The Supreme Court has restored a High Court decision allowing enforcement in Ireland of a Polish judgment awarding Coucal Limited PLN 28,391,106 against Michael Scully. It held that the assignment issue did not meet the high threshold for refusing recognition and enforcement on Irish public policy grounds. The Court did not decide a separate challenge concerning the composition of the Polish appeal court.
The dispute arose from a failed investment in land and a shopping centre in Opole, Poland. Scully had secured investments from 78 Irish investors in 2006. Coucal, an Irish company established by 63 investors, pursued a claim against him in Poland after investors assigned claims to the company.
A Polish regional court dismissed Coucal’s claim. In June 2021, the Polish Court of Appeal awarded Coucal the sum. Scully then brought proceedings in Ireland seeking refusal of recognition and enforcement under Article 45(1)(a) of the Brussels Regulation (Recast), which allows refusal where enforcement would be manifestly contrary to public policy.
Scully argued that the assignment permitted onward transfer of the claim to an unconnected third party and therefore raised concerns about champerty and trafficking in litigation. He relied on the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in SPV Osus. The High Court dismissed his challenge, assuming for the purposes of its decision that onward assignment was permitted. The Court of Appeal reversed that ruling on the assignment issue, and did not address Scully’s separate argument that a member of the Polish appeal court had been appointed under provisions said to breach EU treaty requirements.
In the Supreme Court, Chief Justice O’Donnell said the question was not whether the assignment would be enforceable if pursued directly under Irish law. It was whether Irish public policy required refusing an otherwise enforceable judgment from another EU member state. He said the public policy exception is narrow and must be applied against the strong policy favouring recognition of member-state judgments.
The Chief Justice also noted that the assignment’s onward transfer clause had not been resolved as a matter of Polish law, and that no transfer to an unconnected third party had in fact occurred. The Court concluded that enforcement did not approach the required threshold. It allowed the appeal and restored the High Court decision that the Polish judgment was enforceable.
The Court did not determine the separate rule of law challenge. It proposed receiving submissions on whether that issue should return to the Court of Appeal or be dealt with by the Supreme Court.