De La Hija v Lee (As Executrix of the Estate)

De La Hija v Lee (As Executrix of the Estate)

The EEO was not valid on its face as it failed to certify compliance with the minimum procedural standards required by the Regulation. The court of enforcement has inherent jurisdiction to refuse enforcement of a document that is not a genuine 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.

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, Service of Process, Mutual Recognition of Judgments, Jurisdiction, Procedural Fairness
Civil Procedure International Law Enforcement of Judgments European Enforcement Order Default Judgment Service of Process Mutual Recognition of Judgments Jurisdiction +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 10 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 court of enforcement can stay or refuse enforcement of a European Enforcement Order (EEO) that is deficient on its face
  2. 2 Whether Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No. 805/2004 requires a challenge to have been lodged in the court of origin before a stay can be granted
  3. 3 Whether the court of enforcement has inherent jurisdiction to refuse enforcement of a defective EEO

Ratio Decidendi

The EEO was not valid on its face as it failed to certify compliance with the minimum procedural standards required by the Regulation. The court of enforcement has inherent jurisdiction to refuse enforcement of a document that is not a genuine 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 appeal is dismissed.
  • The Claimant is to pay the Defendant’s costs of the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.