Oakfield Foods Ltd v Zaklad Przemyslu Miesnego Biernacki SP & Anor

A judge may reconsider a decision before the order is drawn up and sealed. The power is not confined to exceptional circumstances. Fresh evidence must satisfy the applicable criteria, but it must also be capable of affecting the outcome.

Where an Annexe 2 document requires return to a specified court office, delivery elsewhere within the court building, including through an unauthorised DX route, does not establish receipt at that office. A party relying on such delivery must prove actual receipt. Issues concerning the enforceability or validity of a European Order for Payment fall to be determined by the court in the member state of origin.

The court had previously stayed enforcement in England of a European Order for Payment issued by the Poznan Regional Court, ordered £182,887.72 into court, and dismissed Oakfield’s application for a declaration that the order was invalid and unenforceable.

Before the order was sealed, Oakfield applied for reconsideration on the basis of new DX tracking evidence concerning return of an Annexe 2 service-refusal form. High Court Enforcement Group Limited separately sought permission to deduct enforcement fees from the preserved sum. The issues were whether the new evidence justified altering the judgment and whether the enforcement fees should be released before the Polish challenge was resolved.

1. Reconsideration. The court had jurisdiction to reconsider its judgment because the order had not been approved or sealed. The principle in Re L and Anor (Children) (Preliminary Finding: Power to Reverse) [2013] UKSC 8 applied. The power was not limited to exceptional circumstances.
2. Fresh evidence. The DX tracking report satisfied the criteria identified in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489. It was a reliable contemporaneous record which had reasonably been believed unavailable. Admission of the evidence did not, however, require a different result.
3. Receipt of the Annexe 2 form. The evidence showed only that an HMCTS employee collected an item from DX 44450. It did not establish that the declaration reached the Foreign Process Section in Room E16, the specified destination. The relevant filing rules and the information given under article 22 of the Service Regulation permitted post or fax, but not DX. A party using DX assumed the risk of proving actual receipt. The statutory presumption under section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 was unavailable because the document had not been sent by post.
4. Jurisdiction over enforceability. Even if the document had reached the court, the English court had no jurisdiction to declare the European Order for Payment invalid or unenforceable. Under article 22(3) of the EOP Regulation, any such challenge had to be made in the court of origin, the Regional Court of Poznan. The authority of Moreno de la hija v lee [2019] 1 WLR 175 was distinguished.
5. The court amended its factual findings only to record collection of the package by an authorised HMCTS employee. Both applications failed. HCEG was not permitted to deduct fees, and the preserved sum was to remain with the Court Funds Office pending resolution of the Polish proceedings.