La Caisse Regional Du Credit v Ashdown

Registration of a foreign judgment should not proceed where the evidence leaves uncertain the legal nature of its enforceability in the state of origin. It is insufficient to register the judgment and leave the parties to resolve at execution whether it is an ordinary money judgment or merely fixes a sum for use in liquidation. The registration court should obtain clarification, whether by further expert evidence or, where available, an application to the original court, and adjourn registration meanwhile. Fresh evidence showing that a judgment is enforceable may still leave its precise enforcement effect unresolved. The proper order is to set aside the existing registration and remit the matter for clarification.

An application was made under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 to register two French judgments. Master Fontaine registered them without a hearing. On Ashdown’s appeal, Tugendhat J upheld registration of a €2,000 judgment arising from criminal proceedings but set aside registration of a further judgment fixing €212,593.97, holding it not enforceable in France. The bank appealed after obtaining a French certificate stating that the latter decision was enforceable against Ashdown. The issue before the Court of Appeal was what “enforceable” meant and whether registration could safely proceed while the judgment’s legal effect remained uncertain.

Waller LJ delivered the judgment, with which Keene LJ agreed.

1. The fresh certificate was admitted, but it did not resolve the critical issue. The Court considered that the French judgment was enforceable against Ashdown in some sense, but the evidence did not establish whether it was an enforceable money judgment or merely fixed a sum for the purposes of liquidation.
2. It would be inappropriate to register the judgment and leave the parties to argue its nature during execution. The proper approach was the one the Master would have adopted had the issue been identified earlier: registration should be adjourned pending clarification of the judgment’s effect under French law. That clarification could be obtained through further expert evidence or, if available, an application with notice to the Court of Appeal in Douai.
3. The Court therefore set aside both Tugendhat J’s judgment and Master Fontaine’s registration order in relation to the judgment concerned. The issue of registration was remitted to the Master and adjourned until further evidence or clarification had been obtained. The appeal was allowed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2007] EWCA Civ 574. Appeal allowed. The judgment of Tugendhat J and Master Fontaine’s registration order were set aside, and the registration issue was remitted to the Master pending clarification.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: Tugendhat J upheld registration of the €2,000 judgment but set aside registration of the judgment fixing €212,593.97, holding that it was not enforceable in France on the evidence then available.
• Master Fontaine: registered the two French judgments without a hearing.