The Court of Appeal has dismissed Henry Alexander Brompton Gwyn-Jones’s appeal against an order allowing enforcement of a Bulgarian judgment in favour of Richard William McDonald. It also refused Gwyn-Jones’s application to pause enforcement while he pursues an application to set aside the judgment in Bulgaria.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Murray on 12 November 2021, concerns a Sofia City Court award of €425,926 plus interest on two 2011 loan agreements. Gwyn-Jones contested the loan claim in Bulgaria but argued that the loans were linked to advertising arrangements at the Burgas Plaza shopping complex and had been discharged through rental income. The Bulgarian courts rejected that defence.
In Ireland, Gwyn-Jones argued that the loans were part of a wider alleged fraud connected to the Burgas Plaza investment and that enforcing the judgment would breach public policy. The Court of Appeal said this argument challenged the substance of the Bulgarian decision. It also noted that Gwyn-Jones had not raised fraud before the Bulgarian courts, despite defending the claim there, and had not provided a credible explanation for that omission.
The court admitted additional evidence about a consent award in a separate arbitration and applications made to Bulgaria’s Supreme Court of Cassation to annul or revoke the judgments. The arbitration award recorded settlement terms that included admissions of civil fraud, but the arbitrator expressly said the tribunal had not considered or adopted those admissions. The Court of Appeal’s decision to admit the material allowed Gwyn-Jones to advance a new argument; it did not amount to a finding that the fraud allegations were true.
The court considered whether enforcement could be stayed while the Bulgarian application was pending. It said the application to set aside the judgment did not itself suspend enforcement, and Bulgarian law allowed Gwyn-Jones to seek a stay there by providing security. He had not made that application. The court concluded that the Bulgarian challenge was not an “ordinary appeal” that would permit a stay under Article 51 of the EU Recast Regulation. It added that, even if it had a broader discretion, it would refuse a stay for the reasons given, including the failure to seek relief in Bulgaria.
The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order affirmed. The respondent’s application to dismiss the appeal at the outset was refused, and the application to admit further evidence was granted. The stay application was refused. The court’s preliminary view was that the respondent should receive the costs of the appeal, with a further hearing possible if either party objected within ten days.