QPQ Ltd v Schute [Otherwise Known as Geert Schute]

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Twomey
• Judgment Date: 14 July 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IEHC 463
• Docket Number: RECORD NUMBER 2024/1209 P

Between

QPQ Limited

Plaintiff

and

Gerardus Henricus Michel Maria Schute (Otherwise known as Geert Schute)

Defendant

[2026] IEHC 463

RECORD NUMBER 2024/1209 P

COMMERCIAL COURT

THE HIGH COURT

Litigation funding – Disclosure – Jurisdiction – Defendant seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to disclose its litigation funding arrangements – Whether the court has the inherent jurisdiction to require the disclosure of litigation funding arrangements

Facts: The plaintiff, QPQ Ltd (QPQ), claimed that the defendant, Mr Schute, breached a Shareholders’ Agreement dated 12 February 2021. QPQ claimed that this agreement was breached by Mr Schute’s copying of QPQ’s blockchain technology solution, known as 1DLT. QPQ also alleged that Mr Schute used 1DLT to develop a rival product called “Wowen” through a Swiss company called RunTime Machines AG (RunTime) and that Mr Schute caused employees of QPQ to join RunTime. QPQ also claimed that Mr Schute misrepresented that he would provide further funding to QPQ up to the launch of 1DLT. It was alleged that those actions impeded the development and prevented the commercialisation of 1DLT. QPQ sought a variety of reliefs against Mr Schute personally, including a declaration of sole ownership and entitlement to use 1DLT, and damages for intentional interference, conversion, misrepresentation, and disgorgement of profits. Mr Schute delivered his defence on 21 June 2024 in which he denied all of QPQ’s allegations and he claimed that even if the claims were established, there was no recoverable loss, as Wowen failed, and RunTime entered liquidation on 25 August 2023. Mr Schute alleged that QPQ had engaged in illegal third-party litigation funding to fund its proceedings against the defendant. For that reason, Mr Schute wanted the High Court to order QPQ to disclose its litigation funding arrangements. In reply, QPQ claimed that the High Court does not have a general power to order QPQ to disclose its litigation funding arrangements (despite the fact that such an order was made in Persona Digital Telephony Ltd and another v The Minister for Public Enterprise Ireland and others [2017] IESC 27).

Held by Twomey J that a court does in fact have a general power to order a plaintiff to disclose its litigation funding arrangements; that conclusion was based on the fact that Kirwan v Connors [2025] IESC 21 establishes that a court has an inherent jurisdiction to make any order which is designed to ensure that the administration of justice operates in an efficient and effective manner. Twomey J held that since third party litigation funding is likely to have a negative effect on court lists and so is likely to make them less efficient and less effective for litigants, it must follow that a court has the power to require a plaintiff to disclose alleged unlawful third-party funding. Having determined that the High Court has the inherent jurisdiction to require the disclosure of litigation funding arrangements, the key question was whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the making of an order against QPQ, obliging it to disclose its litigation funding arrangements in this case. Twomey J held that certain forms of third-party funding of litigation, namely those amounting to maintenance or champerty, constitute a tort or crime; accordingly, there is a public interest in the exposure of such funding, if it exists.

Twomey J granted an order requiring QPQ to disclose to Mr Schute, and the Court, details of any persons who had provided funding for this litigation and details of that funding.

Order granted.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Twomey delivered on the 14 ^th day of July, 2026

INTRODUCTION

1 In Ireland, we have approximately five times more High Court judges per capita, than in England and Wales. 1 We also have more lawyers, relative to our population, than most European countries. 2 This would tend to suggest that there is no shortage of lawyers or litigation in Ireland (some of it, very minor in nature 3). Indeed, the volume of litigation in Ireland is such that the delays, in cases being processed in Ireland, are above the European average. 4

2 For this reason, there would not seem to be a pressing need for the removal of the current prohibition on third-party funding of litigation in Ireland. Indeed, it seems likely that if third-party funding of litigation (known as maintenance and champerty) were to be permitted here, then this ‘unjustifiable stirring up of litigation’ 5 will only exacerbate delays for other litigants.

3 This is clear from the Supreme Court decision in Persona Digital Telephony Ltd and another v The Minister for Public Enterprise Ireland and others [2022] 2 I.R. 417, [2017] IESC 27. There, the Supreme Court noted that maintenance and champerty were contrary to criminal law as ‘ offences which evidence a public policy,’ 6 and that one of those public policy reasons was the negative effect that third-party litigation funding would have on other litigants (who did not have third party litigation funding). In the words of MacMenamin J., an ‘unforeseen consequence’ of third-party litigation funding was ‘the effect of creating difficulties in already busy court lists’. 7

4 This public policy reason for the prohibition of third-party funding of litigation arose in this case, because it is alleged that the plaintiff (“ QPQ”) has engaged in illegal third-party litigation funding (or so-called ‘ trafficking in litigation’ 8) to fund its proceedings against the defendant (“ Mr Schute”). For this reason, Mr. Schute wants this Court to order QPQ to disclose its litigation funding arrangements. In reply, QPQ claims that the High Court does not have a general power to order QPQ to disclose its litigation funding arrangements (despite the fact that such an order was made in the Persona case).

5 However, this Court concludes that a court does in fact have a general power to order a plaintiff to disclose its litigation funding arrangements. This conclusion is based on the fact that Kirwan v Connors [2025] IESC 21 establishes that a court has an inherent jurisdiction to make any order which is designed to ensure that the administration of justice operates in an efficient and effective manner. Since third party litigation funding is likely to have a negative effect on court lists and so is likely to make them less efficient and less effective for litigants, it must follow, in this Court's view, that a court has the power to require a plaintiff to disclose alleged unlawful third-party funding.

6 Having determined that the High Court has the inherent jurisdiction to require the disclosure of litigation funding arrangements, the key question is whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the making of an order against QPQ, obliging it to disclose its litigation funding arrangements in this case.

BACKGROUND

7 Certain forms of third-party funding of litigation (known as maintenance and champerty) are torts and crimes in Ireland. 9 In this regard, maintenance has been described as the ‘giving of assistance, by a third-party, who has no interest in the litigation’, while in champerty, the third party who is funding the litigation also receives a share of the profits. Ryan P. stated that, ‘ champerty is a variety of maintenance, in fact a more severe or heinous version’. 10

8 In this case, Mr. Schute is claiming that QPQ, an Irish incorporated company, is guilty of the more ‘ heinous version’ of obtaining third-party funding of its litigation, since he is

alleging that QPQ is guilty of champerty, as he claims it has obtained funding from a third-party, in return for a share in the proceeds of the litigation.

9 In his pre-trial application, brought by way of Notice of Motion by Mr. Schute dated 3 February 2026. It was followed by an exchange of affidavits, with replying legal submissions filed by QPQ on 27 April 2026. The application was heard on 19 May 2026. 11 The disclosure which is being sought

10 In this application, Mr. Schute is seeking an order requiring QPQ to disclose details of the funders and the funding of its litigation against Mr. Schute. The primary relief being sought (at para. 3 of the Notice of Motion) is a disclosure of the:

‘ name and address of each person or entity who has provided funding to [QPQ] in this litigation, together with the dates and extent of such funding in each case.’

11 In addition, at para. 4 of the Notice of Motion, Mr. Schute seeks certain corporate records and financial statements (from QPQ) relating to its parent company (QPQ AG, which is incorporated in Switzerland) as well as ‘a copy of any written agreement in place in relation to the funding of the proceedings herein’.

12 While the Notice of Motion also sought a declaration from the Court that the funding arrangements contravene the prohibition on champerty and maintenance, and a stay on the proceedings while any such arrangement remains in place, these reliefs are not being pursued by Mr. Schute.

The substantive dispute between the parties

13 The underlying litigation between the parties (the “ Irish litigation”) commenced by plenary summons dated 6 March 2024. It involves a claim by QPQ that Mr. Schute breached a Shareholders' Agreement dated 12 February 2021. QPQ claims that this agreement was breached by Mr. Schute's copying of QPQ's blockchain technology solution, which is known as 1DLT. QPQ also alleges that Mr. Schute used 1DLT to develop a rival product called “Wowen” through a Swiss company called RunTime Machines AG (“ RunTime”) and that Mr. Schute caused employees of QPQ to join RunTime. QPQ also claims that Mr. Schute misrepresented that he would provide further funding to QPQ up to the launch of 1DLT. It is alleged that these actions impeded the development and prevented the commercialisation of 1DLT.

14 QPQ seeks a variety of reliefs against Mr. Schute personally, including a declaration of sole...