Matthews v MACIF. A uncommon and intensive dialogue on refusal of recognition underneath Brussels I and loads of grounds resulting in refusal of recognition of a French judgment issued in absentia. – Cyber Tech

Thanks very a lot confrère Lucian Ilie for sharing copy of the hitherto unreported Thomas Hilton Matthews v Mutuelle Assurance des Commercants et Industriels de France [2023] EWHC 2175 (KB) – Matthews v MACIF for brief.

Maître Ilie efficiently secured a Excessive Court docket judgment (Ritchie J sitting on enchantment) overturning registration with a view to enforcement underneath Brussels I (previous: Regulation 44/2001) of a Paris Court docket of Attraction 2 April 2013 judgment, as his chambers report right here.

The summons for the Court docket of Attraction proceedings (as Justice Ritchie’s judgment units out intimately) had not reached Mr Matthews resulting from his return to England and the following judgment, lowering an earlier pay-out (which had already been transferred to Mr Matthews) by insurance coverage firm MACIF for his accidents and so on following collision with a automotive while biking, was issued in his absence. MACIF unsuccessfully tried to serve the Court docket of Attraction judgment on Mr Matthews at his earlier location in France, and for 9 years no contact with the Matthews’ in England was made. (From the witness statements Ritchie J accepted that the truth that a replica of the judgment was left with Mrs Matthews’ father in France was not talked about to the couple, not to mention obtained). MACIF in June 2022 then obtained an Annex V Brussels I certificates of the judgment (which solely talked about that the quantity to be paid out to Mr Matthews was now ‘much less beneficial’, with out mentioning numbers) and waited one other 9 months earlier than in search of ex parte (judged by Ritchie J [34] to be ‘not proper or truthful’ within the circumstances) registration of the judgment in England, in language [34] not reflecting any of the background to the case and in contrast to the Annex V certificates, mentioning an actual quantity. The applying was granted.

Upon enchantment the questions agreed [9] by events had been summarised by the choose as follows [10]

(1) Service: Was the Appellant sufficiently served with discover of (1.1) the beginning of the enchantment and (1.2) the Paris Judgment, such that he might defend the enchantment from the Tribunal Judgment and/or enchantment the Paris Judgment?

(2) The EC Regulation: Is the Order made by the Grasp one which he was entitled to make within the gentle of the assertions that:

(2.1) it doesn’t match the wording of the Annex V certificates summarising the Paris Judgment, the phrases of which made the Respondent the judgment debtor, not the Appellant and didn’t order any sum to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent;

(2.2) the Appellant has just lately appealed in opposition to the Paris Judgment so is it presently enforceable? The Appellant asserts that the Paris Judgment is a default judgment and never enforceable resulting from non-service;

(2.3) the Appellant asserts that the Respondent doesn’t have an curiosity within the Paris Judgment as a creditor and that the Appellant was not ordered to pay something;

(2.3) (sic) for public coverage causes because of the behaviour of MACIF it mustn’t have been registered.

On the difficulty of service Ritchie J refers to first occasion English judgments which nevertheless are backed up by continental scholarship and a few indications in CJEU authority: the procedural guidelines of the lex fori are a sign of legitimate service however not decisive, and considering different factors of departure listed [43], he holds that service was not legitimate, therefore triggering Article 34 Brussels I, now Article 45 Brussels Ia (not materially completely different for the case at situation): lack of service within the Member State of origin shall (not simply could) result in refusal of recognition.

Obiter, the choose additionally refuses recognition on 4 extra grounds

on type: the presentation of the international judgment was obiter held [49] to have amounted to re-writing;

seeing because the Paris Court docket of Attraction judgment is now not enforceable in France pending the Mathews’ now launched enchantment, it can’t be enforceable within the UK both [50];

[51] MACIF is just not a judgment creditor underneath the Paris judgment: that judgment reduces the quantity which Mr Matthews is to obtain nevertheless it doesn’t straight not less than maintain title for MACIF to obtain fee from Mr Matthews;

[52] the delay in in search of enforcement inflicting substantial prejudice to Mr Matthews, the untrue transcription of the Annex V certificates, the inadequate efforts to find Mr Matthews; the registration proceedings in E&W which actually ought to have been performed inter partes  additionally would have led to a refusal on ordre public grounds.

A uncommon and intensive Article 34 BI/45 BIa dialogue and for that alone, of a lot notice.

Geert.

EU Personal Worldwide Legislation, 4th ed. 2024, 2.600 ff.