Summary
This was the last reported judgment in a long-lasting dispute between the claimant, Loucas Hajti-Ioannou, and his former son-in-law, Frangos.
The claimant gave a sum of over $49 million to the defendant. After his marriage ended, the claimant wanted the money back. The dispute as to whether the money were given as a present or gift lasted for more than 10 years. A prior claim had even been brought in England, but the defendant successfully challenged the jurisdiction of the English court ([1998] CLC 61; [1999] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 865).
The Greek courts gave a judgment for the claimant. The recognition and enforcement or the Greek judgment was sought in England.
On 15th December 2008, an application for registration of the Greek judgment was issued. However, two days after the application was made, the claimant died. A registration order in favour of the claimant was issued in January 2009.
In June 2009, the Master substituted the claimant, and his widow and children featured as applicants.
An appeal was made against the registration order and substitution order. The High Court set aside the registration order, but the substitution order remained in place. In this context, Mr Justice Hamblen noted:
“89 […] In my judgment the entitlement of the applicants to the judgment in the period from the death of LH to May 18, 2009 was more uncertain than that of the plaintiff in John Mowlem . Until May 18, 2009 it was possible albeit unlikely that they would disavow their inheritance. In that intervening period they did not have the right to register the judgment. Neither they nor anyone else had the right to register the Frangos judgment in the period from December 17, 2008 to May 18, 2009. Applying John Mowlem , the Registration Order of January 13, 2009 granted by Master Fontaine at the suit of the applicants was a nullity and is to be set aside.
90 If I had not reached the conclusion that it was a nullity, I would have set the Registration Order aside on grounds of material non disclosure. Master Fontaine was not informed that the person entitled to register the judgment had died. What would no doubt have appeared to her to be simple matter of ensuring that all the documentation was in order would have been different if she had been informed that LH had died. As this appeal has demonstrated, the question of whether and when the Applicants became entitled to the judgment is far from straightforward. The death of LH would have required the Applicants to satisfy the Master that they had the interest in the judgment required by Article 38 at the time she was determining the application.
91 There was also non disclosure in applying for the Substitution Order in that the Master was not informed that the Registration Order was being appealed by Mr Frangos. The other grounds relied upon to set aside the Substitution Order are, in effect, a repetition of the arguments advanced on behalf of Mr Frangos in support of the contention that the Applicants have not acquired a registrable interest in the judgment. I have held that since 18 May 2009 they have had such an interest. Whilst the non disclosure of the fact that an appeal against the Registration Order was being pursued which challenged the standing of the Applicants to register the judgment is serious, in all the circumstances I do not set aside the Substitution Order.
92 Since 18 May 2009 the Applicants have been entitled to stand in the shoes of the late LH to seek registration of the enforceable part of the judgment, that for €700,000 costs. The Registration Order is set aside. However the Substitution Order remains in place.” [89-92].