Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Disclosure order should not have been made prior to determination of court’s jurisdiction
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Supreme Court: a) allows appeal from decision of High Court to order disclosure of names of third parties where the jurisdiction of the Irish courts had not yet been determined, on grounds that the disclosure was not in aid of the determination of jurisdiction; and b) refuses appeal from joinder of co-defendant.
Clarke J (nem diss): Jurisdiction of court - action by airline against operator of price comparison website - application by defendant to challenge jurisdiction of Irish courts - whether contractual relationship between parties - application by plaintiff for disclosure of identity third party providers of information - one such party (Ypsilon) joined as co-defendant to proceedings - appeal of disclosure order - appeal of order joining co-defendant - High Court finding of prima facie "wrongful activity" on part of defendant - whether such orders could be made pending resolution of jurisdictional issues - Brussels regulation - status of proceedings - whether disclosure application brought to assist in determining question of jurisdiction - whether court could determine jurisdiction without having to consider substance of the case - underlying jurisdiction to direct disclosure - whether order could have been made under Article 31 of Brussels Convention - whether joinder of co-defendant was in breach of fair procedures.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
