The High Court has refused an application to block recognition in Ireland of a Bulgarian judgment requiring Henry Alexander Brompton Gwyn-Jones to pay Richard William McDonald €119,522.24, plus costs as measured.
In a judgment delivered electronically on 19 May 2020, Mr Justice Meenan concluded that Gwyn-Jones was not entitled to the relief sought. The court invited the parties to make further submissions on the consequential orders and costs; the judgment did not determine those matters.
Gwyn-Jones argued that he had not been served with the proceedings and had no opportunity to defend himself. The Sofia City Court judgment was issued on 11 November 2016. The Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation later refused to set it aside after considering service, and no appeal lay from that decision. The Irish application concerned recognition and enforcement, not the merits of the underlying claim.
The High Court noted that EU rules prevent it from reviewing the substance of another member state’s judgment. It said it would proceed on the basis that it could examine service, despite uncertainty in the wording of the relevant rule where a defendant had already unsuccessfully challenged the judgment.
Gwyn-Jones’s affidavit said a courier delivery to his home address had been signed for by a Mr O’Riordan, whom he had not authorised to accept it. He said he was out of the country. He also said a registered letter may have been accepted on 19 August 2016, but that he had not authorised anyone to accept it and did not know a legal document had been delivered.
Justice Meenan said there was no further information about who Mr O’Riordan was, what happened to the documents after delivery, or what steps Gwyn-Jones took to investigate. The Bulgarian court had certified service of the initiating document on 19 August 2016. The judge concluded that the material before him supported the conclusion that it had been lawfully served. Registered post did not require personal service, he said, and the document had been served nearly four months before judgment, with no suggestion that this was insufficient time to prepare a defence.
The applicant also relied on other commercial litigation and an arbitration request. The judge found that the Isle of Man proceedings involved separate legal entities and did not provide a reason to refuse enforcement. He also found that the arbitration request did not identify this case as one referred to arbitration.