Harrison Engler acted for the successful appellant in a High Court appeal against 2 previous orders (which had themselves set aside the registration of 2 Pakistani judgments) on the basis that those orders were unjust because of serious procedural irregularity.
Factual background to the High Court appeal
In 2016, Harrison’s client brought a civil suit in Pakistan against the respondents (his siblings and mother) concerning ownership of properties of his father, who had died.
His client, the appellant, alleged that the respondents had failed to properly apportion or account for the properties.
In 2019, the Pakistani court decreed a partition of the property concerned, declaring that the appellant was entitled to a roughly 30% share.
Later, one of the respondents brought a case in Pakistan against Harrison’s client, alleging he had committed forgery in the earlier proceedings. The Pakistani court dismissed this in 2023.
In 2023, Harrison's client tried to enforce the 2019 Pakistani judgment in England. He successfully applied to register it as a foreign judgment, stating the respondents had left Pakistan to evade the enforcement process. Later, he also registered the 2023 Pakistani judgment.
Master Eastman registered both judgments (thus allowing for them to be enforced in England as if they were an English judgment).
Some 6-12 months after the judgments had been registered, Master Eastman set aside the registrations. The ‘set aside’ orders were made following an application by the respondents which the appellant was unaware of.
The court determined the judgments were not money judgments eligible for registration but made this decision without a hearing in which the appellant could put his case.
Grounds for appeal
On his client’s behalf, Harrison submitted that the appeal must be allowed on the ground of serious procedural irregularity.
• It was unclear until the appeal hearing if there had in fact been an application by the respondents.
• Whether the ‘set aside’ orders were made following an application or of the court’s own volition, it was seriously unfair that the appellant was not notified about the possibility of such orders being made and was not given the opportunity to respond.
The Master in the court below had breached “rule one” as set out by the Supreme Court in Potanina v Potanin [2024] UKSC 3 [2024] 2 All ER 773 at [1]:
'Rule one for any judge dealing with a case is that, before you make an order requested by one party, you must give the other party a chance to object'.
In addition, the ‘set aside’ orders failed to contain a “statement of the right to make” an application to set aside or vary an order made of the court’s own volition (CPR 3.3(5)(b)) or made without a hearing under CPR 23.8(3)(c).
Harrison submitted a failure to comply with these rules is automatically unfair pursuant to Shawton Engineering Ltd v DGP International Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1956 [2004] C.P. Rep. 23.
Judgment
Mr Justice Ritchie agreed with Harrison’s submissions and allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous orders of Master Eastman and remitting the matter to a Master for urgent directions. Mr Justice Ritchie said:
'In my judgment the facts here are clear and lead to the conclusion that it was procedurally unfair for the court below to set aside its own order without giving the appellant the opportunity to produce submissions in response, and it was not fair to fail to put on the orders made the express right to have the order set aside or varied as set out in CPR 23.8'.
Ritchie J also agreed with Harrison’s arguments in favour of a costs award and the first respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of appeal.