PIL instrument(s)
Brussels I
Case number and/or case name
Bach v Davis [2013] EWHC 4459 (QB)
Details of the court
England and Wales, Second Instance
Articles referred to by the court
Brussels I
Article 22
Paragraph 5
Article 34
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 4
Article 35
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
Article 45
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Article 53
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Article 54
Date of the judgement
08 October 2013
Appeal history
None
CJEU's case law cited by the court
None
Summary
An application for the registration of a foreign judgment in England was made on 19th October 2012. The foreign judgment was rendered on 14th July 2004. Master Leslie made an order recognising the judgment. An appeal was made before the High Court on two grounds. First, it was submitted that more than six years had elapsed and no steps were taken to enforce the judgment. Second, it was submitted that the enforcement proceedings had already been commenced in Germany. It was argued that there could not be concurrent enforcement proceedings in Germany. On 1st August 2013, a notice of appeal appeared to be given. The appeal was dismissed. The English court held that the English courts had exclusive jurisdiction over any enforcement proceedings in England. Her Honour Judge Hampton held: “11 [...] whilst the very lengthy limitation period in the German courts of 30 years may be surprising to an English lawyer, it is not appropriate nor would it be right for an English court to make observations on the length of the limitation period in a member state and a democratic society which is subject to its own rules and regulations however much they may seem surprising to us. It is a matter of international comity and cooperation between European member states that we should each recognise the other's relevant laws, rules of limitation and procedure, unless they are so contrary to public policy as to fall within the exception to section 1 of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act provided for in section 2 . I cannot make any criticism of the German limitation period and I do not do so. […] 18 It seems to me that that is a misinterpretation of what Article 22(5) provides. That, in my understanding of it, provides that the German court could not make enforcement orders such in the British courts' jurisdiction, nor can a British court make, for example, a garnishee order in the German jurisdiction. The British court has exclusive jurisdiction over its own enforcement procedures. The German court has exclusive jurisdiction over its enforcement procedures. It does not mean that just because there are enforcement proceedings going on in a different jurisdiction, the court in which proper formality has been observed, under the Judgment Regulations , to enforce a judgment in this jurisdiction, should set aside any recognition order.” [11 and 18]

This website is written and maintained by the University of Aberdeen's Research Applications and Data Management Team