Giles Wheeler , KC
Giles Wheeler is a barrister at Fountain Court Chambers with a broad commercial practice. Giles has handled a wide range of commercial litigation, including many cases with an international dimension giving rise both to disputes over jurisdiction and to the application of foreign law. Giles has particular experience of banking disputes (including disputes concerning derivatives of various kinds) and professional negligence (including litigation arising from the collapse of the Guernsey-based Arch Cru investment funds, the collapse of Independent Insurance and the collapse of Barings Bank). Recent cases in which Giles has appeared include: Barclays Bank plc v UniCredit Bank [2014] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 59 (CA) and [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1, SPL v Arch Financial Products LLP and Farrell (judgment pending) and Roadchef Employee Benefit Trustees Limited v Ingram Hill [2014] EWHC 109 (Ch).
Practice Area
Panel
- Contributing Author
Qualified Year
- 1998
Education
- LL.M(Cantab) First Class; M.A. (Cantab) First Class
4 Contributions by Giles Wheeler
PRACTICE NOTES
Enforcement of EU judgments in England and Wales under Brussels I Recast: post‑Brexit transitional scope, procedure, documents, refusal grounds, stays and appeals
E&W Brussels I (recast)—enforcement of judgments
This Practice Note sets out guidance for enforcing a judgment in the courts of England and Wales by relying on the enforcement provisions in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). Enforcement remains available after IP completion day (31 December 2020 at 11 pm), provided the transitional conditions in Article 67(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement are met. For help on those transitional arrangements, see Practice Note: Brexit post implementation period—considerations for dispute resolution practitioners [Archived], and in particular the main section: Recognition and enforcement of judgments. Where the transitional regime applies, the rules and practice direction in force immediately before implementation day (ie 31 December 2020 at 11 pm) continue to govern procedure. In this Practice Note, these are described as old Part 74 (with particular rules cited as an ‘old rule’) and old Practice Direction 74A. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Brexit post implementation period—CPR changes [Archived]. Copies of the old rule and the practice direction can be found here: For guidance on whether judgments of the Court of Justice bind UK courts, see Q&A: Are UK courts and tribunals bound by decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union post-Brexit?...
Dispute Resolution
PRACTICE NOTES
England and Wales: Recognition and refusal of EU judgments under Brussels I Recast—grounds, procedure, stays and appeals (post‑Brexit transitional; old CPR Part 74)
E&W Brussels I (recast)—recognition of judgments
This Practice Note sets out guidance on obtaining recognition of a judgment in the courts of England and Wales under the enforcement regime in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). Such enforcement has been available since IP completion day (31 December 2020 at 11 pm), provided the transitional conditions in Article 67(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement are met. For commentary on those transitional provisions, see Practice Note: Brexit post implementation period—considerations for dispute resolution practitioners [Archived], including, in particular, the main section: Recognition and enforcement of judgments. Where the transitional provisions apply, the rules and the practice direction in force immediately before implementation day (ie 31 December 2020 at 11 pm) will continue to be applied. In this Practice Note these are termed old Part 74, with particular provisions cited as an ‘old rule’. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Brexit post implementation period—CPR changes [Archived]. Copies of the old rule and the practice direction are available here: For guidance on whether judgments of the Court of Justice remain binding on UK courts, see Q&A Are UK courts and tribunals bound by decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union post-Brexit? This Practice Note considers...
Dispute Resolution
![Recognising EU civil and commercial judgments in England and Wales under Brussels I (Reg 44/2001): procedure, refusal grounds, transitional and Brexit issues [Archived]](images/default-source/pa-pool/4.tmb-small.jpg)
PRACTICE NOTES
Recognising EU civil and commercial judgments in England and Wales under Brussels I (Reg 44/2001): procedure, refusal grounds, transitional and Brexit issues [Archived]
E&W Brussels I—recognition of judgments [Archived]
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and no longer maintained. It offers guidance on seeking recognition of a judgment in the courts of England and Wales for enforcement under Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. A judgment is only capable of recognition and enforcement under that regime where proceedings were commenced between 1 March 2002 and 9 January 2015. If this guidance does not apply, see: Which regime applies to enforce a foreign judgment?—checklist.
The Note examines Articles 32–37 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001 concerning the recognition of judgments, settlements, or authentic instruments. It summarises the general rules, then considers whether a formal application for recognition is required. It addresses applications for recognition both in England and Wales and in an EU Member State.
It also explores, in some detail, the possible bases for refusing recognition, including:
a judgment entered in default where the defendant did not appear
conflicting judgments within the same EU Member State
irreconcilable...
Dispute Resolution
PRACTICE NOTES
Recognition and enforcement of EU judgments in England: Brussels I versus Brussels I Recast—abolition of exequatur, burden shift to resisting party, appeals and protective measures
ARCHIVED :
This Practice Note is archived and is no longer maintained. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, the recast Brussels I, brought significant alterations to how judgments from other EU Member States are enforced in England under the new framework. These reforms shift the onus for having a judgment from one EU Member State, the State of Origin, acknowledged or enforced in another, the State of Enforcement, away from the party seeking recognition or enforcement there. Instead, the responsibility now lies with the party opposing recognition or enforcement to demonstrate one of the narrow refusal grounds. At the heart of these updates is removing the need to obtain a declaration of enforceability. Under Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I, a party seeking to enforce a judgment from elsewhere in the EU had to obtain a declaration in the State of Enforcement that judgment was enforceable. That requirement for a declaration confirming a judgment’s enforceability has, however, now been abolished by Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast)...
Dispute Resolution
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
