De La Hija v Lee [2017] EWHC 634 (Ch) (03 April 2017)

De La Hija v Lee [2017] EWHC 634 (Ch) (03 April 2017)

The application to revoke the 2014 stay order is refused because, although Master McCloud lacked jurisdiction under Article 23 at the time, she was entitled to stay enforcement due to manifest deficiencies in the EEO under the court's inherent jurisdiction. Even if the order was wrongly made, discretionary factors including exceptional circumstances, delay, and reliance on the order preclude revocation.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 634 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Gerardo Moreno de la Hija; Defendant: Christopher Frank Carandini Lee; Defendant (executrix, Substituted Party): Lady Birgit Lee
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Application to Revoke Stay of Enforcement Order (cpr 3.1(7)) / Post Judgment, Application Hearing
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
European Enforcement Order, Stay of Enforcement, CPR 3.1(7), Jurisdiction, Service of Process, Delay in Application
Civil Procedure European Law Enforcement of Judgments European Enforcement Order Stay of Enforcement CPR 3.1(7) Jurisdiction Service of Process +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerardo Moreno de la Hija

Claimant

Christopher Frank Carandini Lee

Defendant

Lady Birgit Lee

Defendant (executrix, Substituted Party)

Procedural Posture

Application to Revoke Stay of Enforcement Order (cpr 3.1(7)) / Post Judgment, Application Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2014 stay of enforcement order should be revoked under CPR 3.1(7)
  2. 2 Whether Master McCloud had jurisdiction under Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No. 805/2004 to grant the stay
  3. 3 Whether arguments not previously made can justify revocation

Ratio Decidendi

The application to revoke the 2014 stay order is refused because, although Master McCloud lacked jurisdiction under Article 23 at the time, she was entitled to stay enforcement due to manifest deficiencies in the EEO under the court's inherent jurisdiction. Even if the order was wrongly made, discretionary factors including exceptional circumstances, delay, and reliance on the order preclude revocation.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The application to revoke the 2014 stay of enforcement order is dismissed.