The High Court has ordered Studbook Development Ireland Limited, trading as Warmblood Studbook of Ireland, to provide security for legal costs in two separate competition law proceedings concerning the Irish equestrian sector.
Mr Justice Max Barrett granted applications brought by defendants including Horse Sport Ireland, the Irish Horse Board and the Irish Shows Association. The amount of security was left for a later hearing.
In the first case, Studbook Development Ireland alleges anti-competitive conduct, breaches of Irish and EU competition law and unlawful interference with its economic and contractual interests. Its claims are directed against Horse Sport Ireland, the Irish Horse Board and several named individuals.
The second case concerns eligibility rules for equestrian competitions organised by the Irish Shows Association and associated agricultural shows throughout the State. The plaintiff alleges that Irish Warmblood horses and their studbook are disadvantaged by those rules in breach of competition law.
For a corporate plaintiff, security for costs can be ordered where there is reason to believe it could not pay successful defendants' legal costs. The defendants must also show a prima facie defence, meaning an arguable defence rather than one already proven at trial.
The plaintiff's inability to meet a potential costs award was not disputed. It argued, however, that its financial position had been caused by the defendants' alleged wrongdoing and that security could stifle the litigation.
The judge rejected those arguments. He found the plaintiff had not produced sufficiently clear or independent financial and economic evidence connecting its impecuniosity to the alleged conduct. It had also failed to disclose its funding arrangements or demonstrate that security would genuinely bring the cases to an end.
Mr Justice Barrett found that the defendants had established prima facie defences, including challenges to the plaintiff's proposed market definitions and allegations of abuse of dominance and discrimination.
He stressed that these findings do not decide the underlying competition cases. Their merits remain for trial if the proceedings continue after security is provided.