Birgitte Wagner Olsen & Anor v Finansiel Stabilitet A/S (Consequential Matters)

Where a foreign judgment is registered for enforcement but the registration order’s practical effect expires because the limitation period has expired, the registration may remain valid even though it becomes worthless as an enforcement instrument. Reasonable costs incidental to registration remain recoverable under the registered judgment, despite the subsequent inability to enforce the debt. In determining appeal costs, the court identifies the party successful in substance, rather than focusing on which party succeeded on a formal issue. It then weighs the parties’ conduct, including prolixity, repetition and misleading material placed before the court. Serious misconduct may justify depriving a successful party of its costs, while a party whose enterprise has failed should not receive costs merely because part of the order was upheld.

The appellants appealed against orders of Master Cook registering a Danish judgment for enforcement in England and Wales and awarding £12,500 in costs. In the main judgment, the court upheld the validity of the registration order but held that its effect expired at midnight on 16 August 2023, rendering it worthless to the respondent as an enforcement instrument.

This consequential judgment determined the form of the order, whether the costs order below should be altered, and liability for the costs of the appeal. The central issues were whether registration costs remained recoverable and which party was successful in substance.

1. Form and effect of order. The registration order was validly made and was upheld. Its effect nevertheless expired at midnight on 16 August 2023, so it was worthless in the respondent’s hands.
2. Costs of registration. Article 3 and paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Judgments Order provide that reasonable costs of and incidental to registration are recoverable as sums recoverable under the judgment. The respondent was entitled to seek registration in haste because of the imminent expiry of the limitation period. The subsequent ineffectiveness of registration did not deprive it of the right to recover those costs. The Master’s order for £12,500 was therefore upheld.
3. Success in substance. The respondent succeeded in preserving the validity of registration, but the appellants secured an order which made registration worthless for enforcement. The appellants were therefore the successful parties in substance. Formal success on validity did not determine the costs outcome.
4. Conduct. The court considered the parties’ conduct under CPR rules 46.5, 44.2 and 44.11 and Practice Direction 46. The respondent’s failure to inform Garnham J that permission to appeal was unnecessary caused some wasted costs. The appellants’ prolix and repetitive documents caused unnecessary expense. More seriously, they placed before the court an unauthentic authority. Even inadvertent misleading of the court was very serious and disrupted the hearing and court resources, including consideration of whether action under CPR rule 81.6 was appropriate.
5. Disposition. There was no order as to the costs of the appeal. The appellants were deprived of their costs because of their conduct, and the respondent received no appeal costs because, in substance, its enforcement enterprise had failed.

• High Court, King's Bench Division, Foreign Process Section: Master Cook registered the Danish judgment for enforcement and made a supplemental costs order for £12,500.
• High Court, King's Bench Division, on appeal: In [2025] EWHC 42 (KB), the registration order was upheld as valid but its effect was held to expire at midnight on 16 August 2023.
• High Court, King's Bench Division, consequential matters: The present court upheld the £12,500 costs order and made no order as to the costs of the appeal.