The High Court has referred a dispute over where Anglo Irish Bank’s injunction proceedings should be heard to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), leaving the case in being and an interlocutory injunction in force for now.
Mr Justice Clarke, in a judgment delivered on 13 September 2011, rejected the Quinn defendants’ argument under Article 23 of the Brussels Regulation. He found that the Swedish and Cypriot pledge agreements did not give those countries’ courts exclusive jurisdiction, as far as Anglo was concerned. The Quinns had not asked the court to decline jurisdiction on another basis.
The bank’s proceedings seek orders against members of the Quinn family and others over an alleged plan to move assets held through the International Property Group into a different corporate structure, potentially outside the bank’s security. The judgment describes this as Anglo’s allegation; whether there was a conspiracy would require a full trial. The Quinns disputed the inference Anglo drew from the facts and relied on their separate challenge to the validity of the security.
The jurisdiction dispute arose amid related proceedings in Ireland and Cyprus concerning different parts of the security arrangements. The High Court said the unusual sequence—two sets of proceedings in Ireland, with the Cyprus case between them—raised questions about which court should decide whether the actions were related under Article 28 of the Brussels Regulation. The Irish and Cypriot cases were at different stages, and the Cypriot court’s own jurisdiction had not yet been determined.
Rather than dismiss or stay the bank’s proceedings at this stage, Mr Justice Clarke proposed referring questions to the CJEU. They concern whether the Irish court should await the Cypriot court’s jurisdiction decision, whether the earlier Irish proceedings may affect the later Irish case, and whether the bank’s decision not to bring the claims as a counterclaim in the first Irish proceedings matters.
The judge adjourned the Quinns’ application pending the CJEU’s determination. He did not decide whether the proceedings should ultimately be dismissed or stayed, and did not rule on Anglo’s fallback request for protective measures under Article 31. The proceedings remain in being, and the interlocutory injunction continues for the time being.