The High Court declined to permit immediate enforcement of a disputed part of a €268 million arbitral award, while considering whether to defer its decision until a challenge in Austria is resolved.
Danish Polish Telecommunication Group I/S (DPTG) applied to recognise and enforce an award directing Telekomunikacja Polska S.A. (TPSA) to pay DKK 1,998,422,812, stated in the judgment as €268,052,448, plus interest and costs. The award concerns the first phase of an arbitration over revenue sharing under a 1991 contract for construction of an optical fibre system in Poland.
TPSA asked the court to refuse enforcement on several grounds, including that it could not present its case properly and that the arbitral tribunal’s composition or procedure was defective. It also argued that enforcement would breach Irish public policy. In the alternative, it sought an adjournment while its Austrian proceedings to set aside the award were determined. Those grounds were TPSA’s contentions, not findings that the award was invalid.
Justice Finlay Geoghegan held that the court should first decide whether to adjourn its enforcement decision. She said the Austrian challenge alone was not enough: TPSA had to show reasonable grounds, or a seriously arguable case, that the award might be set aside. On a preliminary review of expert opinions submitted for TPSA, she considered that threshold appeared to be met. She did not decide the disputed questions of Austrian law or determine that any particular challenge ground would succeed.
The judge gave DPTG an opportunity to make further submissions before she made a final decision on adjournment. She also addressed two issues in case an adjournment was granted. DPTG sought immediate enforcement of DKK 313,490,838, relying on the award’s record that TPSA had sought to reject claims above that amount. The judge ruled that the tribunal had not separately ordered payment of that sum, so the High Court lacked jurisdiction to enforce it as a partial award.
If she granted an adjournment, the judge said she would propose ordering initial security of €1.5 million, with the form of security and any further arrangements to be addressed after hearing the parties. The judgment records these as proposed steps; it does not make a final order adjourning enforcement or requiring security.