De La Hija v Lee (As Executrix of the Estate) [2018] EWHC 1374 (Ch) (06 June 2018)

De La Hija v Lee (As Executrix of the Estate) [2018] EWHC 1374 (Ch) (06 June 2018)

The EEO was not valid on its face as it failed to transparently certify compliance with the minimum procedural standards required by the Regulation. The court of enforcement has inherent jurisdiction to refuse enforcement of such a defective EEO. Master Clark was correct to refuse to revoke the stay imposed by Master McCloud, as the EEO should never have been registered for enforcement in the UK.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1374 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Gerardo Moreno de la Hija; Respondent/defendant: Lady Birgit Lee (As Executrix of the estate of Sir Christopher Frank Carandini Lee)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Master Clark's Decision in the High Court, Chancery Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
European Enforcement Order, Default Judgment, Jurisdiction of Enforcement Court, Service of Process, Mutual Recognition of Judgments
Civil Procedure European Law European Enforcement Order Default Judgment Jurisdiction of Enforcement Court Service of Process Mutual Recognition of Judgments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerardo Moreno de la Hija

Appellant/claimant

Lady Birgit Lee (As Executrix of the estate of Sir Christopher Frank Carandini Lee)

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Master Clark's Decision in the High Court, Chancery Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court had jurisdiction to stay enforcement of a European Enforcement Order (EEO) under Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No. 805/2004 when no challenge had yet been brought in the court of origin
  2. 2 Whether the court of enforcement has inherent jurisdiction to refuse enforcement of a defective EEO
  3. 3 Whether the lower court properly exercised discretion in refusing to revoke the stay of enforcement

Ratio Decidendi

The EEO was not valid on its face as it failed to transparently certify compliance with the minimum procedural standards required by the Regulation. The court of enforcement has inherent jurisdiction to refuse enforcement of such a defective EEO. Master Clark was correct to refuse to revoke the stay imposed by Master McCloud, as the EEO should never have been registered for enforcement in the UK.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The stay of enforcement of the EEO remains in place.
  • The Claimant is to pay the Defendant's costs of the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.