La Caisse Regional Du Credit Agricole Nord De France v Ashdown

For registration and enforcement in England under article 38 of the Judgments Regulation, the foreign judgment must be enforceable in the Member State of origin. The enforcing party must establish that condition. A document exhibited under CPR 74.4 may constitute the application, and the rules prescribe no additional form. Where the foreign judgment merely fixes the amount of a creditor’s claim during insolvency proceedings, terminology such as “condemns” in a later lawyer’s letter does not establish an enforceable order for payment. The court must examine the original judgment and the evidence as a whole.

The claimant obtained two French judgments against the defendant. A Master ordered their registration in England under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 and Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001. The defendant appealed.

For the later French judgment, the defendant argued that the application notice referred only to the earlier judgment. For the earlier judgment, he argued that it was not enforceable in France and therefore could not be registered in England. The central issues were whether the evidence complied with CPR 74 and whether the condition in article 38 of the Judgments Regulation was satisfied.

1. Later French judgment. The appeal was dismissed in relation to the judgment of 4 November 2004. CPR 74.3 and CPR 74.4 did not require an application to take a particular form beyond the requirements imposed by the evidence rule. The later judgment was identified in the evidence submitted under CPR 74.4, and that evidence therefore constituted an application in respect of it.
2. Enforceability under article 38. The enforceability of a judgment in the Member State of origin was a jurisdictional precondition to enforcement in another Member State. The principle stated in Coursier v Fortis [1999] ECR I-2543 was applicable.
3. The French judgment of 6 April 2004 declared the defendant responsible, fixed the amount of the claimant’s debt, and ordered payment of legal costs. In the French text and its translation, the operative language concerning the €212,593.97 was “fixes”, whereas “condemns” related to legal costs. The word “condemn” was not, in this civil-law context, a term of art establishing enforceability.
4. The claimant’s lawyer’s letter asserting that the judgment had condemned the defendant to pay the debt did not explain or establish enforceability in France. The defendant’s French legal opinion explained why the judgment was not enforceable, and the claimant did not contradict that opinion. The claimant therefore failed to show that article 38 was satisfied.
5. The appeal was allowed in relation to the judgment of 6 April 2004. The Master’s order was set aside to that extent, but remained effective in relation to the judgment of 4 November 2004.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): The appeal from the Master’s order was allowed in relation to the French judgment dated 6 April 2004 and dismissed in relation to the French judgment dated 4 November 2004.
• Master Fontaine: On 4 December 2006, ordered registration of the two French judgments under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 and Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001.