Summary
The proceedings were concerned with an application for the recognition and enforcement of a Greek judgment in England. There were set of proceedings between parties in England in Greece. A judgment, declaring that Tsavrilis, were not liable, was rendered by the Greek court on 22nd October 2005. On 28 November 2005, the defendants that were parties to a set of proceedings involving the same parties and the same cause of action before the English courts sought the recognition and enforcement of the Greek judgment. The defences under Article 34(1), (2) and (3) were invoked. On 9th March 2006, Mr Justice Tomlinson denied recognition of the Greek judgment, which was rendered in default of appearance, under Article 34(2) of Brussels I, holding that:
“50 For all these reasons I conclude that by reason of the satisfaction of the conditions in Article 34.2 of the Judgments Regulation the judgment of the Greek court should not be recognised in the two English actions. Much of the learning on Article 34.2 and its predecessor Article 27 is suggestive that the rationale underlying Article 27 and thus Article 34.2 is that ordinarily the judgment under consideration will have been rendered by a court first seised. However that may be, my conclusion so far as concerns Article 34.2 is obviously equally applicable to both actions.
[…]
57 Just as Andrew Smith J regarded the evidence before him on this topic as insufficient to be a satisfactory basis for a dispositive conclusion, so I regard the evidence before me as insufficient to enable me to conclude that in the unusual circumstances of this case it would be manifestly contrary to public policy to afford recognition to the judgment of the Greek court. The evidence is insufficient to enable me to conclude that there was a real impediment to Mr Tavoulareas drawing to the attention of the Greek court the existence of the English judgment. Without such a finding, I have to conclude that both parties before the court share responsibility for the situation which has arisen. That does not detract from the fact that in the result the regime of the Convention and the Regulation has not been observed, but it does to my mind make it difficult to conclude that recognition of the Greek judgment would be manifestly contrary to public policy. This renders it doubly unnecessary to consider the position in the second action where the Greek court is first seised.
[…]
58 That leaves only the question whether the Greek judgment is irreconcilable with the decision of the Court of Appeal. It is suggested by Mr Goldstone that irreconcilability can be found in the assumption by the Greek court of a Convention jurisdiction which the English court has already decided the Greek court does not have. I do not consider that this is a correct characterisation. The Greek Court did have jurisdiction to entertain the action — the only question is whether, had the existence and nature of the decision of the Court of Appeal been drawn to its attention at the appropriate time, it might have felt obliged by the Convention or the Regulation to decline that jurisdiction. I do not need to consider what are the limits of irreconcilability under Article 34.3. It suffices that there is in my judgment no irreconcilability between the English and Greek judgments. The English decision is to the effect that the English court is first seised. The Greek decision says nothing on that score and in my view assumes nothing on that score.
59 However in the light of my earlier conclusions so far as concerns Article 34.2 the application of the Defendants in these two actions must be dismissed.” [50 and 57-59]
On 20 December 2006, the English Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court Decision. (See Tavoulareas v Tsavliris and Others [2006] EWCA Civ 1772 affirming [2006] EWHC 414 (Comm)