The High Court has declined jurisdiction over Monetizead D.O.O.’s claims against Techads Media Limited, holding they must be brought in Italy, but will hear the company’s claims against Scugnizziera Consulting Limited (SCL) in Ireland.
In a judgment delivered on 1 February 2024, Mr Justice Twomey also refused SCL’s application to stay the Irish proceedings until the dispute with Techads was resolved. The court directed the parties to discuss the format of final orders and other outstanding matters; it did not determine the underlying contract and traffic-quality disputes.
Monetizead, incorporated in Bosnia and Herzegovina, sued the two Irish-incorporated companies over separate agreements concerning website traffic supplied to Techads’ partners. It claims $3,843,584.07 from Techads for unpaid invoices. It also seeks €467,248.73 from SCL, which it says it paid for traffic, and alleges negligence and unjust enrichment. Techads says it terminated its agreement after alleging that the traffic was bad. Monetizead denies that and says, in the alternative, that SCL was responsible for any bad traffic.
The agreement between Monetizead and Techads provided for exclusive jurisdiction in Italy. Monetizead accepted that clause initially applied, but argued that a later insertion order between Monetizead and SCL changed it to a Bosnia clause. The judge rejected that argument: Techads was not a party to the insertion order, which made no reference to Techads or the earlier agreement. The court found no sufficient evidence that Techads had agreed to amend its clause or consented to be bound by the Bosnia clause. It held that the Italian clause covered all claims against Techads, including unjust enrichment, and that Article 25 of the Brussels Recast Regulation required the Irish court to decline jurisdiction in favour of Italy.
The insertion order between Monetizead and SCL specified the courts of Bosnia. The court held that this did not displace Article 4 of the Regulation, under which SCL, as an Irish-domiciled company, could be sued in Ireland. The judge therefore accepted jurisdiction over the claims against SCL.
SCL argued that its case should be stayed because Monetizead’s claim against it was secondary to the dispute with Techads. The court said that the outcome of the Techads dispute was uncertain and did not justify a stay. It also found there were no parallel proceedings in Italy: Monetizead had not issued a case there, and whether or when it would do so was for Monetizead to decide. The court declined to stay SCL’s case, including because an indefinite stay would impede timely resolution.
The judgment records that Techads had separate proceedings against SCL and a director of both companies concerning alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The court expressed no view on whether those proceedings and Monetizead’s case should be heard together.