High Court, in an action to enforce a judgment granted in Albania, sets aside a previous High Court order directing service of proceedings outside the jurisdiction and dismisses the claim, on the grounds, inter alia, that there are no assets of the defendants in Ireland, and that there is no practical benefit to the plaintiff to bringing enforcement proceedings in this jurisdiction.
Commercial – the defendants companies seeking to set aside High Court order granting the plaintiff company leave to serve proceedings outside the jurisdiction – seeking an order dismissing the proceedings on the grounds that the Court does not have jurisdiction or ought not to assume jurisdiction to hear and determine these proceedings – plaintiff seeking to enforce judgment from Albanian District Court for the sum of €433,091,870.00 – plaintiff incorporated in Albania – defendants incorporated in Italy – all parties are engaged in the sale and supply of energy and related services – Plaintiff’s parent company sought and obtained a concession for the construction and operation of a hydroelectric power plant in the Kalivac region of Albania - defendants allegedly expressed their interest in purchasing electricity generated by the power plant and the right to supply it to consumers in Italy - final cooperation agreement - parties would establish a special purpose vehicle, the plaintiff company, for the purpose of implementing the terms of the concession - subsequent to the entry into force of this agreement, the defendants undermined the completion of the power plant by various acts and omissions which were intended to delay and disrupt its construction - first defendant also entered into direct competition with the plaintiff – parties accepted Tirana District Court was a Court of competent jurisdiction to determine the plaintiff’s claim – Tirana District Court awarded damages in favour of the plaintiff – decision upheld on appeal – plaintiff brings these proceedings seeking to enforce the Albanian judgment in Ireland – previously the plaintiff’s parent company commenced arbitration proceedings against the second defendant before a Tribunal of the Chamber of Commerce in Rome claiming contractual damages for a purported breach of the 2000 cooperation agreement - Tribunal ruled in favour of the second defendant in December 2002 and found that the Cooperation Agreement had not been breached – decision upheld - initiated the proceedings in Albania - service out of the jurisdiction service out of the jurisdiction - proceeding brought to enforce a foreign judgment - ex parte application - disinclination to assert jurisdiction over foreign defendants at common law - whether the plaintiff has a “good arguable case” - whether the case is a “proper one” to be determined in this jurisdiction - comparative cost and convenience -propriety and suitability of bringing the proceedings in this jurisdiction, informs the exercise by the court of its discretion – claim is for summary judgment - defendants have indicated an intention, should it become necessary, to defend the application on its merits - on the evidence adduced, the plaintiff has established that it has a good arguable cause of action in seeking to enforce the judgment of the Albanian Court - the Court must be satisfied that the case is a fit, proper and suitable one for determination in this jurisdiction – defendants have no assets within the jurisdiction - not a precondition to the exercise of the court’s discretion that the proposed defendants have assets within the jurisdiction against which a judgment may be enforced - Court is entitled to consider whether the conduct of proceedings in this jurisdiction will serve any useful purpose - plaintiff must demonstrate that he can reasonably expect to benefit from a judgment obtained in this jurisdiction - discretion which falls to be exercised must take into account the fitness, propriety and suitableness of the case - evidence of a practical benefit – Court not satisfied that there is any, or any adequate, evidence to establish that either defendant has any assets within the jurisdiction or that there is a reasonable possibility or real prospect that they may have such assets in the future - the appropriate jurisdiction in which to pursue such an application, if it were open, is Italy - no “solid practical benefit” or any real prospect of a legitimate benefit whether indirect or prospective to be obtained in seeking the enforcement of this judgment in Ireland - no useful purpose to be served by these proceedings.