Gary Cunniam -v- Parcel Connect Limited trading as Fastway Couriers Ireland and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Connor, John J.
• Judgment Date: 23 January 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] IECC 1
• Case Outcome: Approved
• Court: http://justis.com/court/2781
• Docket Number: 2021/03424

1

AN CHÚIRT CHUARDA

THE CIRCUIT COURT

Dublin Circuit County of the City of Dublin

Record No. 2021/03424

Between:

GARY CUNNIAM

PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

AND

PARCEL CONNECT LIMITED trading as FASTWAY COURIERS

IRELAND

and

A&G COURIERS LIMITED trading as FASTWAY COURIERS IRELAND

and

NAPIER COURIERS LIMITED trading as FASTWAY COURIERS

DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS

Judgment of His Honour Judge John O’Connor delivered on the 23rd day of

January, 2023

1. Introduction

1.1 In this case the defendants seek an order pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction

of this Court staying the existing proceedings pending a determination by the Court of

Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) of the preliminary references referred to it by

various member states in accordance with Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning

of the European Union (“TFEU”), namely:

a. Case C-300/21 – UI v Österreichische Post AG

b. Case C-340/21 – VB v Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

2

c. Case C-667/21 – ZQ v Medizinischer Dienst der Krankenversicherung

Nordrhein

d. Case C-687/21 – BL v Saturn Electro-Handelsgesellschaft mbH Hagen

e. Case C-741/21 – GP v Juris GmbH

f. Case C-182/22 – JU v Scalable Capital GmbH

1.2 The defendants submit that this Court is required, in accordance with the duty

of sincere cooperation provided for in Article 4(3) of the Treaty of the European Union

(“TEU”), to stay these proceedings pending the determination of these preliminary

references. The defendants submit that the Circuit Court is a national court of a

member state and, as such, is subject to the obligations imposed on the courts of

member states by the Treaties.

1.3 The defendants submit that it will suffer prejudice in the event that a stay is not

granted at this point in the proceedings. Among the points raised by the defendants

were the following:

(a) The value of the plaintiff’s claim. Even if the plaintiff succeeds in establishing

liability, the claim is very small relative to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.

Should the CJEU decide to accept the recommendation of the Advocate

General in Case C-300/21, discussed below, they submit that it is possible that

the plaintiff will not be entitled to any damages.

(b) If the proceedings are simply allowed to proceed until such time as they are

ready for hearing, the costs that will have been incurred by then will by far be

in excess of any award of damages the plaintiff may recover.