Debt Collect London Ltd v Praha- Fotbal

On a renewed application for permission to appeal, a jurisdictional question is arguable where the lower court adopted one possible construction of Article 30.1 of the Judgments Regulation without addressing other viable interpretations. The issue included whether failure to pay a court fee amounted to a failure to take steps required for service, and when service had to occur. Permission was granted, without any view being expressed on the correct construction or prospects of success.

In Debt Collect London Ltd v Praha- Fotbal, the appellant sought renewed permission to appeal from a High Court summary judgment. Proceedings had first been issued in the Czech Republic, but the court fee required for service was not paid when requested. English proceedings were then issued, and the Czech proceedings were later served.

The High Court proceeded on the basis that service had to occur before the English proceedings were issued. The appellant argued that Article 30.1 of the Judgments Regulation raised wider questions about the obligation to serve and the required timing. The central issue was whether those questions were sufficiently arguable to justify permission to appeal.

Permission granted. Lady Justice Arden gave the leading judgment, and Lord Justice Dyson agreed.

1. The issue concerned the true construction of Article 30.1 of the Judgments Regulation, including whether failure to pay a court fee required for service could amount to a failure to take the steps required by the provision.
2. The provision potentially raised several questions: whether there was an obligation to serve; whether service had to occur forthwith or within a reasonable time; whether it had to occur before the later English proceedings were issued; whether it had to occur before the first proceedings were dismissed for want of service; or whether a reasonable period ran from the court’s request for payment.
3. The High Court had decided the matter on the basis that service had to take place before the English proceedings were issued. Since the other possible constructions had not been considered, the Court of Appeal held that there was an arguable point suitable for consideration on appeal.
4. The Court expressed no view on the true interpretation of Article 30.1 or on whether the proposed arguments would succeed. The respondent’s submission that the basis of the Czech claim had not been raised as a defence did not remove the arguability of the construction issue.

The formal order was: Application granted.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On a renewed application, permission to appeal was granted.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: The judgment under appeal proceeded on the basis that the Czech proceedings had to be served before the English proceedings were issued. The judgment was given by Mr Justice Tugendhat on summary judgment; no citation is stated in the judgment.