The High Court has recognised and enforced a Polish arbitral award against Solis Bond Company DAC and Alternus Energy Group PLC, entering judgment for the applicant and refusing Alternus’s request for an eight-week stay.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 22 January 2025, Mr Justice David Barniville, President of the High Court, said the applicant was entitled to enforcement under the Arbitration Act 2010, the UNCITRAL Model Law and the New York Convention. No grounds of objection to enforcement were maintained at the hearing.
The applicant, Project Solartechnik Fund Fundz Inwestycyjny Zamkniety, had sought recognition and enforcement of an award made by Polish arbitrators on 25 September 2024. The award directed payment of sums by three respondents. The Irish proceedings sought orders only against the first respondent, Solis, and the third respondent, Alternus; the application was not pursued against the second respondent, a Polish company.
The court entered judgment against Solis and Alternus for PLN 27,788,504.32 and €156,114.84, with interest as set out in the orders. The judgment amount comprises PLN 27,488,229 under the award and arbitration costs of PLN 300,275.32 and €156,114.84. The court also ordered the applicant’s costs of the High Court application against Solis and Alternus, to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree.
Alternus had earlier raised procedural objections concerning how the applicant’s grounding affidavit was sworn, and the court had noted that a certified copy of the arbitration agreement had not initially been exhibited. The application was adjourned in December 2024, and the applicant filed supplemental affidavits addressing possible procedural defects. Alternus later filed no replying affidavit and did not pursue procedural or substantive objections at the January hearing. Its counsel said the company could not consent to the application after the applicant declined its proposed stay.
Alternus sought eight weeks to explore a possible scheme of arrangement, saying funds had been raised in New York in connection with another company and could potentially help fund a scheme. The judge said the evidence did not show that a scheme was sufficiently advanced or that a stay would provide a real benefit. He refused the stay, finding the applicant was entitled to finality and to obtain the benefit of its award in Ireland.