Medeon Sarl v Siem Industries S.A. An excellent illustration of the restricted scope for refusal of recognition of UK judgments coated by the Hague Alternative of Courtroom Conference, publish Brexit. – Cyber Tech

Many due to Marta Pertegás for flagging Medeon Sarl v Siem Industries S.A. ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2024:1248, by which the Gerechtshof Den Haag (upon attraction in abstract proceedings) confirmed recognition and enforcement of a Excessive Courtroom (London) default order for fee.

Unique alternative of court docket for the English courts had been made by the events in a Bond Switch and Buy Settlement – BTPA.

(Each events are domiciled at Luxembourg. That the case contained sufficient ‘worldwide’ parts was not at situation, see the constraints on this level in A1(2) of the 2005 Hague Alternative of Courtroom Conference and see CJEU Inkreal’s reference to identical).

Medeon’s grounds for refusal of recognition have been all held to fail:

• [6.8] ff:  re A8(4) a Hague Conference: “Recognition or enforcement could also be postponed or refused if the judgment is the topic of assessment within the State of origin or if the time restrict for looking for extraordinary assessment has not expired.”

The Courtroom held that  A13(3) 2 of the English Civil Process Guidelines (CPR)’s ‘In contemplating whether or not to put aside or range a [default] judgment (…), the issues to which the court docket should have regard embrace whether or not the individual looking for to put aside the judgment made an utility to take action promptly.” (emphasis added) clearly doesn’t embrace a time restrict but clearly should be made well timed.

A passing reference was made to English authorities seemingly referred to by Medeon. Nevertheless the Dutch court docket usually held that it will be ‘unreasonable’ (6.11) to disclaim the enforceability to Siem, seeing as Medeon had all method of time and choices to introduce an opposition to the default order, even alongside negotiations on the quantities due. Its failure to take action should have penalties. Nemo auditur proprium turpitidnimen allegans, in different phrases.

• [6.13] ff: re A9 (c) Hague Conference:  [recognition may be refused if] “the doc which instituted the proceedings or an equal doc, together with the important parts of the declare,….i)  was not notified to the defendant in ample time and in such a method as to allow him to rearrange for his defence, except the defendant entered an look and introduced his case with out contesting notification within the court docket of origin, offered that the regulation of the State of origin permitted notification to be contested..”:

Right here the Courtroom held that the a part of a type prescribed by the English CPR guidelines which had not been duly notified to Siem to an agent’s tackle in London (recognized within the BTPA) – but it surely was notified in Luxembourg, was not a related type for the Hague Conference-instructed notification of the doc instituting the proceedings: this, it held, is the declare type, which was duly notified to Medeon in Luxembourg (permission for service out for that was not required seeing as there’s unique alternative of court docket for England).

• [6.18] ff the Courtroom held that ordre public was not engaged and neither was the precept of compensation just for precise damages suffered: [6.22] Medeon’s arguments would require the kind of révision au fond [6.21] which is proscribed by the Conference.

An excellent instance of the affect of the Conference. Clearly, pre-Brexit this process would have been much more easy.

Geert.