Laserpoint Ltd v The Prime Minister of Malta & Ors

Recognition of a foreign judgment may be refused under Article 34(1) of Regulation (EC) 44/2001 where the foreign process was plainly and obviously contrary to public policy because it denied the defendant a fair trial. The enforcing court may assess compliance with Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms without requiring the defendant first to exhaust remedies in the state of origin. Formal service and appointment of a representative do not necessarily secure a fair opportunity to defend where the representative lacked instructions, proceedings were revived after many years without notice, and the defendant could not realistically challenge the judgment.

Laserpoint appealed against an order of Master Roberts registering for enforcement in England and Wales a judgment of the First Civil Court of Malta. The Maltese judgment, delivered after proceedings lasting approximately 26 years, held Laserpoint and MFPS Limited jointly liable for damage caused by a fire at the Mediterranean Conference Centre.

Laserpoint contended that it had not been effectively represented or notified when the proceedings were reactivated and that recognition was barred by Article 34(1) and, alternatively, Article 34(2) of Regulation (EC) 44/2001. The central issues were whether the Maltese process was manifestly contrary to English public policy and whether the judgment was given in default of appearance without service in sufficient time to permit a defence.

1. Appeal allowed. The order registering the Maltese judgment for enforcement was set aside.
2. Article 34(1) requires refusal of recognition where recognition would be plainly or obviously contrary to public policy. The right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms is relevant. Although there is a strong presumption that proceedings in another Convention state complied with Article 6, the presumption is rebuttable.
3. The court was entitled to decide the Article 6 and public-policy issue itself. Requiring proceedings first in Malta would add to the delay. Exhaustion of remedies in the state of origin was not a precondition.
4. The appellant had been formally served and was initially aware of the risk of proceedings. However, there was no evidence that the court-appointed curators contacted Laserpoint or obtained instructions. The company was dissolved, the proceedings were materially reactivated from 2007 without contact with it or its former directors, and judgment was delivered without an effective opportunity to participate. The total delay was excessive. The Article 6 presumption was rebutted and the process was unfair.
5. Article 34(2) provided an alternative ground. A judgment may be treated as given in default of appearance where a nominal representative appeared without authority. Formal service was relevant but not decisive. The appellant could not realistically challenge the judgment after the 20-day Maltese time limit, so Article 34(2) was also satisfied.

High Court (Queen's Bench Division): allowed Laserpoint's appeal against Master Roberts's order dated 14 January 2016 registering the Maltese judgment for enforcement in England and Wales.