By Ruth Mercer
The Supreme Court has rejected Michael Scully’s attempt to resist recognition in Ireland of orders made by the Court of Appeal in Warsaw on the basis of the participation of a judge seconded to that court.
The dispute concerns orders made by the Warsaw appeal court on 10 June and 7 July 2021. Judge Anna Strączyńska, ordinarily a judge of the Regional Court in Warsaw, had been seconded to the appeal court by Poland’s Minister for Justice.
Scully argued that the composition of the Polish court provided a public-policy basis for refusing recognition under EU Regulation 1215/2012, which generally requires judgments from one EU member state to be recognised in another.
In a judgment delivered on 27 November 2025, Mr Justice Brian Murray held that Scully knew, or could have discovered, the composition of the Warsaw panel and the basis of Judge Strączyńska’s secondment before his appeal was decided. He nevertheless did not object in those proceedings.
The judge said EU rules on cross-border recognition are founded on mutual trust between member-state courts and that refusal to recognise a judgment on public-policy grounds is exceptional. Parties are generally expected to use legal remedies available in the country where the judgment originated before attempting to resist recognition elsewhere.
Mr Justice Murray rejected the argument that a later 2021 judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union first created the basis for Scully’s objection. He said the relevant facts were already available when the Warsaw appeal was heard.
He also agreed with Mr Justice Hogan’s separate reasoning that Judge Strączyńska’s secondment did not invalidate the Warsaw judgment or make it unenforceable.
This judgment settles the secondment objection against Scully. It does not reproduce the full disposition of every issue in Coucal Limited’s Supreme Court appeal, which was addressed in other judgments of the court.