Parts of claim based on loan agreements goverened by English jurisdiction bound to fail

Three separate motions before Court - first is 6th named defendant's motion seeking to set aside order of O'Malley J granting first and second plaintiffs leave to issue and serve proceedings out of jurisdiction - second motion is 1st, 6th and 7th defendants' motion for order striking out para. 11 of statement of claim on the ground that the facilities referred to therein are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts - third is 1st, 6th and 7th defendants' application for further and better particulars/strike out of plaintiffs' claim for insufficient particulars - in respect of 1st motion, order of O'Malley J permitting service made ex parte - order states it is made pursuant to O. 11, r. 1(e) and/or O. 11, r. 1(f) - 6th defendant says plaintiffs have failed to set out the requisite material and facts to ground application pursuant to O. 11, r. 1(e) or r. 1(f) - Court notes averment in grounding affidavit of plaintiff supporting ex parte application that they have good cause of action against new defendant - accordingly, application to serve also made pursuant to O. 11, r. 1(h) - plaintiffs' action against defendants involves, inter alia, a claim of conspiracy - plaintiffs have set out in affidavit and pleadings the general factual background to the conspiracy claim - Court notes that in cases involving allegations of fraud, a balance must be struck between right of defendant to know case against it and reality that plaintiff has limited knowledge of precise extent of what has been done to it - Court finds that plaintiff has provided with sufficient detail to show arguable case against 6th defendant - enough detail provided by plaintiffs to entitle them to order pursuant to O. 11, r. 1 (f) & (h) - no reason to discharge order of O'Malley J granting leave to serve 6th defendant out of jurisdiction - in respect of second motion 1st, 6th and 7th defendants point out that plaintiffs' claim based on eight loan agreements - five of the loans contain term assigning jurisdiction to English Courts - defendants raise forum non conveniens point - in response, plaintiffs claim that 1st plaintiff entered an unconditional appearance and therefore cannot raise jurisdictional point - after entry of allegedly unconditional appearance, solicitors for 1st defendant sent letter stating that their appearance entered entirely without prejudice to their right to raise jurisdictional issue - Court notes that 6th and 7th defendants entered conditional appearances - Court identifies Irish case law which states that parties must be held to their choice of jurisdiction in contract - parts of claim based on loan agreements goverened by English jurisdiction bound to fail - accordingly, Court strikes out statement of claim insofar as it relates to loans subject of English law - Court rejects 1st, 6th and 7th defendants' final application for further and better particulars/strike out of plaintiffs' claim on grounds of insufficient particulars - plaintiffs have pleaded case as best they can at this stage of proceedings.