The High Court has refused a UK company’s application to strike out proceedings brought by the Health Service Executive over an allegedly defective mortuary dome, ruling that the Irish court had jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
The HSE alleges that Roftek Limited supplied a Flexmort mortuary dome for €84,007.40. Its claim says the dome was delivered to Collins Barracks in Cork in March 2020 for the HSE’s Covid-19 emergency response, then collapsed repeatedly and developed tears and holes despite repairs. These remain allegations: the High Court did not decide whether the dome was defective or whether Roftek is liable.
Roftek challenged the court’s jurisdiction. The summons had referred to sections of the EU Brussels Recast Regulation concerning insurance, consumer contracts and employment, rather than specifying the Article relied on. The HSE accepted that this was an error and said it intended to apply to amend the summons if Roftek’s motion was refused.
The court considered whether jurisdiction could arise under Article 7, which allows a company domiciled in a Member State to be sued elsewhere in certain cases, including where goods were delivered or the harmful event occurred. The dome was delivered in Ireland and the alleged failures occurred when it was inflated in Cork. The judge concluded that the HSE had outlined a basis for Irish jurisdiction and that the pleading error did not justify striking out the claim.
Roftek also relied on a term in its standard conditions giving the courts of England and Wales exclusive jurisdiction. The HSE said it had not received those conditions. The judge found a fundamental dispute in the affidavit evidence and no objective evidence that the conditions had been sent before or when the contract was made. Because the motion was decided on written evidence without cross-examination, the judge declined to prefer one side’s account. The court therefore could not find that the parties had agreed to the jurisdiction clause.
The motion was refused. The judge said the HSE should have a reasonable period to apply to amend its summons and that it would bear the costs of that application. Roftek was to enter an unconditional appearance following the amendment. The parties were directed to submit a draft order by 11 January 2023, with short submissions on any dispute about its form, including costs. The underlying dispute over the dome’s merchantability remains to be determined.