Society of Lloyd's v Longtin [QBD (Comm)]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Morison J. |
| Judgment Date | 10 November 2005 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Date | 10 November 2005 |
Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court).
Morison J.
Stephen Robins (instructed by Society of Lloyd's) for the claimants.
Patricia Robertson (instructed by TLT Solicitors) for the defendants.
The following cases were referred to in the judgment:
Duer v FrazerWLR[2001] 1 WLR 919.
Good Challenger Navegante SA v Metalexportimport SA (The Good Challenger)UNK[2004] 1 Ll Rep 67.
Patel v SinghUNK[2002] EWCA Civ 1938.
Enforcement of judgment Lloyd's obtained judgment against Canadian Name in 1998 Lloyd's first obtained recognition of judgments against Names in Ontario Lloyd's then sought recognition and enforcement against Names in Quebec Whether judgment no longer enforceable in England because more than six years had elapsed Limitation Act applied to action to enforce judgment but not to enforcement by writ of execution Court gave permission to issue writ of execution after sxi years had elapsed on basis that there facts which took case out of the ordinary Limitation Act 1980 RSC, O. 46, r. 2.
This was an application by the defendant, L, a Lloyd's name resident in Quebec Province, Canada, to set aside permission to issue a writ of execution to enforce a judgment.
L suffered substantial losses. Judgment was entered against him in 1998 in respect of the premium due from him to Equitas. L had no assets in the UK. A decision was taken by Lloyd's to seek recognition and enforcement in Ontario of judgments obtained against Canadian names resident in that province. Proceedings in Ontario were commenced by Lloyd's in 1999 and came to an end with recognition being affirmed in 2002. In 2004 Lloyd's commenced an action in Quebec against L seeking recognition and enforcement of the judgment in Quebec. L's defence claimed that the 1998 judgment was no longer enforceable in England because more than six years had elapsed since it was granted. Lloyd's applied to the English court for leave to issue a writ of execution to demonstrate that the judgment remained enforceable in that way even if an action on the judgment would have been statute-barred.
Under RSC, O. 46 a writ of execution to enforce a judgment required the permission of the court where six years or more had elapsed since the date of the judgment. The master granted the application for permission and L applied to set it aside.
Held, dismissing L's application:
The issue was whether there were facts which took the case out of the general rule that execution would not be allowed after six years. In this case there were facts which took the case out of the ordinary. From the very outset, L must have known that Lloyd's remained intent on enforcing their rights against him. Therecould be no prejudice to him. Lloyd's had remained active in seeking to have recognised and enforced the many judgments which they had obtained. In the course of that task they had to be allowed time to consider their position and to adopt stances which reasonably appeared to them to be the best way of proceeding. Their decision to start in Ontario could not be criticised, and within a reasonable time thereafter they tried to get L to agree his liability and avoid litigation. They started the Quebec action reasonably promptly. A period of inexcusable delay of some six months at most did not disentitle Lloyd's to the relief they sought. The permission to issue a writ of execution was affirmed.
Morison J:
1. There are several methods of enforcing an English judgment in England (and Wales). An action on the judgment may be commenced; but this is subject to the Limitation legislation, and, in general terms cannot be done when more than six years after the date of judgment have elapsed. The Limitation legislation does not apply to the other methods of enforcement, including obtaining a writ of execution, or charging orders or third party debt orders (garnishee procedure) or a bankruptcy petition. Thus, an English judgment remains open for enforcement after more than six years has elapsed since the judgment was given, although there are different procedural rules which apply to each method of enforcement. This case is solely concerned with enforcement by way of writ of execution. I am not concerned to deal, in this Judgment, with the availability of other means of enforcement of the judgment by Lloyd's against Judge Longtin.
2. Judge Longtin was one of many Names at Lloyd's who suffered substantial losses. Judgment (Tuckey J) was entered against him on 11 March 1998 in respect of the premium due from him to Equitas, for 101,409, which with the addition of interest amounted to some 144,000 odd as at 17 August 2005. Enforcement of the judgment was stayed pending an application to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal against Tuckey J.'s decision. Permission to appeal was refused by the Court of Appeal on 31 July 1998, whereupon the judgment became enforceable, and, subject to the issues which I must determine, it remained enforceable throughout, apart from a period of 6 weeks in January 2001 when Lloyd's agreed to stay enforcement pending consideration of an offer of settlement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westacre Investments Inc v The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR (also known as Jugoimport-SDPR)
...as those laid down in Duer v Frazer, a different outcome was reached by the English High Court in Society of Lloyd’s v Longtin [2005] 2 CLC 774 (“Lloyd’s”). In Lloyd’s, the claimant (“Lloyd’s”) entered judgment against the defendant in England on 11 March 1998. Lloyd’s then sought to have t......
-
Westacre Investments Inc. v The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR
...Lian Soon Construction Pte Ltd v Guan Qian Realty Pte Ltd [1999] 1 SLR (R) 1053; [1999] 2 SLR 233 (refd) Society of Lloyd's v Longtin [2005] 2 CLC 774 (refd) Thamboo Ratnam v Thamboo Cumarasamy and Cumarasamy Ariamany d/o Kumarasa [1965] 1 WLR 8 (refd) Westacre Investments Inc v The State-O......
-
Westacre Investments Inc v The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR (also known as Jugoimport-SDPR)
...as those laid down in Duer v Frazer, a different outcome was reached by the English High Court in Society of Lloyd’s v Longtin [2005] 2 CLC 774 (“Lloyd’s”). In Lloyd’s, the claimant (“Lloyd’s”) entered judgment against the defendant in England on 11 March 1998. Lloyd’s then sought to have t......