Percival v Motu Novu LLC

Registration of an EU judgment for enforcement is a deliberately limited, largely mechanical process. At the ex parte stage the court principally verifies the required documents. At the inter partes stage the judgment debtor may raise objections extending beyond Articles 34 and 35 of the Regulation, but the substance of the foreign judgment cannot be reviewed.

A judgment is registrable only if it is enforceable in the Member State where it was given. An assignee of a judgment creditor is an interested party if that status is established prima facie. The registering court need not determine the extent of the assignee’s beneficial interest or resolve assignment disputes. Such issues may be addressed when enforcement is pursued.

Motu Novu applied ex parte to register three Italian judgments under chapter III of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001. Master Cook made the registration order. Mr Percival challenged the order, arguing that the required enforceability documentation was absent, that Motu Novu could enforce only a one-third share, and that two of the Italian judgments were not independently enforceable.

The High Court considered the nature of the two-stage registration procedure, the effect of Articles 38, 45, 48, 53 and 55, and the proper remedy at the inter partes stage.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The registration order was varied so that only the Court of Appeal of Milan judgment was registered. The Tribunal judgment and the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation judgment were removed from the operative registration.
2. Registration under chapter III of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 is intended to involve a straightforward verification of documents. Under Article 55(1), the registering judge may dispense with an Annex V Certificate where there is sufficient information as to enforceability. The judge is not required to give reasons for doing so, although brief reasons or a conditional order may reduce later disputes.
3. The inter partes procedure is not an ordinary appeal under CPR Part 52. Objections may extend beyond Articles 34 and 35 where they concern the Regulation’s scope, enforceability in the Member State of origin, or whether the applicant is an interested party. Nevertheless, Article 36 prevents any review of the foreign judgment’s substance.
4. Under Article 38, only a judgment enforceable in the Member State where it was given is eligible for registration. On the agreed Italian-law evidence, only the CA Milan Judgment was enforceable in Italy. The Tribunal Judgment and the Italian SCC Judgment were therefore not eligible for registration, although the Master was not criticised for having registered all three at the initial documentary stage.
5. An assignee of a named judgment creditor is an interested party for Article 38(1) purposes, even where there are other judgment creditors. The registering court’s inquiry is limited to establishing that status prima facie. It need not determine the extent of the assignee’s interest or the effectiveness of the assignment. Article 48 concerns severable parts of a judgment that are outside the Regulation’s scope; it does not require registration to be limited to the proportion of the debt beneficially owned by the applicant.
6. The assignment disputes and the question whether Motu Novu could enforce the judgment debt in full were matters for the enforcement stage, if necessary. Remittal was inappropriate because the court could vary the order directly and efficiently.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Master Cook registered the three Italian judgments by order dated 12 April 2018, sealed on 13 April 2018.
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Mr Justice Murray varied the order so that only the CA Milan Judgment was registered.