The High Court has struck out a claim by Philip Smyth alleging malicious prosecution over civil proceedings brought against him in France. Mr Justice David Keane ruled that the Irish courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim.
The defendant, SAS Sogimalp Tarentaise, had sought orders setting aside service of the proceedings, declining jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation and striking out the claim as bound to fail. The court refused to set aside service: although the summons had not been properly served as a matter of law, the company had effective notice and suffered no prejudice in challenging jurisdiction.
The claim concerned two apartments in France that Smyth said he had bought from the company in the early 1980s. He alleged that after he carried out works in 2004, including enclosing part of a balcony, the company brought proceedings in France seeking remediation and restoration of the balcony. French court decisions ultimately required him to carry out works and pay costs and penalties.
Smyth alleged that plans he later obtained showed there was no planning permission for the balcony, and that the company knew he could not comply with the orders but continued the French proceedings. The company denied the alleged flaw and any acknowledgment by its architect. It also denied that Smyth was unable to comply with the French orders, while acknowledging that he had not complied.
Smyth sought recovery of legal costs from the French litigation, damages and declarations that those proceedings were an abuse of process and malicious prosecution. The judge noted that the French decisions had not been set aside and that Smyth had not applied to a French court to have them vacated.
Under the Brussels I Regulation, the court found that the company was domiciled in France and that Smyth had not established that Ireland was a place where the alleged harmful event occurred. He had provided no evidence that financial or reputational damage was suffered in Ireland. The judge also rejected the argument that the company had submitted to Irish jurisdiction by entering an appearance, delivering a defence or delaying its jurisdiction challenge; its appearance was expressly to contest jurisdiction.
The judge concluded that Ireland had no general, special or prorogated jurisdiction to determine the claim. He did not decide the company’s alternative argument that exclusive jurisdiction rules concerning French property or public registers applied.
Separately, to address issues in case of an appeal, the judge said the claim would have been struck out as an impermissible collateral attack on the French decisions and as bound to fail. That was an alternative conclusion; the operative order struck out the claim for want of jurisdiction.