The High Court has explained a series of orders made in Uniformal Limited’s proceedings over a €250,000 deposit paid for face masks that were not delivered. The judgment, delivered by Humphreys J. on 12 April 2021, addresses interim and post-judgment asset-freezing measures, disclosure and service. The defendants did not appear at any stage.
The court’s account says the plaintiff agreed in April 2020 to buy one million masks from the first defendant for €500,000, with half payable in advance. The first defendant’s principal, Niek Tersteeg, had said the masks were in Europe and would arrive within 72 hours. After the €250,000 deposit was paid, the plaintiff was told the masks inspected at a warehouse were unsuitable and that replacements would come from China. The plaintiff sought its deposit back; Tersteeg later said there would be no refund and gave a new delivery date. No masks arrived.
The plaintiff notified its bank and the Garda National Economic Crime Bureau. The judgment recounts that flight reservations later referred to by Tersteeg had been cancelled and documents purporting to show customs clearance were false. Proceedings issued on 28 May 2020.
On 5 June, the court granted a worldwide Mareva injunction, which restrained dealings with assets below the specified limit, and ordered disclosure to help make the injunction effective. It later added defendants as the plaintiff traced the movement of the money. Orders extended the asset restraint and disclosure requirements to those parties, and separate orders directed financial institutions to provide account information and restrain dealings with funds. The court said such bank orders were kept separate from orders served on defendants to reduce the risk that notice would frustrate the injunction.
The court also made “unless orders” requiring disclosure, with the consequence that non-compliance could prevent defendants from defending and allow the plaintiff to seek final judgment. In July, the court gave the plaintiff liberty to enter final judgment against all defendants after ongoing non-compliance. It also addressed service difficulties and the paperwork required to obtain a Brussels I Regulation certificate.
On 31 July, the court measured the plaintiff’s costs at €68,487 and granted a post-judgment Mareva injunction in the terms sought, with liberty to apply concerning execution. The judge said money had been identified and frozen under the injunction by March 2021.
The judgment explains the legal and procedural basis for those orders. It does not set out a contested trial or a final assessment of liability after a defence; the defendants had not appeared. Its central conclusions concern the court’s power to extend asset restraints, require disclosure and make orders effective when defendants fail to comply.