SHN Grundstuecksverwaltungsgesellschaft MBH & Co. Seniorenresidenz Hoppegarten-Neuenhagen KG v. Hanne

I briefly blogged about the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in  Grundstuecksverwaltungsgesellschaft MBH v. Hanne last year, mostly because I found the style of cause amusingly long.

If you think that’s a tongue-twister, check out the subsequent decision in SHN Grundstuecksverwaltungsgesellschaft MBH & Co. Seniorenresidenz Hoppegarten-Neuenhagen KG v. Hanne, 2012 ABQB 624 (CanLII).

Incidentally, Madam Justice Erb of the Alberta Queen’s Bench ultimately rejected the defendant, Dr. Hanne’s impeachment defences of fraud, natural justice and public policy and held that the German judgment was enforceable in Alberta:

“In this summary trial, the Plaintiff SHN Grundstuecksverwaltungsgesellschaft MBH & Co. Seniorenresidenz Hoppegarten-Neuenhagen KG, also known as SHN Grundstücksverwaltungsgesellschaft MBH & Co. Seniorenresidenz Hoppegarten-Neuenhagen KG (“SHN”) seeks an Order for recognition and enforcement in Alberta of a judgment issued by the Berlin Regional Court of Germany against the Defendant Dr. Juergen Hanne, also known as Dr. Jürgen Hanne (“Dr. Hanne”).

[98]           I find that this action is appropriate for summary trial; viva voce evidence was not required for the proper hearing of the issues and the test for enforcement of foreign judgments in Alberta has been satisfied and the defences raised by Dr. Hanne are without merit.

Disposition

[99]           Accordingly, there will be an Order recognizing and enforcing the German judgment in Alberta in the total amount of the Canadian equivalent of —1,056,800.25 and interest thereon which includes:

(i) Judgment of the German Regional Court, dated November 11, 2002, for —1,022,583.70 plus interest;

(ii) the order for costs of the German Regional Court, dated November 29, 2002 (and the subsequent order for correction dated January 13, 2003) in the amount of  —21,582.25 and interest thereon; and

(iii) Costs Decision of the German Appeal Court, dated September 26, 2006, for —12, 634.30 and interest thereon.”

[100]      If the parties cannot agree with respect to the calculation of interest, they may seek an order within 30 days. Costs may be spoken to if necessary.

 And now…for a musical interlude….Tongue Tied by GroupLove:

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,067 other followers

%d bloggers like this: