CR-2023-007112 - [2024] EWHC 1070 (Ch)

Fecha: 01-Ene-2024

Acknowledgement

Acknowledgement

71.

In the event that I am mistaken as to the inapplicability of the 1980 Act, I turn to consider when limitation would have commenced and whether there has been any action by the Respondent that would amount to acknowledgement starting time running again.

72.

The original judgment was in 2010. Does a limitation period of six years [under s5 or s24(1) 1980 Act] start to run then, or is it extended by reason of the Lebanese appeals concluded on 20.5.2014 and/or 23.3.2017?

73.

Certainly it is the case that under the 1933 Act a judgment is deemed to be final and conclusive notwithstanding that an appeal may be pending against it, or that it may still be subject to appeal, in the courts of the country of the original court [s1(3) 1933 Act], but it is also the case that the time limit for registration is six years after the date of the last affirming judgment. The 1920 Act is a little less clear, but also makes provision for appeals to be taken into consideration. Both Acts are self-contained when it comes to limitation and not subject to the 1980 Act until registered.

74.

Does an appeal, therefore, set time running again? There is no doubt that a successful appeal results in the expunging of the original judgment so that, notwithstanding its original status as being final and conclusive, it can no longer be effective in this jurisdiction. It is my view that, whilst the making of an appeal is not an acknowledgement of the judgment debt by the debtor, the loss of such an appeal has the effect of affirming and re-stating the original judgment such that any applicable limitation period re-commences. This view is supported by Parliament, in the 1933 Act and (impliedly) in the 1920 Act and is practical in that it would prevent time running out before the appeals processes in the foreign jurisdiction were exhausted, in the event of extreme delay in that jurisdiction.

75.

That being the case, the final appeal was determined on 23.3.2017 and time should be calculated from that point. The limitation period prima facie expired on 23.3.2023.

76.

On 6.9.2022, the Applicant, through its agent caused the third party to make a payment of the principal sum into court in Lebanon. As I set out at paragraph 10 and 11, it was rejected by the court, but the issue with which I am concerned at present is whether this amounts to acknowledgment of the judgment debt, thus recommencing the running of any limitation period.

77.

In Van Heeren, above @ paragraph 48, there was consideration of whether s29(5) of the 1980 Act applies to foreign judgments. This provides that:

29(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, where any right of action has accrued to recover—

(a)

any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim; or

(b)

any claim to the personal estate of a deceased person or to any share or interest in any such estate;

and the person liable or accountable for the claim acknowledges the claim or makes any payment in respect of it the right shall be treated as having accrued on and not before the date of the acknowledgment or payment.

(6)

A payment of a part of the rent or interest due at any time shall not extend the period for claiming the remainder then due, but any payment of interest shall be treated as a payment in respect of the principal debt.

78.

The effectiveness of the acknowledgement is covered in the 1980 Act s30:

30.— Formal provisions as to acknowledgments and part payments.

(1)

To be effective for the purposes of section 29 of this Act, an acknowledgment must be in writing and signed by the person making it.

(2)

For the purposes of section 29, any acknowledgment or payment—

(a)

may be made by the agent of the person by whom it is required to be made under that section; and

(b)

shall be made to the person, or to an agent of the person, whose title or claim is being acknowledged or, as the case may be, in respect of whose claim the payment is being made.

79.

Does the payment into court satisfy the provisions of s30? It is a payment which the Applicant says was made to settle or satisfy the judgment debt. It was made by an affiliate company, apparently pursuant to an earlier undertaking by the agent to the Applicant to pay the judgment debt. It is my view that in doing so, the payment was made by someone acting as an agent for the Applicant. Does the payment to the Enforcement Bureau act as an attempted payment to an agent of the Respondent? The Enforcement Bureau would, if valid, have provided a further cheque to the Respondent and the payment into court is an unequivocal act by the Applicant to an entity which can only pay the sum onto the Respondent.

80.

The Applicant itself says that it is a payment intended to satisfy the debt. The cheque itself is an acknowledgement, in writing and signed by an agent. Whether the payment itself is valid does not matter for the purpose of acknowledgement. It would, in my view, do violence to the intention of Parliament if this attempted payment were not a clear acknowledgement of the judgment debt.

81.

Even if the 1980 Act applies, the Applicant has acknowledged this judgment debt through its agents. It was acknowledged within the six years running from the final judgment on 23.3.2017 affirming the money owed and was an acknowledgement within the relevant limitation period [whether s5 or s24(1)]. Time restarted at the time of payment and the debt can therefore be enforced.