The High Court refused an application by the sixth named defendant to set aside an order allowing the first and second plaintiffs to serve proceedings outside Ireland. It also struck references to five loan agreements subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts, while refusing the defendants’ requests for further particulars and to strike out related claims for insufficient detail.
In a judgment delivered on 6 October 2014, Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern said the challenge to the service order was not an appeal from the earlier decision by Ms Justice O’Malley. The sixth defendant had argued that the affidavit supporting the application for permission did not provide the material required by the Rules of the Superior Courts.
The judge found the plaintiffs had set out a sufficiently arguable case connecting the sixth defendant to their alleged conspiracy claim. He said the sixth defendant had not challenged the factual evidence put before Ms Justice O’Malley and saw no reason to discharge her order. The ruling addressed whether the service order should stand; it did not decide the underlying allegations.
The second motion concerned eight corporate facility agreements dated 28 February 2013. The judgment said five were governed by English law and gave the English courts exclusive jurisdiction, while three provided for Irish law and jurisdiction. The plaintiffs sought declarations concerning the agreements and argued that the first defendant had waived its right to rely on the English jurisdiction clauses by entering an unconditional appearance and participating in earlier proceedings.
Mr Justice McGovern rejected that argument. He found correspondence had reserved the defendants’ contractual and jurisdictional rights, and that the plaintiffs could not have been in doubt those issues would be raised. He struck out paragraph 11 of the statement of claim insofar as it referred to agreements identified as CF03, CF04, CF05, CF07 and CF08. He said claims seeking a determination of the construction of those agreements in the Irish courts were bound to fail under the agreed jurisdiction clauses. The order did not strike the references to the other three agreements.
The defendants also sought further particulars of the claims, including alleged conspiracy, inducement of breach of contract and interference with contractual relations, and asked the court to strike those claims for inadequate detail. The judge refused. He found the plaintiffs had provided reasonable particulars at this stage and enough information for the defendants to understand the allegations. The court did not determine whether those allegations were true.