De La Hija v Lee

De La Hija v Lee

The application to revoke the 2014 stay order is refused. Although the Master may have lacked jurisdiction under Article 23 at the time of the order, the manifest deficiencies on the face of the EEO justified the stay under the court's inherent jurisdiction. Even if the order was wrongly made, the discretionary power to revoke is not exercised due to the ongoing Spanish challenges, the risk of irrecoverable payments, and the claimant's unjustified delay in applying for revocation.

Parties
Claimant: Gerardo Moreno de la Hija; Defendant: Christopher Frank Carandini Lee (deceased, substituted by Lady Birgit Lee as executrix)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Application to Revoke Stay of Enforcement of European Enforcement Order (eeo) / Ruling on Application to Revoke Previous Stay Order
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
European Enforcement Order, Stay of Enforcement, Jurisdiction, Service of Process, Revocation of Orders
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Foreign Judgments European Law European Enforcement Order Stay of Enforcement Jurisdiction Service of Process Revocation of Orders

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerardo Moreno de la Hija

Claimant

Christopher Frank Carandini Lee (deceased, substituted by Lady Birgit Lee as executrix)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Revoke Stay of Enforcement of European Enforcement Order (eeo) / Ruling on Application to Revoke Previous Stay Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2014 order staying enforcement of the EEO should be revoked under CPR 3.1(7)
  2. 2 Whether the English court had jurisdiction to stay enforcement under Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No. 805/2004
  3. 3 Whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying the stay

Ratio Decidendi

The application to revoke the 2014 stay order is refused. Although the Master may have lacked jurisdiction under Article 23 at the time of the order, the manifest deficiencies on the face of the EEO justified the stay under the court's inherent jurisdiction. Even if the order was wrongly made, the discretionary power to revoke is not exercised due to the ongoing Spanish challenges, the risk of irrecoverable payments, and the claimant's unjustified delay in applying for revocation.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The application to revoke the order dated 3 February 2014 staying enforcement of the EEO is dismissed.