Summary
On 15th August 2012, an application was received for registration of a French judgment in England. The application was made by the judgment creditor, H&H. The value of the claim was of approximately €11,500. The sum of money was due for fees in respect of a sale of houses in England.
On 11th September 2012, a registration order was made by Master Cook. The service of the registration order took place on 10th June 2013.
On 17th March 2014, an appeal against the registration order was made. The appeal was brought out of time. An important question was whether the English court had discretion to extend the time for the judgment-creditor to make an appeal.
On 25th June 2014, the English Court of Appeal held that, even if it had discretion, it would not exercise it, dismissing the appeal against the registration order. Mrs Justice Slade held:
“19 The registration order made on 11 September 2012 was sealed on 21 September 2012. An order for substituted service was made on 24 May 2013. Pursuant to CPR 40.7(1) the order for substituted service took effect from the date on which it was made, 24 May 2013. Service of the registration order was effected by the means specified in Master Eastman's order of 24 May 2013 by first class post. Pursuant to CPR 6.26 the deemed day of service was the second day after it was posted. Unlike the service of the order of 24 May 2013 and reservice of the registration order which was effected on 29 July 2013, there is no certificate of service relating to the letter and its enclosures including the sealed registration order sent under cover of the letter of 6 June 2013. However, Mrs Taylor-Carr states that she had received the letter of 6 June 2013 with its enclosures on about 9 June and looked at the documents by mid-June.
20 In light of the date of the letter, the absence of evidence of the date of posting and the statement of Mrs Taylor-Carr, taking into account that 9 June was a Sunday, I am satisfied that the registration order was served on her by 10 June 2013. The appeal from the registration order therefore lodged eight months out of time. Since this appeal has been brought outside the time specified by the Judgments Directive Article 43.5, it must be dismissed unless there is power to extend time for bringing an appeal under Article 43 and discretion should be exercised to do so in the circumstances of this case.
[…]
25 In my judgment the approach of Hoffman , Verdoliva and TSN to the question of whether there is a discretion to extend time for an appeal is to be preferred. Although it may be said that Hoffman and Verdoliva are not directly on point, they clearly emphasise the mandatory nature of the time limit provisions in the European instruments dealing with registration of foreign judgments. Where the point was considered by Jack J, albeit that he did not reach a final conclusion on the point, I prefer and endorse the approach that he took and his view expressed tentatively that there is no power to grant an extension of time.
[…]
27 Having reached the clear view that discretion is not to be exercised to extend time even if (which I much doubt) such discretion were available, it is not necessary for me to consider the merits of the appeal. The grounds of appeal, as is clear from the Judgments Directive, would have to fall within the scope of Article 34 . The steps in establishing such factors coming within Article 34 are explained by Mostyn J in the case of MD v CT [2014] EWHC 871 at paragraphs 10-16. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.” [19-20, 25 and 27].