of procedural fairness of the state of origin. • The judgment is inconsistent with a judgment given in the UK in a dispute between the same parties or is inconsistent with an earlier judgment given in another state between the same parties on the same cause of action, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the UK. Under the Statutory Regime Examples of grounds for challenging registration are as follows.
165 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook