Colclough v The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, High Court of Ireland, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Judges

Barrett J.

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

Colclough v. The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, a chartered certified accountant, challenged decisions made by a professional accounting body incorporated by Royal Charter and headquartered in London ("the Respondent"). The dispute arose following a professional standards monitoring visit and subsequent disciplinary and appeal proceedings conducted by the Respondent. The Applicant contended that the disciplinary processes and decisions infringed principles of constitutional justice and were ultra vires. Judicial review proceedings were initiated in the Irish High Court seeking various reliefs including quashing of disciplinary decisions, declarations of procedural unfairness, and injunctions restraining the Respondent from further action. The Respondent contested the jurisdiction of the Irish courts to hear the matter, asserting that exclusive jurisdiction lies with the courts of England and Wales based on contractual jurisdiction clauses and applicable EU regulations.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Respondent, incorporated and domiciled in England and Wales, is amenable to judicial review proceedings in Ireland.
Whether the Irish courts have jurisdiction to hear the Applicant's claims given the contractual jurisdiction clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of England and Wales.
The applicability of the Brussels Recast Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012) and the Rome I Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 593/2008) to the dispute.
Whether the contractual choice of law clause selecting the law of England and Wales governs the relationship and precludes Irish constitutional protections.
Whether any overriding mandatory provisions of Irish law, including constitutional rights, can displace the agreed choice of law and jurisdiction.
The procedural compliance with Irish Rules of the Superior Courts regarding service out of jurisdiction.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
McAteer v. Association of Chartered Certified Accountants [2012] NIQB 33	Jurisdiction of Northern Ireland courts under Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 in defamation claims related to disciplinary proceedings.	Referenced to illustrate prior jurisdictional considerations involving the Respondent and to highlight the Respondent's response by amending its Rulebook to clarify jurisdiction.
Abama and ors v. Gama Construction (Ireland) Ltd and anor [2015] IECA 179	Rule on procedural irregularities and court discretion to set aside or amend proceedings.	Referenced to reject the Applicant's attempt to cure non-compliance with service out of jurisdiction rules by procedural amendment.
Criminal Assets Bureau v. J.W.P.L. [2009] 4 IR 526	Interpretation of "civil and commercial matters" under Brussels Recast Regulation.	Used to analyze whether the proceedings fall within the scope of civil and commercial matters.
Ryanair Ltd v. Billigfluege De GmbH/Ticket Point Reiseburo GmbH [2015] IESC 11	General rule that defendants should be sued in their domicile under Brussels I Regulation.	Applied to confirm the Respondent's domicile in England and Wales and the primacy of that jurisdiction.
Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd v EMI International Electronics Limited [2010] IEHC 228	Strict construction and mandatory nature of jurisdiction agreements under Article 25 Brussels Recast Regulation.	Adopted to confirm the binding effect of the jurisdiction clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on England and Wales courts.
Powell Duffryn plc v. Petereit (Case C-214/89)	Jurisdiction clause in company statutes is an agreement evidenced in writing for Brussels Regulation purposes.	Supported the validity of the jurisdiction clause in the Respondent's Bye-Laws.
Republik Griechenland v. Nikofiridis (Case C-135/15)	Strict interpretation of overriding mandatory provisions under Rome I Regulation.	Used to reject the Applicant's argument that Irish constitutional rights override the chosen English law.
Donoghue v. Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64	English law principle on enforcing jurisdiction clauses and staying proceedings in non-contractual forums absent strong reasons.	Applied mutatis mutandis to support dismissal of the judicial review proceedings in Ireland.
Whitworth Street Estates (Manchester) Ltd v. James Miller and Partners Ltd [1970] AC 583	Parties are entitled to agree the proper law of their contract.	Supported the enforcement of the choice of English law in the Respondent's Bye-Laws.
Vita Food Products Inc v. Unus Shipping Co [1939] AC 277	Validity of bona fide choice of law by parties to a contract.	Supported the contractual choice of English law governing the relationship.
Buchanan v. McVey [1954] 1 I.R. 89	Irish courts will not enforce penal, revenue or public laws of another jurisdiction.	Referenced to explain the limits of Irish court jurisdiction over foreign public law matters.
Government of India v. Taylor [1955] A.C. 491	Assertion of sovereign authority by one state within another is contrary to independent sovereignties.	Supported the principle that Irish courts will not enforce foreign public law.
Larkins v. National Union of Mineworkers [1985] I.R. 671	Irish courts will not entertain proceedings enforcing public law of another state.	Reinforced limits on Irish jurisdiction over foreign public law actions.
Adams v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] 1 I.R. 47	Irish courts will not entertain reliefs against officers exercising public law powers of another state.	Further supported non-intervention in foreign public law enforcement.
Short v. Ireland (No. 2) [2006] 3 IR 297	Similar principle as Adams regarding foreign public law powers.	Confirmed the Irish court's stance on jurisdictional limits.
Nagle v. Feilden [1966] 2 Q.B. 633 and related UK cases	Supervisory jurisdiction of English courts over disciplinary proceedings of professional bodies.	Referenced to demonstrate that the Respondent is amenable to judicial review in England and Wales.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first examined the procedural compliance with Irish Rules of the Superior Courts regarding service out of jurisdiction and found that the Applicant failed to comply with the requirements of Order 11 and Order 11A. No leave was granted for service outside Ireland, and the originating summons lacked the necessary endorsements evidencing jurisdiction under EU regulations.

The court then analyzed whether the dispute fell within "civil and commercial matters" as defined by the Brussels Recast and Rome I Regulations. It concluded that the relationship between the parties is contractual and private in nature, with no exercise of public or statutory powers by the Respondent, thus falling within the scope of these Regulations.

Applying Article 4 and Article 25 of the Brussels Recast Regulation, the court found that the Respondent is domiciled in England and Wales and that the jurisdiction clause in the Respondent's Bye-Laws constitutes a valid and exclusive jurisdiction agreement conferring jurisdiction on the courts of England and Wales. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of this jurisdiction agreement and the absence of any competing jurisdiction suggested by the Applicant.

Regarding the choice of law, the court noted that the contractual relationship is governed by the law of England and Wales as per the Bye-Laws. The Applicant's argument that Irish constitutional protections should override this choice was rejected based on the strict interpretation of overriding mandatory provisions under Rome I and established jurisprudence that constitutional rights may be waived.

The court further reasoned that the Respondent is not amenable to judicial review in Ireland but is subject to such review in England and Wales. It would be contrary to principles of sovereignty and public policy for Irish courts to enforce foreign public law or intervene in the Respondent's disciplinary processes, which are governed by English law.

Lastly, the court considered common law principles enforcing jurisdiction clauses and found no strong reasons to depart from the contractual bargain. The Applicant's failure to establish any compelling justification for Irish jurisdiction led to the conclusion that the Irish courts lack jurisdiction to hear the proceedings.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision was to SET ASIDE SERVICE on the Respondent and DISMISS the judicial review proceedings initiated by the Applicant in Ireland.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Applicant must pursue any claims or challenges against the Respondent in the courts of England and Wales, as per the exclusive jurisdiction clause and applicable EU regulations. The ruling affirms the binding nature of contractual jurisdiction and choice of law clauses in international professional membership contexts and reiterates the limits of Irish court jurisdiction over foreign domiciled entities. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing jurisdictional and conflict of laws principles.