Judgment: 2026-05-14 · Court archive

Court of Appeal orders Trafalgar group to pay costs after Russian defendants win jurisdiction challenge

Court of Appeal · [2026] IECA 88

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Trafalgar Developments Limited
  • Uralchem Holding PLC
  • Court of Appeal
What

Court of Appeal orders Trafalgar group to pay costs after Russian defendants win jurisdiction challenge

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

In its May 14 ruling on costs and final orders, the court held that the successful defendants were entitled to their costs of an unsuccessful 2018 High Court application, their Court of Appeal case and the proceedings against them generally. Those costs are to be assessed on the ordinary party-and-party basis.

The Court of Appeal has ordered Trafalgar Developments Limited and related companies to pay the legal costs of defendants who successfully challenged the Irish courts’ jurisdiction over claims brought against them.

The ruling follows the court’s December 2025 principal judgment allowing the appeal of five defendants associated with UCCU. The effect was to set aside a 2016 High Court order permitting proceedings to be served on Russian defendants and to set aside service on Uralchem Holding PLC.

In its May 14 ruling on costs and final orders, the court held that the successful defendants were entitled to their costs of an unsuccessful 2018 High Court application, their Court of Appeal case and the proceedings against them generally. Those costs are to be assessed on the ordinary party-and-party basis.

The defendants had sought a more favourable costs basis, arguing that Eurotoaz Limited had been sued as a “mere device” to establish Irish jurisdiction. The court rejected that argument. It said its earlier finding meant Eurotoaz would not have been sued but for the jurisdictional advantage, but it had not found that the substantive claims amounted to an abuse of process or involved litigation misconduct.

Two earlier High Court costs rulings remain untouched because neither was appealed. The Court of Appeal also excluded the costs of contempt applications issued in 2021 and 2022 concerning alleged breaches of undertakings given to the High Court.

Those contempt applications have already been heard by Mr Justice Sanfey. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court remains entitled to decide them, including any costs consequences, despite the later jurisdiction ruling. An undertaking to a court remained binding while it was in force.

The court also left open the possibility of a later application seeking costs from non-parties alleged to have funded or directed the litigation, without expressing any view on its merits.

Its principal orders were stayed to allow the plaintiffs to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review