The High Court refused five companies’ application to set aside an unconditional appearance and concluded it had jurisdiction to hear an enforcement application brought by Avobone N.V. and Avobone Poland B.V. It also found no valid challenge to the arbitral award and ordered its enforcement in the terms sought by the applicants.
The award, issued in London by an International Chamber of Commerce tribunal on 21 May 2015, was supplemented by a decision and costs addendum dated 5 October 2015. The applicants sought enforcement under the Arbitration Act 2010, the UNCITRAL Model Law and the New York Convention. Their notice of motion claimed €20,863,818.44, with daily interest of €2,523.75 from 6 April 2016 until judgment.
The respondents asked the court to set aside an unconditional appearance entered on their behalf, saying an administrative error had caused it to be entered instead of a conditional appearance to contest jurisdiction. They also sought to set aside permission to serve proceedings outside Ireland or, alternatively, to stay the case. The parties agreed that the respondents’ jurisdiction challenge would be heard first.
Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern found that the respondents had not properly explained the alleged error. Their solicitor’s affidavit did not describe what the administrative error was, and the respondents had taken steps in the proceedings up to 22 July 2016 that were inconsistent with an intention to contest jurisdiction. The judge therefore refused to set aside the unconditional appearance or treat it as conditional.
The court separately considered whether service abroad should be set aside because the respondents had no assets in Ireland. The applicants provided affidavit evidence that San Leon Energy plc, an Irish company and the first respondent’s direct parent, owed that respondent €27.7 million, repayable on demand. The judge accepted that enforcement could provide a practical benefit by allowing the applicants to seek to attach that debt. The evidence was not meaningfully contested. He found no basis to set aside permission for service outside the jurisdiction or to decline to hear the enforcement application.
The respondents did not establish a ground to refuse enforcement under Article 36 of the Model Law. They had withdrawn a challenge concerning the tribunal’s composition after conceding that the nationality requirement in the arbitration clause had been waived at their own request. The judge also noted that an English challenge to set aside the award had been dismissed as an abuse of process.
The court held that it had jurisdiction, refused the appearance and service challenges, and ordered enforcement of the award in the terms of the applicants’ notice of motion. The judgment does not state in the supplied text the amount ultimately entered as judgment.