Oakfield Foods Ltd v Zaklad Przemyslu Miesnego Biernacki SP Z O O

The court enforcing a European order for payment cannot review its substance or declare it unenforceable because of an alleged service defect. Those matters fall within the jurisdiction of the court of origin. The enforcement court may, however, stay enforcement under its domestic procedural law where a challenge in the court of origin has a realistic prospect of success. An alleged irregularity in service may prevent the order becoming enforceable and may leave the period for opposition running. The court also held that Article 21(2) of the EOP Regulation does not require the application form to be re-served at the enforcement stage.

The claimant, a meat importer, challenged enforcement in England of a European order for payment issued by the Regional Court in Poznań in favour of the respondent. The claimant argued that service had been defective because the documents were not fully translated into English and that its refusal of service had been returned to the High Court. It sought to set aside the writ of control, declare the order unenforceable, or obtain a further stay while pursuing a challenge in Poland.

The court considered whether the English enforcement court could determine the alleged service defect, whether the Polish proceedings justified a stay, and whether Article 21(2) required the application form to accompany the order again at enforcement.

1. Challenge to enforceability. The application to declare the European order for payment unenforceable or to set it aside was rejected. Under Article 22(3) of the Regulation (EC) no. 1896/2006, the enforcement court cannot review the order as to its substance. The alleged failure to provide complete translations concerned the validity of service and the enforceability of the order, matters for the court of origin.
2. Refusal of service. On the evidence, the court was not satisfied that the signed Annex II refusal had arrived at the Foreign Process Section. The document had been sent by DX using the wrong DX number, and there was no receipt or court record. Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 did not assist because the document had not been sent by post. The proper domestic analogy was filing at court, where the document must be delivered to the appropriate office and its receipt recorded.
3. Stay of enforcement. The claimant had an arguable case, based on Catlin Europe SE v O K Trans Praha C-21/17, that irregular service meant the order had not validly become enforceable and that the opposition period had not begun. The English court therefore had jurisdiction under domestic enforcement law to stay further enforcement pending determination of the Polish challenge.
4. Article 21(2). The technical argument against the writ was rejected. Article 21(2) requires production of the enforceable order and, where necessary, a translation. It does not require the application in Form A to be re-served when the order reaches the enforcement stage.
5. The writ remained in force, but all further enforcement was stayed. The sum held by the enforcement company was to be paid into court, the enforcement company could cease to be a party after payment, and the claimant was required to provide regular progress updates concerning the Polish proceedings.