The Supreme Court dismissed Swissair’s appeal and the joint liquidators’ notice to vary in a dispute over whether a possible Swiss judgment against Flightlease (Ireland) Limited could be enforced in Ireland. The court ruled that the proposed order would be an in personam judgment, not an order in insolvency proceedings, but would not be recognised under the Irish test for foreign judgments.
Flightlease is in voluntary liquidation. Swissair sought repayment of CHF8 million transferred to Flightlease in 2001. Its proof of debt in Flightlease’s liquidation was rejected in 2005. Swissair then brought proceedings in Switzerland without notice to Flightlease’s joint liquidators. Those proceedings sought return of money and had not, at the time of the Irish case, resulted in a judgment.
The joint liquidators applied to the High Court under section 280 of the Companies Act 1963 for permission to distribute Flightlease’s assets without reference to Swissair’s claim, or alternatively to set a time limit for challenging the rejection of the proof. The parties asked the court to decide a preliminary issue: whether an order Swissair might obtain in Switzerland would be enforceable in Ireland. The High Court held it would not, and Swissair appealed. The liquidators filed a notice to vary, arguing that the Swiss claim arose from insolvency proceedings and should not be enforceable as a foreign judgment.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument. It accepted that the proposed Swiss order would require Flightlease to repay a sum of money, and treated it as an in personam judgment even though the claim could arise only in insolvency proceedings. The court said such a judgment would be enforceable in Ireland only if Flightlease had been present in Switzerland when the proceedings began or had submitted to the Swiss court’s jurisdiction. It had done neither.
Swissair argued that Ireland should adopt Canada’s “real and substantial connection” test for recognising foreign judgments. The court declined to change Irish law, saying the proposed shift was significant and should be made by legislation, particularly without a broader common-law consensus. It therefore affirmed the High Court’s decision and dismissed Swissair’s appeal, as well as the joint liquidators’ notice to vary.
The ruling resolved only the preliminary question about recognition and enforcement of a possible Swiss judgment. It did not decide the Swissair repayment claim or grant the liquidators’ original request to distribute Flightlease’s assets without reference to that claim.