Geoffrey Galley v Royal Forex Ltd
[2023] EWHC 3245 (Comm)
Strategic Technologies PTE Ltd v Procurement Bureau of the Republic of China Ministry of National Defence
31 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 754 (KB)
High Court
A company tried to collect an old debt, but the court said no because they waited too long and the other side had to pay lots of legal fees. The court also said the company didn't tell the whole truth when trying to freeze the other side's bank account.
Key Facts
- •Strategic Technologies Pte Ltd (Claimant) sought to enforce a 2002 Singapore judgment against Procurement Bureau of the Republic of China (Defendant) registered in the UK in 2004.
- •The Claimant applied for permission to enforce the judgment via writ of control and a third-party debt order (TPDO).
- •The Defendant applied for a set-off of the judgment against costs orders awarded to them in previous related litigation.
- •The Claimant had pursued enforcement in various jurisdictions over many years, with significant delays and unsuccessful attempts.
- •The Claimant was in members' voluntary liquidation and unable to pay existing costs orders.
- •The Claimant's applications were made without notice to the Defendant.
Legal Principles
There is a 6-year limitation period for bringing an action on a judgment (Limitation Act 1980, s.24(1)), but no statutory limitation for enforcing it. Courts have discretion to allow enforcement after 6 years (CPR rule 83.2(3)).
Limitation Act 1980, s.24(1); CPR rule 83.2(3); Lowsley v Forbes [1999] 1 AC 329
Discretion to grant permission to enforce after 6 years depends on whether circumstances are exceptional and justify granting permission, considering the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly. Key factor is prejudice to the judgment debtor.
Patel v Singh [2002] EWCA Civ 1938; Navengante SA v Metalexportimport SA [2003] EWCA Civ 1668; Duer v Frazer [2001] 1 WLR 919; Westacre Investments Inc v Jugoimport SDPR [2008] EWHC 801 (Comm)
An applicant for a TPDO without notice has a duty of full and frank disclosure. The scope depends on the context, with greater disclosure needed when grounds are debatable or consequences severe.
CPR Part 72; PD 72; BCS Corporate Acceptances Ltd v Daniel Terry [2018] EWHC 2349 (QB)
The court has inherent jurisdiction to allow set-off of cross-judgments, even in different actions. This includes judgments for damages and costs orders.
Fearns (trading as Autopaint International) v Anglo-Dutch Paint & Chemical Co Ltd and others [2011] 1 WLR 366
Under the Limitation Act 1980 s.24(2), no arrears of interest on a judgment debt are recoverable after six years from the date the interest became due. This applies broadly, including recovery via a TPDO.
Limitation Act 1980, s.24(2); Lowsley v Forbes [1999] 1 AC 329
Outcomes
Claimant's application for permission to enforce the 2004 judgment is dismissed.
The Claimant failed to justify the 17-year delay in enforcing the judgment, and the Defendant suffered significant prejudice due to the Claimant's repeated, unsuccessful attempts to enforce the debt in this jurisdiction, incurring substantial and irrecoverable costs.
The interim TPDO is set aside.
The Claimant's material non-disclosure of significant facts, including its ongoing breach of costs orders and lack of enforcement action for 17 years, breached its duty of full and frank disclosure. The delay caused prejudice to the Defendant.
If enforcement had been permitted, a set-off would have been applied.
The court determined the correct calculation of interest and applied the Limitation Act 1980 to determine the recoverable amount. This resulted in a significantly reduced amount for the Claimant after set-off.
Similar Cases
Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd v Michael John Short
[2024] EWHC 2113 (Ch)
Michael Wilson & Partners Limited v John Forster Emmott & Ors
[2024] EWHC 449 (Comm)
Simon Bain Building Services Limited v Jenna Cardone & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2916 (Ch)
Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc & Anor
[2024] EWCA Civ 245