Taher Meats (Ireland) Ltd v State Company for Foodstuff Trading

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1991
• Docket Number: [1989 No. 7549P]
• Date: 01 January 1991

Taher Meats (Ireland) Ltd. v. State Company for Foodstuff Trading

Taher Meats (Ireland) Ltd.

Plaintiff

and

State Company for

Foodstuff Trading and Rafidain Bank

Defendants

[1989 No. 7549P]

High Court

Practice and procedure - Jurisdiction of Irish courts - Service out of the jurisdiction - Breach of main contract occurring within the jurisdiction - Ancilliary contract neither made nor breached within the jurisdiction - Whether Irish courts had jurisdiction over ancillary contract - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 (S.I. No. 15), O. 11, r. 1 (e) and (g) and O. 12, r. 26.

Order 12, r. 26 of the Rules of the Superior Courts allows a defendant upon whom proceedings or notice of proceedings have been served to apply, before entering an appearance, to set aside the service of such proceedings or to discharge the order authorising such service.

The plaintiff entered into a contract ("the main contract") to supply meat to the first defendant in Iraq. The second defendant entered into a guarantee bond ("the ancillary contract") to pay a sum of money to the first defendant in the event of the plaintiff's default on foot of the main contract. The second defendant arranged a counter indemnity with the Ulster Bank. Both contracts were made in Iraq and both defendants were situated in Iraq.

On foot of an order of the High Court granting the plaintiff leave to serve notice of proceedings on both defendants out of the jurisdiction, the plaintiff issued proceedings seeking declarations that the main contract was unenforceable due to the failure to fulfill certain conditions under the contract. The plaintiff obtained an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from demanding payment from the Ulster Bank on foot of the counter-indemnity pending the trial of the action.

The second defendant having entered an appearance sought to set aside the order authorising service out of the jurisdiction on it of notice of the proceedings on the grounds that the Irish courts did not have jurisdiction over the ancillary contract. The second defendant argued that the ancillary contract had not been made nor had any breach of it been committed within the jurisdiction of the Irish courts.

Held by Costello J., in refusing the second defendant's application, 1, that the court had an inherent jurisdiction, not provided for in the Rules of the Superior Courts, to rectify any error and, therefore, could discharge the appearance entered in error on behalf of the second defendant and could determine the second defendant's application under O. 12, rule 26.

2. That under O. 11, r. 1 (e) of the Rules of the Superior Courts the Irish courts had jurisdiction over any action in respect of a breach of contract committed within the jurisdiction regardless of where the contract was made. Accordingly, as one of the conditions of the main contract had been allegedly breached within the jurisdiction, the Irish courts had jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim...