Irish Supreme Court looks for CJEU guidance on jurisdiction enforcement debate

The Supreme Court has delayed deciding (PDF, 18pages/194kb) on the case until the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has made a ruling on its question over jurisdiction.

The case circles around a pursuit of assets by insurance firm Zurich against the director of an Irish subsidiary of a Belize-registered firm, SJ Investments, which had made a series of unsuccessful investments in Norwegian company RenoNorden prior to 2018.

SJ Investments had pursued a claim to recover losses against RenoNorden and a number of its former directors and transferred that claim to its Irish subsidiary SJI Equities, with Arne Vigeland, one of SJ Investments’ two directors, named as sole director of the Irish subsidiary.  Their proceedings to recover losses was unsuccessful, and SJI Equities had been ordered in December 2022 to pay around €1 million in legal costs to RenoNorden’s former board members.

As RenoNorden’s directors’ legal costs were covered by Zurich, and SJI Equities had no funds to pay, Zurich brought proceedings in Norway against Vigeland to recover the costs. After a successful application for asset freezing there, Vigeland argued that the matter should fall under Irish law given SJI Equities was registered there.

Norwegian courts at district and appeal level had rejected this claim, but before the final Court of Appeal judgment was issued, Vigeland issued a summons against Zurich in Ireland – where Zurich is also registered - arguing the Irish High Court had jurisdiction to hear his claim for tortious interference and a declaration he was not liable for Zurich’s losses.

Originally the Irish High Court and Court of Appeal had dismissed his claim, but the Supreme Court has now referred the question of jurisdiction over such matters to the CJEU for a definitive answer.

Aisling Doran, a legal expert with Pinsent Masons in Dublin, said that the court’s decision highlights the ongoing lack of clarity surrounding the enforcement of judgments, even under established frameworks like Brussels Recast and Lugano.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the question of jurisdiction under the Lugano Convention to the Court of Justice underscores the complexity and ongoing uncertainty in the enforcement of judgments across borders,” she added.

“This step highlights the challenges courts face in interpreting jurisdictional rules in cross-border disputes.

“Despite the CJEU’s recent ruling in Società Italiana Lastre SpA v Agora SARL that asymmetric jurisdiction clauses are valid under article 25 of the Brussels Recast — provided the clause designates the courts of EU Member States or Lugano Convention states, identifies objective factors for jurisdiction, and is not contrary to other provisions of Brussels Recast — uncertainty remains.

“It is still unclear how courts across the EU will interpret clauses referring to ‘any competent court’, especially where non-EU or non-Lugano jurisdictions are involved.”