Brompton Gwyn-Jones v McDonald

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Meenan
Judgment Date19 May 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] IEHC 240
Docket Number[2018 No. 14 FJ]
CourtHigh Court
Date19 May 2020

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 45, 46 AND 51 OF REGULATION NO. 1215/2012 AND PURSUANT TO ORDER 42A OF THE RULES OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS (JURISDICTION, RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS) 2017

AND

IN THE MATTER OF A JUDGMENT OF THE SOFIA CITY COURT, REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA

BETWEEN
HENRY ALEXANDER BROMPTON GWYN-JONES
APPLICANT
AND
RICHARD WILLIAM MCDONALD
RESPONDENT

[2020] IEHC 240

Meenan J.

[2018 No. 14 FJ]

THE HIGH COURT

Recognition of judgment – Summary judgment – Service – Applicant seeking an order refusing the recognition of a judgment obtained by the respondent against the applicant from outside of the jurisdiction – Whether the applicant was served with the proceedings

Facts: The applicant, Mr Gwyn-Jones, applied to the High Court seeking an order pursuant to Article 45(1)(b) of the Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 and O. 42A of the Rules of the Superior Courts refusing the recognition of a judgment obtained by the respondent, Mr McDonald, against the applicant in the Sofia City Court, Republic of Bulgaria. The judgment in question issued on 11 November 2016 and directed the applicant to pay to the respondent the sum of €119,522.24 together with costs as measured. The applicant maintained that he was never served with the proceedings and so had no opportunity to defend himself. The judgment was appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation of the Republic of Bulgaria on 17 July 2018. The appeal was not on the merits of the respondent’s claim but rather on the issue of service. The Supreme Court of Cassation refused to set aside the judgment by an order of 17 July 2018. The respondent sought to enforce the judgment in Ireland’s jurisdiction.

Held by Meenan J that service was lawfully effected of the document described as being: “the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document”. He held that service by registered post does not mean that it has to be personal service. He held that there was a complete lack of any information as to what happened to the document after delivery had been accepted, or whether the applicant carried out any investigation or fully established the circumstances he claimed led to a situation where he did not have sight of it. Meenan J noted that the document was served nearly four months in advance of the day when judgment was given and there was no suggestion that such a period was not adequate for the preparation of a defence.

Meenan J held that the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought.

Relief refused.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Meenan delivered on the 19th day of May, 2020
Introduction
1

The applicant seeks an order pursuant to Article 45(1)(b) of the Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 and O. 42A of the Rules of the Superior Courts refusing the recognition of a judgment obtained by the respondent against the applicant in the Sofia City Court, Republic of Bulgaria.

2

The judgment in question issued from the Sofia City Court, Republic of Bulgaria on 11 November 2016 and directed the applicant to pay to the respondent the sum of €119,522.24 together with costs as measured.

3

The applicant maintains that he was never served with the proceedings and so had no opportunity to defend himself. The judgment was appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation of the Republic of Bulgaria on 17 July 2018. This appeal was not on the merits of the respondent's claim but rather on the issue of service. The Supreme Court of Cassation refused to set aside the judgment by an Order of 17 July 2018. No appeal lies from this decision.

4

The respondent has sought to enforce the judgment in this jurisdiction.

Relevant provisions of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (the Regulation)
5

Article 45 provides: -

“1. On the application of any interested party, the recognition of a judgment shall be refused:

(a) if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre public) in the Member State addressed;

(b) where the judgment was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so;”

Article 46 provides: -

“On the application of the person against whom enforcement is sought, the enforcement of a judgment shall be refused where one of the grounds referred to in Article 45 is found to exist.”

Article 52 provides: -

“Under no circumstances may a judgment given in a Member State be reviewed as to its substance in the Member State addressed.”

6

The court is clearly precluded from considering the substance of the judgment, save insofar as recognition of the judgment would be “manifestly contrary” to public policy within this jurisdiction. The court, where, as in this case, judgment has been given in default of appearance, may consider the issue of service. However, this is subject to the proviso that the defendant failed to challenge the judgment when he could have done so. In this case, the defendant/applicant did challenge the judgment, albeit unsuccessfully. I have to say that I do not find the wording of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Henry Alexander Brompton Gwyn – Jones v Richard William McDonald
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 23 July 2021
    ...basis in law for not recognising or enforcing the judgment. Each of these contentions was rejected by the High Court (Meenan J): [2020] IEHC 240. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal from the judgment delivered and order made by Meenan J. Held by Murray J that the Court could not b......
  • Henry Alexander Brompton Gwyn-Jones v Richard William McDonald
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 12 November 2021
    ...relief against the respondent arising from the alleged fraud (‘the second arbitration’). In a judgment delivered in May 2020 Meenan J. ( [2020] IEHC 240) refused the appellant that relief. That decision was unsuccessfully appealed to this court resulting in the judgment to which I have refe......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT