Christofi v National Bank of Greece (Cyprus) Ltd

Time limits for appealing against registration of an EU judgment under Article 43(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 are mandatory and form part of a self-contained scheme for rapid enforcement. A court has no general power to extend the two-month period applicable to a judgment debtor domiciled in another EU Member State. A narrow residual exception may arise where strict compliance would impair the very essence of the right of appeal and infringe Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Where an extension is available, the court must consider the seriousness and explanation for the delay and the policy of speedy enforcement. A serious, unexplained delay will ordinarily justify refusal, even where the delay has caused little immediate practical prejudice.

The respondent obtained registration in England of a Cypriot consent order under Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001. The appellant, domiciled in Cyprus, alleged that the Cypriot proceedings had been conducted without her authority and sought to challenge registration under Article 34(2).

The registration orders were personally served on 11 July 2014. The appellant’s notice was required to be filed and served by 11 September 2014, but was filed and served 22 days late. The appeal was heard before the substantive challenge could be determined. The court therefore decided two preliminary questions: whether time could be extended and, if so, whether an extension should be granted.

1. Mandatory time limit. Article 43(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 establishes a strict and mandatory time limit. For a defendant domiciled in another EU Member State, the period is two months from personal service or service at the defendant’s residence. The period reflects the balance between the defendant’s right to an adversarial challenge and the need for rapid and uniform enforcement.
2. Categories of defendant. The Regulation distinguishes between a defendant domiciled in the state of enforcement, a defendant domiciled in another EU Member State, and a defendant domiciled outside the EU. CPR 74.8(4)(a)(ii) gives a non-UK domiciliary two months. The express power in CPR 74.8(3) to extend time for a non-EU domiciliary does not establish a general power to extend time in Category A1 or Category B cases.
3. Residual Article 6 exception. Following R (Adesina and Baines) v The Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWCA Civ 818 and the reasoning referred to in Lukaszewski and Pomiechowski v Poland [2012] 1 WLR 1604, a very limited exception may exist where strict enforcement of a mandatory time limit would impair the essence of the right of appeal and breach Article 6. The appellant must personally have done all she could to appeal in time.
4. Application. The 22-day delay was serious, the explanation was inadequate, and the appellant’s solicitors had initially identified the correct deadline. The speedy-enforcement policy would be undermined by granting relief. The underlying merits were not sufficiently clear to justify consideration. Even if a discretion existed, it would not be exercised.
5. The application for an extension of time was dismissed. The substantive appeal was left over pending any appeal from this judgment.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Deputy Master Eyre registered the Cypriot Settlement Order for enforcement without notice under CPR 74.3. Mrs Christofi appealed under CPR 74.8.
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): the application to extend time for appealing was dismissed. The substantive appeal was left over.