The High Court has stayed enforcement of an Italian costs judgment against Mares Associates Limited while an appeal in Italy remains pending, ruling that the company’s appeal against the Irish enforcement order was in time.
Ms Justice Baker’s judgment, delivered on 23 February 2017, concerned a €58,900 costs order made by the Tribunal of Varese in favour of Haier Europe Trading SRL (HET). The Italian court had dismissed Mares’s claim in proceedings arising from an agency-services contract. Mares alleged that substantial commission fees had gone unpaid and sought €15 million. It appealed the Italian decision.
In July 2015, the Master of the High Court recognised the Italian judgment and declared it enforceable in Ireland. The order also restrained Mares from dealing with assets up to €72,956 and required it to disclose its bank accounts and assets. The costs figure in the original Irish enforcement documents was incorrect. It was later amended, and corrected documents were served on Mares in September 2015.
HET argued that Mares’s appeal against the Irish enforcement order was out of time because time began when the first documents were served in August 2015. Mares said the appeal period began only when the corrected documents were served. Justice Baker held that the amount of a money judgment was a material element that had to be stated correctly for service to start the appeal period. She ruled that Mares’s appeal was in time and was valid.
The court then considered Mares’s request to stay enforcement while the Italian appeal proceeded. Mares said it could not pay the award and that enforcement would probably lead to a winding-up petition, preventing it from continuing its Italian case. HET opposed a stay, pointing to Mares’s failure to appeal the costs award in Italy. Justice Baker said she could not resolve factual disputes about the Italian process on the affidavit evidence before her.
The judge said the Irish court could not review the substance of the Italian judgment, but could grant a stay under the Brussels Regulation. The protective measures made by the Master were not challenged in this application. Weighing the parties’ likely prejudice, the judge considered the risk to Mares’s ability to pursue its Italian appeal and the €15 million claim alongside the costs award.
Justice Baker stayed enforcement pending further order, with liberty to apply in light of any further order made by the Italian court. The stay did not decide the merits of Mares’s Italian appeal.