The High Court has set aside an order allowing Albanian company Albaniabeg Ambient Sh.p.k. to serve proceedings in Ireland on Italian energy companies Enel S.p.A. and Enelpower S.p.A. The case sought to enforce an Albanian judgment for €433,091,870 and costs. The court also granted the defendants’ requested relief, preventing the proceedings from continuing against them in Ireland.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McDermott on 8 March 2016, concerned a challenge under Order 12 Rule 26 of the Rules of the Superior Courts to an earlier order granting permission to serve the proceedings outside Ireland. The earlier order had been made on 21 July 2014. The High Court’s task was to decide whether the plaintiff had a good arguable case and whether Ireland was a proper place for the enforcement action. It did not decide the underlying enforcement claim on its merits.
The Albanian judgment arose from a dispute over a planned hydroelectric power project in the Kalivac region of Albania. Albaniabeg claimed that the defendants had obstructed the project and that Enel S.p.A. had competed in breach of an exclusivity agreement. Those were allegations in the underlying dispute. The Tirana District Court ordered damages of €25,188,500 for the period before 2005 and a further €407,903,370 for 2005 to 2011, calculated using a formula devised by court-appointed experts. The Tirana Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in 2010, and Albania’s Supreme Court affirmed it in 2011. The defendants’ later request for reconsideration was refused.
The defendants argued that the Albanian judgment should not be enforced, raising issues including fair procedures, the relationship with prior Italian proceedings and whether the damages calculation could be enforced under Irish law. Justice McDermott found that Albaniabeg had established a good arguable cause of action for the purpose of the jurisdiction challenge. That finding was not a ruling that the Albanian judgment was enforceable in Ireland.
The decisive issue was whether proceedings here could provide a real, practical benefit. The plaintiff pointed to Enel S.p.A.’s bonds listed on the Irish Stock Exchange and to an Irish branch of a separate Enel group company, EIR. The defendants said the bond proceeds were not received in Ireland and EIR was a distinct Italian company whose Irish branch had provided services under a short-term contract in Wexford.
The judge found no adequate evidence that either defendant had assets in Ireland or that assets were reasonably likely to come here. He also found no basis in the proceedings for setting aside EIR’s separate legal identity. With no solid practical benefit shown and the dispute having no connection to Ireland, he concluded it was not a proper case for Ireland to assume jurisdiction. The court granted the relief sought in the defendants’ motion.