O Connor and Another v Masterwood U.K Ltd and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice de Valera
• Judgment Date: 20 June 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] IEHC 217
• Date: 20 June 2006
• Court: High Court

[2006] IEHC 217

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 7690 P/2003]

O'CONNOR & DAN O'CONNOR JOINERY WORKS LTD v MASTERWOOD UK LTD & ORS

BETWEEN

DAN O'CONNOR AND DAN O'CONNOR JOINERY WORKS LIMITED

PLAINTIFFS

AND

MASTERWOOD U.K. LIMITED, MASTERWOOD SPA ITALY AND NATIONAL IRISH INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED

DEFENDANTS

EEC REG 44/2001 ART 27

EEC REG 44/2001 ART 28

CONFLICT OF LAWS

Jurisdiction

Contract - Exclusive jurisdiction clause -Conditional appearance - Proceedings against second defendant dismissed (2003/7690P - deValera J - 20/6/2006) [2006] IEHC 217 O'Connor v Masterwood UK Ltd

Facts: The second named defendant sought, inter alia, a declaration that the Court had no jurisdiction over the dispute between the parties and sought to set aside service. The agreement concluded between the parties provided that the Court of Rimini were to have sole jurisdiction in the event of dispute or controversy.

Held by De Valera J., that the plaintiff had voluntarily agreed without deceit or subterfuge to the clause in the agreement that the Courts of Rimini should have jurisdiction in the event of a dispute and so the second named defendant was entitled to the relief sought.

Reporter: E.F.

1 JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice de Valera delivered the 20th day of June 2006 .

2 This is an application by the second named defendant, moved by notice of motion dated the 5th December, 2005 for:

3 1. A declaration that this honourable court has no jurisdiction over the dispute herein between the plaintiff and the second named defendants,

4 2. An order setting aside the service upon the second named defendant on the proceedings herein,

5 3. An order striking out and/or staying the proceedings herein as against the second named defendant,

6 4. Further or other reliefs,

7 5. Costs.

8 The action first came before me for hearing on the 19th December, 2005 and was adjourned variously until the 2nd March, 2006, when arguments were heard from both the second named defendant and the plaintiff, in addition Maurice Lyons was cross-examined on his affidavit. The matter was then adjourned for a further period to allow both parties to prepare and exchange written submissions.

9 Submissions were received from the plaintiff dated the 1st March, 2006, from the second defendant dated the 9th March, 2006 and again from the plaintiff, in response to the second...