The High Court has refused enforcement in Ireland of a London court judgment for €118,058.99 arising from a gambling debt, while allowing a separate order for £17,500 in litigation costs to remain enforceable.
Mr Justice Mac Eochaidh gave the ruling on 15 June 2015 after John O’Shea appealed orders made by the Master of the High Court. The Master had, on 20 May 2014, deemed two County Court judgments from London enforceable in Ireland. The High Court upheld the appeal in relation to the judgment for the betting debt but refused it in relation to the costs judgment.
Sporting Index Limited, a UK-based sports spread betting company, had obtained the first London judgment on 30 August 2013. It concerned O’Shea’s liability after an online betting account became overdrawn following a spread bet on a Heineken Cup rugby match. The London court awarded €118,058.99 and summarily assessed the costs of that action at £17,500.
A second judgment, dated 6 December 2013, concerned the costs of O’Shea’s application to set aside the first judgment. The Irish High Court judgment describes the £17,500 order as costs incurred by the company in seeking to enforce the gambling debt.
O’Shea’s appeal argued that enforcement of the first judgment would conflict with Irish public policy and section 36 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956, which makes gaming or wagering contracts void and bars actions to recover money won or paid on a wager. The company argued that it was seeking to enforce court judgments, not betting contracts, and that the Irish court could not review the substance of the London decisions.
The judge said the Irish court could not review the merits of the foreign order, but could consider the substance of the proceedings to assess the public policy objection. He found that enforcing the €118,058.99 order would have the effect of enforcing a gambling debt in Ireland, creating a manifest conflict with Irish public policy as expressed in the 1956 Act. He therefore held that the debt judgment should not be recognised.
The judge treated the costs order differently. He said the £17,500 was owed for litigation expenses, not a betting transaction, and was enforceable under the European judgment recognition regulation. The appeal was therefore upheld as to the €118,058.99 judgment and refused as to the £17,500 costs order.