Olsen & Anor v Finansiel Stabilitet A/S [2025] EWHC 42 (KB)

Rory Turnbull (instructed by Freeths LLP) for the Respondent.

Mr Justice Kerr :

Introduction: the appeal

• The appellants appeal against the decision of Master Cook made in his order dated and sealed on 16 August 2023 (the registration order) to register in this court a judgment against the appellants given by a Danish court at Hjørring, Denmark on 16 August 2013 (the Danish judgment), for enforcement in England and Wales. The Danish court held that the appellants must pay the respondent just over €5.8 million, plus about 1.25 million Danish Kroner.

• The appeal lies as of right. The appellants had no right to make submissions to Master Cook but do not need permission to appeal and file evidence; see Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), rule 74.8(2). They had two months (from service of the registration order) in which to appeal. The registration order prevented any enforcement action until the expiry of the two month time limit. The appeal was brought in time and the stay on enforcement action has continued since.

• The appellants submit that the registration order was wrongly made and should be set aside, on various grounds. They also say it was made after the expiry of the relevant Danish law limitation period, 10 years from the date of the Danish judgment; and that if that is wrong, the 10 year limitation period expired at the end of 16 August 2023 and therefore the registration order is worthless because the Danish judgment became time barred at the end of the day of registration.

• The respondent says the registration order was properly made and cannot be assailed. All the formalities were observed and the order was made before expiry of the limitation period. The respondent submits further that the Danish law limitation period is irrelevant: its expiry at the end of 16 August 2023 does not affect the validity of the registration order; and in any case, a fresh six year limitation period started to run from that date under English domestic law.

The facts

• The appellants are a married couple with a background in engineering, renewable energy, business administration and finance. In 2003, they set up a renewable energy company based in Denmark. The company borrowed money from a bank which got into difficulties in the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009. The bank loans were transferred to the respondent, which has been described as a “bad bank” established to absorb some of the shocks of the financial crisis.

• Unfortunately, the businesses failed, the loans were called in and after unsuccessful rescue efforts, the businesses went into compulsory liquidation. The appellants were guarantors of the loans. They moved from Denmark to England in May 2011, where they lived in London, at 17 Mortimer Crescent, NW6. In November 2011, the respondent brought proceedings in the court of Hjørring, Denmark, to enforce the guarantees.

• The appellants did not contest Danish jurisdiction, though resident in London. The judgment recorded their address as 17, Mortimer Crescent, London NW6 5NP. The appellants denied liability and gave evidence at the trial in Hjørring. On 16 August 2013, the court at Hjørring gave judgment against them in the Danish judgment, as related above.

• The appellants attempted to appeal against the Danish judgment, but the appeal fee was not paid and the appeal in Denmark therefore lapsed. Although the appellants do not accept that the Danish judgment has been properly authenticated, they accept that the proceedings were brought; that they gave evidence at the trial; that the court found against them; and that in consequence the debts ordered by the court to be paid became due under the Danish judgment.

• In the witness statement of Mr Sajjid Kurmani, the respondent’s English solicitor, he explains that the appeal was not finally dismissed until May 2015 and that “[s]ubsequently” the respondent “learned that the [appellants] had left Denmark to settle in England”. However, their address was given as Mortimer Crescent, in London, in the Danish judgment itself, in August 2013.

• Mr Kurmani explains that the respondent caused enquiry agents to attend at Mortimer Crescent in February 2016, as confirmed by correspondence at the time which also shows the enquiry agents investigated several other addresses; but Mr Kurmani says although it was clear that the appellants “were residing in England, a permanent residential address could not be found”.

Continue reading this Judgment here.