Damon Lawrenson & Anor v Crédit Immobilier de France Développement

Registration of an authentic instrument under the Judgments Regulation follows the same procedure as registration of a foreign judgment, but the instrument remains juridically distinct from a judgment. Registration cannot be refused merely because the instrument is directly enforceable without prior judicial determination.

The public policy exception is reserved for wholly exceptional cases. Nevertheless, in an ex parte application involving an authentic instrument, the creditor must disclose matters that may affect the amount or appropriateness of enforcement, including relevant proceedings in the originating state. Where quantum remains unresolved, the appellate court may preserve registration but require a judicial determination of the amount recoverable before execution.

The appellants appealed against an order made without notice by Master Cook registering a French notarial deed as a judgment under Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001. The deed secured loans over French properties and was an authentic instrument directly enforceable under French law.

They challenged the order because it misdescribed the deed as a judgment, the supporting evidence referred to the wrong property and deed, and the respondent had failed to disclose French proceedings concerning the enforceability and amount of the debt. The central issues were whether registration was procedurally valid, whether the errors justified setting aside the order, and what safeguards were required before enforcement in England.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The registration order was not set aside, but it was varied.
2. An authentic instrument is not a judgment. However, article 57 of the Judgments Regulation and the applicable domestic rules provide for the same registration procedure, with necessary modifications. Registration makes the instrument enforceable in England; no separate claim for a declaration of enforceability is required.
3. The order’s reference to registration of the deed as a judgment was inaccurate. It was corrected to state that the deed was registered as an authentic instrument.
4. The mistaken references to the Bellême deed and property were inadvertent and did not justify setting aside the order. The correct authentic instrument was identified by the Annex VI certificate and the financial figures. The error was comparable to the approach in Landhurst Leasing plc v Marcq.
5. Registration of an authentic instrument is not contrary to public policy merely because French law permits direct enforcement without a prior judgment. The exception is confined to wholly exceptional cases. The debtor’s principal protection is the right of appeal and the restrictions on execution before the appeal period expires.
6. Because enforcement procedures for authentic instruments in England were uncertain and the amount recoverable remained unresolved, the respondent’s duty of full and frank disclosure required brief disclosure of the French judgments and ongoing proceedings. The failure to disclose them was a breach of that duty.
7. The order was therefore varied to provide that enforcement could recover no more than the principal and interest determined, if not agreed, at a judicial hearing before a Master, on notice to the appellants. The hearing was to be an assessment of the amount due, not an administrative process.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): Master Cook made a without-notice order, sealed on 12 October 2022, registering the French notarial deed.
• High Court (King’s Bench Division, appellate jurisdiction): the appeal was allowed in part. Registration was maintained, but the order was varied to describe the deed as an authentic instrument and to require judicial determination of the amount recoverable before enforcement.