The High Court has refused an application to strike out a counterclaim in a dispute over unpaid search revenue and alleged invalid traffic, while ordering limited further particulars and targeted discovery from both sides.
In a judgment delivered on 8 October 2026, Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan dealt with interlocutory applications in proceedings between UK company Dogo Media Limited and Irish company Tempest Tech Limited. The case concerns a Search Distribution Agreement made in July 2023. Dogo says Tempest withheld revenue due under invoices for November and December that year. Tempest alleges Dogo supplied invalid, non-compliant or fraudulent traffic and relies on the agreement’s payment and liquidated damages provisions.
The judge rejected Dogo’s argument that an earlier order sending the case to a plenary hearing had barred Tempest from bringing a counterclaim. She found that order did not restrict the issues or expressly preclude a counterclaim. She also declined to strike it out, finding substantial overlap between the counterclaim and Tempest’s defence. The counterclaim seeks about €612,284.14, but the court did not decide whether that sum is due or whether either party’s allegations are established.
On particulars, the judge found that most of Dogo’s requests sought evidence or legal argument rather than clarification of pleaded facts. She ordered Tempest to identify the conduct or traffic characteristics it says breached the Guidelines, so Dogo can understand the factual allegation it must meet. The order does not require Tempest to provide the technical data, reports or Microsoft communications it may rely on as proof. The judge declined to order further replies on the other particulars pursued.
The judge also refused Tempest’s application to strike out paragraph 24 of Dogo’s Statement of Claim, which alleges a broader policy of retaining partners’ revenue shares as syndicated search partnerships ceased. She found the allegation was not wholly speculative, citing an email referred to in the pleading, but said it was inadequately particularised. Tempest must reply to the request for particulars within ten weeks after making discovery, or within another period the parties agree. The judge said a strike-out application could potentially be renewed after discovery or at trial.
Discovery orders were made in narrowed terms. Tempest must disclose specified communications with Microsoft, traffic-quality methodology and standards, assessments and metrics relating to Dogo’s traffic, and limited anonymised comparator material, among other agreed categories. Dogo must disclose records concerning the source, origin and quality of traffic supplied under the agreement, as well as documents supporting its allegation of a general cessation and revenue-retention policy. Other requests were refused as unnecessary, too broad or disproportionate.
The court’s ruling addressed case management and disclosure only. It made no final findings on the alleged traffic breaches, the unpaid invoices, the validity of the liquidated damages clause or Dogo’s broader policy allegation. The judge invited the parties to agree the form of final orders and listed the matter for mention after 14 days.