Danish Judgment Registration Order Upheld but Rendered Worthless on Appeal

OLSEN V FINANSIEL STABILITET A/S [2025] EWHC 147 (KB)

Mr Justice Kerr upholds registration costs against Danish judgment debtors while denying appeal costs due to their procedural misconduct, including filing a non-existent legal authority, highlighting the court’s intolerance for disrupting judicial process.

The respondent has succeeded in upholding the validity of the registration order. The appellants have succeeded in securing an order which renders it worthless in the respondent’s hands. In my judgment, the appellants are, in substance, the successful parties. It would be arid formalism and elevate form over substance to suggest that the respondent has succeeded in its enterprise, which was to enforce the debt.

Citations

Coursier v Coursier [1994] 1 WLR 444 The duty of full and frank disclosure requires applicants to provide complete and accurate information, including the citation of adverse authorities, to ensure fair consideration by the court. Kok Hoong v Leong Cheong Kweng Mines Ltd [1964] AC 993 A judgment obtained in foreign proceedings is valid for registration if it complies with all procedural requirements, even if its ultimate effectiveness is undermined by subsequent limitations or expiry. W.F. Price & Co (Trustee) Ltd v Henri Pauwels [2011] EWHC 397 (Ch) Costs incurred due to the unreasonable conduct of a party during litigation may be reflected in the court’s costs order, weighing the severity of the misconduct and its impact on resources.

Track allocation housing disrepair CPR 46.13 settlement sum costs restriction SCCO

MRO fee markup cap 25% detailed assessment personal injury Senior Courts Costs Office

Security for costs refused CPR 25.27 very high probability success excessive estimate King's Bench

IPEC scale costs transfer Patents Court PD 30 para 9.2 costs caps Court of Appeal

Costs budget variation CPR 3.15A promptness significant development unfair prejudice Chancery Division

Costs budgeting inter partes proportionality high hourly rates AI disclosure Patents Court CPR 3E

Beneficiary personal liability section 71(3) Solicitors Act 1974 indemnity costs VAT self-supply SCCO

Summary assessment indemnity costs unless order payment on account disclosure default Chancery Division

Provisional assessment set aside CPR 3.1(7) points of dispute filing duty PD 47 para 14.3 SCCO

Fixed recoverable costs police claims CPR 26.9(10)(e) intentional tort exemption

Key Points

Where a judgment is registered under the Judgments Regulation, the reasonable costs of and incidental to its registration are recoverable as if they were sums recoverable under the judgment itself. [4]
The expiry of a limitation period that renders a registered judgment unenforceable does not, in itself, invalidate a costs order tied to the registration process. Costs reasonably incurred in achieving the registration can remain recoverable. [5-6]
In determining success for the purposes of costs in an appeal, the court must adopt a substantive, rather than purely formal, approach to identify the prevailing party, focusing on the overall outcome of the dispute. [8]

The court takes into account the conduct of the parties when deciding on costs, including instances where a party causes unnecessary or wasted costs through their actions, even where they have no legal representation. [9-11]
Misconduct in litigation, such as submitting inaccurate or false information to the court, even inadvertently, can deprive an otherwise successful party of their entitlement to costs. Such conduct is treated as seriously undermining the judicial process. [13-15]

The effect of the order is, as I decided in the main judgment, that the registration order was validly made and is upheld but its effect expired at midnight on the day it was made, 16 August 2023, so that it is worthless in the hands of the respondent.

Key Findings In The Case

The respondent validly registered the Danish judgment under the Judgments Regulation, but the registration’s effect expired at midnight on the day it was made, 16 August 2023, rendering it unenforceable and effectively worthless to the respondent. [3]
The costs order made by Master Cook, awarding £12,500 for costs incurred in registering the judgment, was upheld despite the registration’s limited effectiveness, as the respondent’s application was reasonable and timely given the imminent expiry of the limitation period. [5-6]
The appellants were deemed the successful parties in substance, as their appeal rendered the registered judgment unenforceable. However, their success was undermined by their own conduct during the proceedings. [8]

The appellants engaged in misconduct by citing a purported legal authority that did not exist, which disrupted the court process, prolonged the hearing, and resulted in unnecessary costs for the respondent. This misconduct was treated seriously, even though it was presumed inadvertent. [13-14]
No order for costs was made in the appeal because, although the respondent substantively failed and was denied recovery of its costs, the appellants’ poor conduct—characterised by prolix submissions and misleading the court—justified depriving them of their entitlement to costs despite their substantive success. [15]

The respondent was entitled to apply to register the Danish judgment and had to do so in haste because of the imminent expiry of the limitation period. The respondent was aware that could prevent enforcement and told the Master so; but that did not mean it was unjustified in attempting to obtain an order that might be effective as a means of enforcing payment of the debt.

Background

The case of Olsen v. Finansiel Stabilitet A/S involved an appeal to the High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, concerning the registration of a Danish judgment for enforcement in England and Wales. The appellants, Birgitte Wagner Olsen and Karsten Olsen, challenged an order registering the Danish judgment and a supplemental order for costs assessed at £12,500. The appeal was heard on 10 and 11 December 2024, with Mr Justice Kerr delivering the judgment on 28 January 2025.

Costs Issues Before the Court

The primary costs issues before the court were threefold: first, whether the costs order made below should be altered; second, the costs of the appeal; and third, the form of the court’s order on the appeal. The parties disagreed on the impact of the Judgments Regulation on the recoverability of costs related to the registration of the Danish judgment, given that the registration order’s effect had expired.

The Parties’ Positions

The appellants argued that the costs order should be set aside because the limitation period had expired, rendering the judgment debt unenforceable. In contrast, the respondent contended that the costs order should remain intact, as the Danish judgment was validly registered and the costs of registration remained recoverable despite the expiry of the limitation period. Both parties claimed to be the successful party in the appeal and sought costs against the other.

The Court’s Decision

Mr Justice Kerr decided that the respondent’s submission on the costs order was preferable, maintaining that the costs of registering the Danish judgment were recoverable. However, he concluded that the appellants were, in substance, the successful parties in the appeal, as they secured an order rendering the registration worthless to the respondent. The court made no order for costs of the appeal, citing the appellants’ misconduct, including presenting a non-existent authority and filing unnecessarily prolix documents. The Master’s order for £12,500 in costs below was upheld.

Specialist costs services across the UK

TMC Legal provides expert costs drafting, negotiaton and costs budgeting services together with representation in detailed assessment hearings. Our experienced costs lawyers and law costs draftsmen act nationwide. Contact us today.