Proceedings relating to a claim brought in France are struck out for want of jurisdiction

Application to set aside service on a company – application to decline jurisdiction – application to strike out the proceedings as frivolous or vexatious - claim for damages for malicious prosecution – defendant is a company domiciled in France - claim in the underlying proceedings – purchased two apartments from the company - carried out certain works to those apartments, including the enclosure of part of a balcony – company brought proceedings in France seeking remediation of certain works and the restoration of the balcony to its original condition – company was successful – did not comply with the order – subsequently came into possession of original plans for the apartment building that demonstrated that there was no planning permission for the balcony – company accepted that it had been aware at all material times that it was not possible for the respondent to comply with the orders that it sought against him but had gone ahead with, and persisted in, the prosecution of its legal proceedings, despite that knowledge – rules in relation to service – served the summons and not notice of the summons as required by the rules – service not set aside because clear that the respondent was effectively put on notice of the proceedings, although the proceedings were not properly served on it as a matter of law, and because the applicant has suffered no prejudice in seeking to challenge jurisdiction – whether the court has jurisdiction under Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation – relies on special jurisdictional rule whereby a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur - burden of proof rests on the party invoking a special jurisdictional rule to establish that the claim concerned falls within it – no evidence of financial or reputational damage in Ireland - failed to establish that the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine his claims under the special jurisdictional rule of Art. 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation – whether the Court has jurisdiction under Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation – appearance not entered for any purpose other than to contest jurisdiction - courts of Ireland do not have the general, special or prorogated jurisdiction to hear or determine the claim – impermissible collateral attack upon the relevant decisions of the French courts - proceedings bound to fail since he cannot establish that the civil proceedings that he claims were maliciously instituted and maintained against him in France – proceedings struck out for want of jurisdiction.