JACC Sports Distributors Ltd [(in Liquidation)] v Shamrock Rovers FC Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Conor Dignam
• Judgment Date: 20 February 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IEHC 96
• Docket Number: Record No. 2025 291 CA

Between

Jacc Sports Distributors Limited (In Liquidation)

Plaintiff/Respondent

and

Shamrock Rovers FC Limited

Defendant/Appellant

[2026] IEHC 96

Record No. 2025 291 CA

Record No. 2024/0003209

THE HIGH COURT

Dublin Circuit

County of the City of Dublin

Summary judgment – Estoppel – Set-off – Appellant appealing against the decision of the Circuit Court granting summary judgment to the plaintiff – Whether the respondent was estopped from pursuing the appellant

Facts: The plaintiff/respondent, JACC Sports Distributors Ltd, obtained summary judgment in the Circuit Court on 22 July 2025. The defendant/appellant, Shamrock Rovers FC Ltd, appealed to the High Court against that decision. The plaintiff’s claim was that it supplied goods to the defendant in October 2022, that the defendant acknowledged receipt of the goods and agreed an invoice in the sum of €28,094.54, that the invoice was raised on 21 December 2022, but the amount was not paid despite demands. The defendant did not deny that it received the goods, that the invoice was raised and that the amount was not paid. The defendant denied that the amount was due and owing on essentially two bases. Firstly, it was contended that the plaintiff was estopped from pursuing the defendant. Secondly, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff owed the defendant the sum of €34,914.00 pursuant to the same contract as gave rise to the plaintiff’s claim or at least in circumstances which were closely connected to those giving rise to the plaintiff’s claim. The defendant claimed that amount by way of counterclaim or set off.

Held by Dignam J that in the absence of any plea, or evidence, of reliance by the defendant company on a representation made by the plaintiff/receiver, the defendant had not established any credible basis for a defence of estoppel. As that was the only defence which was advanced in respect of the mistaken payment and the plaintiff’s entitlement to sue in light of that payment, Dignam J concluded that a bona fide defence had not been established on that point. However, it did seem to Dignam J that separate consideration must be given to the question of a stay on judgment in light of that payment and its retention. In the absence of the agreement, or at least particulars of the agreement, Dignam J could not conclude that the defendant was entitled to a contractual set-off or that there was a sufficiently close connection between the debt owed by the defendant to the plaintiff and the debt claimed by the defendant. It seemed to Dignam J that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment. Dignam J determined that on the state of the evidence a bona fide defence had not been established; however, a wholly different complexion may be put on the case if further evidence was adduced at trial. In Dignam J’s view, it would be wholly unjust not to place a stay on the judgment.

Dignam J upheld the decision of the Circuit Court and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff in the amount of €28,049.54. Dignam J also placed a stay on execution of that judgment pending determination of the defendant’s counterclaim and claim of set-off.

Appeal dismissed.

Ex tempore Judgment of Mr. Justice Conor Dignam delivered on the 20 ^th day of February 2026

1 . The plaintiff obtained summary judgment in the Circuit Court on the 22 ^nd July 2025. The defendant has appealed that decision and it came before me by way of that appeal on Monday, the 16 ^th February 2026.

2 . The parties were agreed that pursuant to section 37 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936 this appeal shall be heard by way of rehearing of the action “ but no evidence which was not given and received in the Circuit Court shall be given or received on the hearing of [the] appeal without the special leave of the judge hearing such appeal.”

3 . It appeared at a certain stage that the defendant would be applying for leave to adduce further evidence, i.e. an alleged contract between the parties. Indeed, Gearty J at a directions list in December gave the defendant liberty to bring such an application. However, the defendant did not bring an application and confirmed at the hearing of the appeal that no such application was being made. The matter therefore proceeded on the basis of the evidence that was before the Circuit Court.

4 . The parties were not in dispute in relation to the principles applicable to applications for summary judgment. They are set out in a number of judgments, including Aer Rianta cpt v Ryanair Limited [2001] 4 IR 607 at page 615:

“Thus it is for this court to decide whether in the instant case the defence set out in the affidavits…together with the documents exhibited therewith, is credible, or in other words, whether there is a fair or reasonable probability of the defendant having a real or bona fide defence”

5 . The plaintiff's claim is that it supplied goods to the defendant in October 2022, that the defendant acknowledged receipt of the goods and agreed an invoice in the sum of €28,094.54, that the invoice was raised on the 21 ^st December 2022, but the amount was not paid despite demands. Proceedings were issued on the 17 ^th July 2024. A motion seeking summary judgment in that amount was issued on the 25 ^th October 2024. This was grounded on the affidavit of Mr. Aengus Burns of the 24 ^th October 2024. Mr. Burns is the liquidator of the plaintiff company, having been appointed as a provisional liquidator by O'Moore J on the 27 ^th October 2022 and as liquidator on the 4 ^th November 2022. A Defence and Counterclaim was delivered on behalf of the defendant on the 6 ^th December 2024 and a replying affidavit on behalf of the defendant was delivered on the 25 ^th February 2025 (sworn by Mr. James Nolan). Mr. Burns swore another affidavit on the 26 ^th March 2025 and Mr. Nolan swore a second affidavit on the 17 ^th June 2025.

6 . The defendant does not deny that it received the goods, that the invoice was raised and that the amount was not paid. The defendant denies that the amount is due and owing on essentially two bases.

7 . Firstly, it is contended that the plaintiff is estopped from pursuing the defendant in circumstances which I return to shortly. Secondly, the defendant claims that the plaintiff owes the defendant the sum of €34,914.00 pursuant to the same contract as gives rise to the plaintiff's claim or at least in circumstances which are closely connected to those giving rise to the plaintiff's claim. The defendant claims this amount by way of counterclaim or set off.

8 . I deal with each of these in turn. The parties delivered extremely helpful written submissions and I had the benefit of oral submissions at the hearing.

Estoppel

9 . The defendant company claims that a related company, Shamrock Rovers Academy Limited (“the Academy”), made a payment of €38,236.26 to a receiver of the plaintiff company in March 2023. The plaintiff does not dispute that this payment was made. The receiver had been appointed by Ulster Bank who was also the petitioner for the appointment of the liquidator. The defendant claims that this payment was made by mistake. The error was explained in a letter exhibited to Mr. Nolan's affidavit. This was a letter of the 19 ^th May 2023 from solicitors acting for the Academy to the receiver. It is stated in that letter that this payment should have been made to a different party and was made to the receiver in error. There had been an exchange of emails between the receiver and the Academy before this letter. It seems likely from some of the emails that there was also telephone contact. Upon receipt of the amount, the receiver emailed on the 20 ^th April 2023 to say that the amount had been received and that €3,322.78 of it covered the Academy's balance and €33,686.04 covered an outstanding balance of the defendant company. The email stated that “ Upon confirmation…that [Shamrock Rovers FC Limited's] balance of €33,686.04 will be paid…”the Academy balance of €3,322.78 would be cleared and a refund of €34,913.48 would be made. In an email of the 2 ^nd May 2023, the receiver stated “ We are still awaiting confirmation that the outstanding balance of €26,868.43 under the Shamrock Rovers Concession Store account will be paid. Once this is confirmed we will be able to remit the monies back to you.” These emails led to the letter of the 19 ^th May 2023 in which it was stated inter alia:

“As is clear and you know, the sum of €38,236.26 was transferred to the wrong account in error and was intended to be transferred to the bank account of Elverys Sports Umbro Division to discharge certain invoices and sums owed by our client to Elverys Sports Umbro Division. The amounts which you state relate to the concession store, are a matter solely for Shamrock Rovers F.C. Limited, which is a separate company and distinct legal entity from our client.

It is asserted in your email that a refund of €34,913.48 will be processed only when the balance of €33,686.04 relating to the concession store fees is cleared. It is clear from this acknowledgement that you are aware that the concession store account is a matter relating to Shamrock Rovers F.C. Limited and not our client.

It is clear that the amount of €34,913.48 is being unlawfully withheld in your client bank account in the knowledge that our client is, indeed, entitled to the refund of said sum. You have no legal basis to withhold a sum that you know belongs to our client.”

10 . The case that is pleaded in the Defence is that it was expressly represented to the Academy that the amount of €34,913.48 would be used to offset any debts due and owing by the defendant to the plaintiff. This is also deposed to by Mr. Nolan. It is pleaded that the Academy and the defendant had relied on that representation. Mr. Nolan stated that the Academy had not pursued the return of the monies on foot of that representation.

11 . There is no dispute that this payment was made. Nor is there any...