The High Court has declined to strike out Nopsar Limited’s counterclaim against Huawei Technologies (Ireland) Co. Ltd at this stage, finding there was insufficient undisputed evidence to decide whether a 2019 settlement agreement barred the claim. The court said the issue should be heard as a preliminary issue in the Circuit Court.
In a separate part of the appeal, Mr Justice Alexander Owens refused Nopsar’s application to amend its defence and counterclaim. The proposed changes included a claim for €373,333 in alleged lost income. The judge said the amendments included unnecessary evidential narrative, did not add a stateable cause of action, and sought a monetary claim beyond the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction.
The proceedings began with Skycorp Limited’s claim against Nopsar for €44,584.99, said to be an overdue account for consultancy services supplied to Nopsar for Huawei between February and June 2019. Nopsar admitted the debt but alleged contractual breaches and brought a counterclaim against Skycorp, Jaroslaw Nowasad and Huawei.
Huawei applied to strike out Nopsar’s counterclaim against it, relying on a settlement agreement dated 11 September 2019. That agreement included a release of actual and potential claims and a promise not to sue over released claims. Huawei argued that the counterclaim concerned events Nopsar knew about before signing.
Nopsar disputed that the agreement barred the proposed claim and argued that Huawei had provided no fresh consideration for the release. Justice Owens found there was not enough undisputed evidence to determine whether the settlement was supported by valuable consideration; resolving that question would require oral evidence. He said the agreement’s wording could potentially cover losses from alleged conduct that Nopsar knew about when it signed, if the agreement was supported by consideration. He did not decide that issue finally, and directed that it be dealt with at a preliminary issue trial in the Circuit Court.
The judge also found the proposed €373,333 claim exceeded the Circuit Court’s €75,000 monetary jurisdiction, absent the required consent. He said Huawei had no contractual obligation to renew expired purchase orders or continue using Nopsar’s specialists. The proposed amendments did not identify a basis for finding that Huawei, Skycorp or Nowasad had acted wrongfully when purchase orders were not renewed or three former Nopsar specialists were hired directly by Huawei.
The appeals are to be listed for submissions on costs. The judgment did not determine the underlying counterclaim on its merits.