Papamicolaou v Thielen

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1998
• Date: 01 January 1998
• Docket Number: [1996 No. 1035 P]
• Court: High Court

High Court

[1996 No. 1035 P]

Papamicolaou v. Thielen

John Paul Papamicolaou

Plaintiff

and

Pierre Thielen and Euro Mediterranean Estates SAH

Defendants

Case mentioned in this report:-

Grupo Torras v. Al-Sabah [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 7.

European Union - Jurisdiction of courts - Officer appointed to company by courts in Luxembourg - Whether Irish courts can determine issues relating to lawfulness of officer's administration - Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments (European Communities) Act, 1988 (No.3) - Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, 1968, art. 16.

Motion on notice.

The facts have been summarised in the headnote and are fully set out in the judgment of Keane J., infra.

By plenary summons dated the 6th February, 1996, and filed on the 7th February, 1996, the plaintiff sought, inter alia, to permanently restrain the defendants from convening a general meeting with a view to removing the plaintiff as the director of the Irish companies and certain declaratory reliefs on foot thereof.

By notice of motion dated the 6th February, 1996, and filed on the 7th February, 1996, the plaintiff sought similar interlocutory relief. The motion was heard by the High Court (Keane J.) on the 29th February and the 1st March, 1996.

Article 16 of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, 1968 (as implemented in Ireland by the Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments (European Communities) Act, 1988, and hereinafter referred to as "the Convention") establishes the circumstances in which domestic courts throughout the European Union retain exclusive jurisdiction in relation to legal matters with a European dimension occurring within their territories. Sub-section (2) provides that in circumstances in which proceedings "have as their object the validity of the constitution, nullity or the dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or the decisions of their organs, the courts of the contracting state in which the company, legal person or associations has its seat", have sole competence to deal with such matters.

The plaintiff was the director of a group of Irish companies 95% of whose shareholding was owned by the second defendant which was registered in Luxembourg.

The first defendant was appointed provisional administrator of the second defendant by the courts in Luxembourg. In pursuance of his duties, the first defendant purported to convene a meeting of the Irish companies for the purpose of removing the plaintiff. The plaintiff applied for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from calling any such meeting.

In the course of the application, counsel on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that, having regard to the provisions of the Convention and the fact that the instant case related to the affairs of Irish companies, then Ireland was the correct jurisdiction in which to bring such an application.

It was submitted on behalf of the defendants that because the dispute related to the lawfulness or otherwise of the decisions of the first defendant, who was an appointee of the...