Trafalgar Developments Ltd and Others v Mazepin and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Collins J.,Binchy J.,Butler J.
• Judgment Date: 19 December 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IECA 280
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Docket Number: Appeal Number: 2022/139

Trafalgar Developments Limited, Instantania Holdings Limited, Kamara Limited and Bairiki Incorporated

Plaintiffs/Respondents

and

Dmitry Mazepin, OJSC United Chemical Company Uralchem, Uralchem Holding Plc, Eurotoaz Limited, Andrey Gennadyevich Babichev, Yulia Bolotnikova, Belport Investments Limited, Milko Emilov Minkovski, Androula Charilaou, Dmitry Konyaev and Yevgeniy Yakovlevich Sedykin and by Order JSC Khimaktivinvest and Aktum Limited Liability Company

Defendants/Appellants

[2025] IECA 280

Collins J.

Binchy J.

Butler J.

Appeal Number: 2022/139

THE COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL

Possession order – Guarantee – Undue influence – Defendants appealing from the dismissal of their application challenging the jurisdiction of the Irish courts to hear and determine the plaintiffs’ action against them – Whether the plaintiffs’ claims came within the scope of Order 11, Rule 1(h) of the Rules of the Superior Courts

Facts: The first, second, sixth and tenth defendants (the Russian UCCU Defendants) and the third defendant (Holding) appealed to the Court of Appeal from the judgment of the High Court (2022] IEHC 167) and consequent order by which Barniville J dismissed their application challenging the jurisdiction of the Irish courts to hear and determine the action of the plaintiffs, Trafalgar Developments Ltd, Instantania Holdings Ltd, Kamara Ltd and Bairiki Incorporated, against them. The Russian UCCU Defendants contended that the plaintiffs’ claims did not properly come within the scope of Order 11, Rule 1(h) of the Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) and that the case was not a proper one for service out of the jurisdiction, having regard to Order 11, Rules 2 and 5 RSC. Holding contended that Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (the Recast Brussels Regulation) did not apply and that therefore the Irish High Court did not have jurisdiction to determine the claim against it.

Held by the Court that it was clear on the material before it (which differed from the material before the High Court in significant respects) that Russia, rather than Ireland, was the natural forum for the trial of the plaintiffs’ claims against the UCCU Defendants and the factors relied on by the plaintiffs to contend that Ireland was nonetheless the appropriate forum fell far short of demonstrating that the Irish courts should hear and adjudicate on claims which did not, as to their substance, have even the most tenuous connection with Ireland's jurisdiction. As regards the claim against Holding, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs - on whom the burden lay - had failed to establish any risk of irreconcilable judgments, as that term had been explained by the CJEU, in the event that the claims against the fourth defendant (Eurotoaz) and Holding were determined separately in Ireland and Cyprus respectively; it followed that those claims were not “closely connected” for the purposes of Article 8(1) and so that basis for asserting Irish jurisdiction over Holding was not made out. Furthermore, the Court considered that the “sole object” of the joinder of Eurotoaz as a defendant to the proceedings was to seek to establish a basis for suing Holding in Ireland and to oust the jurisdiction of the Cypriot courts. The Court would set aside service on Holding on that basis also.

The Court made an order setting aside service of the proceedings on the Russian UCCU Defendants and Holding.

Appeal allowed.

Final but unapproved

No redaction required

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered on 19 December 2025

INDEX

Page

Preliminary	4
Background and Procedural History	8
The Proceedings	8
The Case Made in the Statement of Claim	8
Application for Leave to Serve Out	12
Application to Set Aside	12
The Second Statement of Claim and the (draft) Third Statement of Claim	13
THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT	16
Jurisdiction Over the Russian UCCU Defendants under Order 11 RSC	16
The Burden of Proof on a Set Aside Application	16
The Threshold Test/Standard of Proof	17
“Necessary or Proper Party”	19
Good Arguable Case on the Merits (§§203–224)	20
Act of State/Related Doctrines	22
Order 11 Rules 2 & 5 RSC: Proper Forum	22
Jurisdiction in Respect of the Claim Against Holding – Article 8(1) of the Recast Brussels Regulation	25
Sole Object/Abuse of Rights	25
Burden of Proof	25
Standard of Proof	26
Application of those Principles	26
The Merits of the Plaintiffs' Claim Against Eurotoaz; Article 8(1)	26
APPEAL	27
MOTION TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE	28
The “New Evidence”	28
Assessment and Decision	31
THE ARGUMENTS ON THE APPEAL	34
Order 11 – Service out on the Russian UCCU Defendants	34
Submissions of the UCCU Defendants	34
Submissions of the Plaintiffs	38
Article 8(1) – Jurisdiction over Holding	42
Submissions of the UCCU Defendants	42
Submissions of the Plaintiffs	45
ASSESSMENT	46
The Standard of Review on this Appeal	46
Service out of the Jurisdiction under Order 11 RSC	48
The Provisions of Order 11 RSC	50
Irish Case Law	53
Case Law from England and Wales	66
Discussion of the Legal Principles	77
Order 11(1)(h) RSC	78
“Good Arguable Case” Test	78
“Mere Device”?	80
Action against Eurotoaz “Properly Brought? – Alternative Analysis	84
Necessary or Proper Parties	91
Discretion Under Order 11(2) & (5) – Is Ireland the Proper Forum?	95
Jurisdiction in respect of claim against Holding	113
Articles 4, 5 and 8 of the Recast Brussels Regulation	113
Article 8(1) – A Derogation to be Narrowly Construed	114
Establishing the Close Connection on the Balance of Probabilities	115
The Meaning of “irreconcilable judgments”	118
Summary of Applicable Principles	122
The High Court Judgment	122
Grounds of Appeal	124
The Burden and Standard of Proof	124
The Application of the Close Connection Test	125
The Claim against Holding	125
Close Connection?	127
The “Sole Object” Ground	128
CONCLUSION AND ORDERS	133

PRELIMINARY

1 This is the judgment of the Court, to which all members have contributed.

2 The judgment relates to the appeal of the First, Second, Third, Sixth and Tenth Defendants from the Judgment of the High Court (Barniville J, as the President of the High Court then was) (Judgment of 24 March 2022; [2022] IEHC 167) and consequent Order of 25 April 2022 by which he dismissed their application challenging the jurisdiction of the Irish courts to hear and determine the Plaintiffs' action against them.

3 In the judgment under appeal, the Judge referred to these Defendants as the “ UCCU Defendants”, referred to the First, Second, Sixth and Tenth Defendants as the “ Russian UCCU Defendants” and we shall follow this usage here. We shall refer to the Third Defendant as “ Holding”.

4 The Russian UCCU Defendants are all based in Russia and were served with these proceedings in Russia pursuant to an Order of the High Court (McDermott J) made on 7 November 2016 giving the Plaintiffs leave to serve out of the jurisdiction under Order 11, Rule 1(h) of the Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC). Order 11, Rule 1(h) provides that service out of the jurisdiction may be allowed by the High Court whenever “ any person out of the jurisdiction is a necessary or proper party to an action properly brought against some other person duly served within the jurisdiction” and the Order of 7 November 2016 was made on the basis that each of the Russian UCCU Defendants was “ a necessary or proper party” to the action brought by the Plaintiffs against the Fourth Defendant, Eurotoaz Limited (“ Eurotoaz”), an Irish-registered company. The Russian UCCU Defendants subsequently applied pursuant to Order 12, Rule 26 RSC to have the Order of 7 November 2016 discharged on the basis that the Plaintiffs' claims did not properly come within the scope of Order 11, Rule 1(h) and that, in any event, the case was not a proper one for service out of the jurisdiction, having regard to Order 11, Rules 2 and 5 RSC. 1 For the reasons set out in the judgment under appeal, that application was refused by the Judge and the Russian UCCU Defendants now appeal from that refusal.

5 The appeal raises a number of difficult issues regarding the interpretation and application of the Order 11, Rule 1(h) jurisdictional “ gateway” and its interaction with Rules 2 and 5. These issues are addressed in detail below. Ultimately, however, the fundamental issue presented by this aspect of the appeal is whether, on the material placed before the Court by the parties, it has been demonstrated that Ireland is the appropriate forum for the trial of the Plaintiffs' action against the UCCU Defendants, so that the Irish courts should accept and exercise jurisdiction over those Defendants, notwithstanding that none of them have any connection to Ireland. The appropriate resolution of that issue is, in this Court's view, very clear on the material before it (which differs from the material before the High Court in significant respects): Russia, rather than Ireland, is the natural forum for the trial of the Plaintiffs' claims against the UCCU Defendants and the factors relied on by the Plaintiffs to contend that Ireland is nonetheless the appropriate forum fall far short of demonstrating that the Irish courts should hear and adjudicate on claims which do not, as to their substance, have even the most tenuous connection with this jurisdiction.

6 Holding is a Cypriot company. It follows that the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear and...