Delany v SAS Soci�te D'Exploitation Et De D�tention H�teli�re Vista and Ors, Delany v Maybourne Hotels Ltd and Ors (Approved), High Court of Ireland, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

Delany v SAS Soci�te D'Exploitation Et De D�tention H�teli�re Vista and Ors, Delany v. Maybourne Hotels Ltd and Ors (Approved)

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff is an Irish businessman with long-standing business links to a Third Party and to an Irish project management company. Two sets of proceedings were issued: the "SEDH proceedings" (Record 2022/2005P) against Company A, a Company representative and two individuals; and the "Maybourne proceedings" (Record 2022/2500P) against Company B, an individual executive and two named individual defendants. The Statements of Claim in each case assert defamation and conspiracy arising from letters sent in April 2022 which withdrew the Plaintiff's access to hotel/sites in The State. The SEDH letter was signed by an individual described as Company A's legal representative; a set of four similar letters was sent by Company B and signed by its executive. The SEDH proceedings were issued on 24 May 2022 and the Maybourne proceedings on 23 June 2022. Conditional appearances were entered and the defendants in each set issued jurisdictional motions. The Plaintiff also sought an amendment to the Brussels Recast indorsement in the SEDH proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the courts of Ireland have jurisdiction under Order 11 RSC (service out) and/or under Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 ("Brussels Recast") to hear the Plaintiff's claims of defamation and conspiracy.
Whether the Plaintiff established a "good arguable case" that the torts occurred within Ireland (Order 11 Rule 1(f) / Article 7(2) Brussels Recast) and satisfied the affidavit/leave requirements (Order 11 Rules 2, 5 and 6).
Whether, even if a jurisdictional gateway is met, the Court should exercise its discretion to permit service out (forum conveniens) or whether the proceedings should be stayed on forum non conveniens grounds.
Whether procedural defects (incorrect Brussels Recast indorsement; timing/address/service deficiencies; service of Plenary Summons rather than Notice) are fatal to the proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

The letters were defamatory and caused injury to the Plaintiff's reputation, which is centred in Ireland.
Jurisdiction lies in Ireland under Article 7(2) Brussels Recast (place where the harmful event occurred) or under Order 11 Rule 1(f) (tort committed within the jurisdiction) because publication or foreseeable republication occurred in Ireland.
The indorsement on the Plenary Summons should be amended to rely on Article 7 (or Article 7(2)).
The Court should assume jurisdiction and permit service out because Ireland is the appropriate forum and justice requires the claims be heard here (including that related English proceedings may dispose of the Plaintiff's claims differently).

Defendants' Arguments

The courts of Ireland lack jurisdiction: the harmful event did not occur in Ireland; the proper fora are France (for Company A and its representative) and England & Wales (for Company B and its executives).
The Plaintiff failed to satisfy Order 11 requirements (insufficient affidavit particulars, failure to address comparative cost/convenience, and leave to serve not obtained prior to issuing against certain defendants).
The tort of conspiracy was not committed in Ireland (control/agreement and direct harmful event occurred outside Ireland); defamation law of England may apply and may preclude liability.
Procedural defects (incorrect indorsement under Brussels Recast, incorrect or inconsistent addresses, service of Plenary Summons rather than Notice) justify setting aside service or staying/dismissing proceedings.
Even if jurisdictional gateway met, the Court should decline jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds (Ireland is not the appropriate forum).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Case A v B [2016] 2 IR 254	Default rule: defendant should be sued where domiciled; foreseeability and orderly administration of international justice.	Used to restate that a defendant should normally be sued at domicile and that exceptions require justification.
Trafalgar Developments Ltd & Ors v Mazepin & ors [2025] IECA 280	Clarification of Order 11: two-step inquiry (gateway and discretion) and standards to apply.	Applied to frame the Order 11 analysis and burden/standard distinctions.
Analog Devices BV v Zurich Insurance Company [2022] 1 IR 272	Good arguable case standard for jurisdictional gateway; care and circumspection for service out.	Adopted as stating the standard for establishing jurisdictional gateways.
Albaniabeg Ambient Sh.p.k v Enel S.p.A [2018] IECA 46	Burden on party who obtained ex parte Order 11 leave to demonstrate it was properly granted.	Reaffirmed that plaintiff carries burden on an application to set aside leave.
IBRC v Quinn [2016] 3 IR 197	Discussion of threshold test for Order 11 (reasonably capable of being proven / low bar) and locus of control in conspiracy.	Considered in reconciling standards; used on points about evidence weight and conspiracy control elements.
Trafalgar Developments Limited & Ors v Mazepin & Ors [2022] IEHC 167	Earlier High Court treatment of Order 11 principles referenced in appellate consideration.	Referenced in discussion of Order 11 jurisprudence.
Actial Farmaceutica LDA v De Simone [2016] 2 CLC 1020	Place of the "harmful event" for conspiracy/damage—direct/indirect damage analysis.	Relied on by defendants to argue that consequential damage in Ireland was not the jurisdictionally significant harm.
Grehan v Medical Incorporated [1986] IR 528	Test: if any significant element of tort occurred in jurisdiction, threshold met for Order 11(1)(f).	Applied to conclude there was a good arguable case that significant elements of conspiracy occurred in Ireland.
Salomon v Salomon (leading company law authority)	Separate legal personality of companies and limits on imputing company acts to members.	Relied on by defendants to challenge attempts to attribute company acts to individual owners for conspiracy.
Allied Irish Coal Supplies Ltd v Powel Duffryn Intl Fuels Ltd [1998] 2 IR 519	Separate legal personality and single economic entity concepts.	Considered but held not directly on point for plaintiff's theory of agency/control.
McAteer v Fried [2019] IECA 216	Principle that a company is not automatically agent of its members.	Noted as limited assistance to defendants; court required more to establish agency/conspiracy.
Camiveo Limited v Dunnes Stores [2017] IEHC 147	Emphasis on intention in conspiracy tort.	Used to underscore need for evidence of intention/control for conspiracy claim.
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Consulex Limited [1987] AC 460	Spiliada forum non conveniens test and determining natural forum.	Applied to the forum non conveniens analysis for both sets of proceedings.
Johnson v Taylor Bros & Co Ltd [1920] A.C. 144	Substance of the breach test for leave to serve out.	Referenced in consideration of "substance of the breach" connecting to England/France.
Kroch v Rossell [1937] 1 All ER 725	Permissibility to refuse leave where case, though within rule letter, is not in substance within it.	Noted as illustrative of substance-of-breach approach.
Intermetal Group v Worslade Trading Ltd [1998] 2 IR 1	Forum conveniens principles (broad overall view).	Referenced in the Spiliada/Order 11 analysis.
Vodafone GmbH v IV International Licensing and Intellectual Ventures II LLC [2016] IEHC 321	Evidence on comparative cost/convenience may or may not be possible on affidavit.	Used to explain realistic expectations on affidavit evidence about comparative cost.
McCarthy v Pillay [2003] IESC 21	Comparative convenience and prejudice analysis in jurisdiction disputes.	Referred to on approach to comparative cost and convenience.
Short v Ireland [1996] 2 IR 188	Procedural defects and court discretion to set aside service.	Applied to exercise discretion and not set aside service where defendant effectively on notice.
Philip Smyth v SAS Sogimalp Tarentaise [2019] IEHC 568	Effective notice and lack of prejudice as reasons not to set aside defective service.	Relied upon to refuse to set aside service where defendant was effectively on notice.
O'Connor v Commercial General and Marine Limited [1996] 2 ILRM 291	Requirement to serve Notice (not summons) on foreign non-nationals; Cookney v Anderson principle.	Referred to by defendants but court found factual dispute did not require setting aside service.
Color Drack GmbH v Lexx International Vertriebs GmbH (Case C-386/05) EU:C:2007:262	Rationale of Brussels Recast: foreseeability and legal certainty in jurisdiction.	Used to explain Brussels Recast aims and restrictive interpretation of special rules.
Websense International Technology Limited v ITWAY SpA [2014] 2 IR 485	Brussels Recast / jurisdictional principles in online/publication contexts.	Referenced among authorities on Brussels Recast interpretation.
Crotty v SAS AB and Swedania AB [2021] IEHC 394	Special jurisdiction rules under Brussels Recast are derogations and must be interpreted restrictively; burden on plaintiff to establish exception.	Applied to require plaintiff to establish Article 7(2) exception unequivocally.
Kronhofer v Maier (Case C-168/02)	Meaning of "place where harmful event occurred" under Article 7(2).	Referred to in analysis of locus for Brussels Recast claims.
Réunion Europénne v Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV (Case C-51/97)	Special jurisdiction rules interpreted exhaustively; limits on plaintiff choice.	Relied on to constrain expansive readings of Article 7(2).
Bier v Mines de potasse d'Alsace SA (C-21/76)	Place where harmful event occurred may be place of causal event or place where damage manifested.	Used to explain that plaintiff may, in some cases, sue where damage manifested.
Marinari v Lloyd's Bank (Case C-364/93)	Limits on treating any place of consequential harm as "place of harmful event".	Applied to reject over-broad claims that ongoing consequences create jurisdiction.
Joe Moroney Coach Hire Limited (authority cited)	Application of Article 7(2) and domestic tort completion/damage principles.	Used to articulate principles for when harmful event is regarded as occurring in a forum.
Shevill v Presse Alliance SA (Case C-68/93)	Defamation: plaintiff may sue in publisher's domicile for all harm or in each state where publication distributed for harm in that state.	Applied to explain defamation jurisdiction principles under EU law.
Ewins v Carlton [1997] 2 ILRM 223	Liability for republication where republication was natural and probable result of original publication.	Discussed as authority on republication liability but distinguished from proving republication occurred.
Hunter v Gerald Duckworth & Co [2000] 1 IR 510	Republication and publisher liability where republication in jurisdiction was natural and probable consequence.	Considered and distinguished on facts; used to show that publication in jurisdiction was a factual requirement.
Coleman v MGN [2012] IESC 20	Absence of evidence of access/downloads in jurisdiction is fatal to Article 5(3) claims.	Applied to require proof of publication in Ireland for defamation jurisdiction.
Grovit v Jan Jansen [2020] IEHC 501	Shevill requires physical distribution/publication in the forum and injury to reputation in that forum.	Quoted for the proposition that jurisdiction depends on distribution and claimed injury within forum.
eDate Advertising GmbH v X (Joined Cases C-509/09 & C-161/10) [2011] E.C.R. I-10269	Internet publication ubiquity reduces usefulness of distribution criterion; difficulty quantifying national distribution.	Referred to in discussion of online/publication jurisdictional difficulties.
Speight v Gosnay (1891) 60 L.J. Q.B. 231	Original publisher liable for natural and probable republications.	Cited in analysis of republication liability precedents.
Other domestic authorities and texts (e.g. McMahon & Binchy, The Law of Torts; various Irish High Court and Court of Appeal authorities)	Support on specific points (conspiracy, jurisdictional thresholds, discretionary considerations).	Used across the judgment to support principles summarised above.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court set out the applicable framework: Order 11 requires (i) that the claim falls within a jurisdictional gateway (e.g. Rule 1(f): tort committed within the jurisdiction) proven to the "good arguable case" standard, and (ii) that the Court nonetheless exercise its discretion to permit service out (forum conveniens), having regard to Order 11 Rules 2 and 5. Brussels Recast Article 4(1) is the default; Article 7(2) is a narrow exception for torts where the harmful event occurred in the forum.

Applying those principles to the Maybourne proceedings, the Court accepted the agreed facts that a letter was read in Ireland by an intermediary (Ms Ryan) and concluded there was a good arguable case that the tort of defamation was committed in Ireland (jurisdictional gateway satisfied for defamation). The conspiracy claim, though linked to the defamation, lacked sufficient pleadings/evidence on agency/control to establish a good arguable case of conspiracy in its own right. On the discretionary exercise (Order 11 Rules 2 and 5 / forum conveniens), the Court took a broad overall view: the centre of gravity of the dispute (hotels, most conduct, defendants' connections) pointed to England & Wales; the Plaintiff had not meaningfully addressed comparative cost and convenience; assertions of foreseeable republication lacked evidential support. On balance the Court was not satisfied that Ireland was the appropriate forum and concluded the discretion should not be exercised in favour of service out.

Applying Brussels Recast to the SEDH proceedings, the Court noted that the first and second defendants are domiciled in France and the Plaintiff relied on Article 7(2). The Plaintiff failed to establish to the requisite standard that the "harmful event" occurred in Ireland (no evidence of publication or republication in Ireland in the SEDH case). Accordingly, the Court concluded those defendants must be sued in their Member State of domicile (France).

As to the SEDH third defendant, Order 11 Rule 6 requires leave to serve out to be sought before issuing the summons. The Plaintiff sought leave only after issuance and gave inconsistent addresses across proceedings. The Court found no satisfactory explanation for non-compliance and declined to exercise discretion to excuse it. On forum non conveniens analysis the Court concluded France was the clearly and distinctly more appropriate forum for the claim against the third defendant. The Court therefore stayed/declined to assume jurisdiction against that defendant.

Procedural complaints (incorrect indorsement under Brussels Recast; service form) were considered but the Court did not need to rely on them to reach its substantive conclusions; where considered, the Court exercised its discretion not to set aside service where defendants were effectively on notice.

Holding and Implications

Core Rulings:

SEDH proceedings (first and second defendants): The Court was not satisfied that the Plaintiff established jurisdiction under Article 7(2) Brussels Recast (the harmful event was not shown to have occurred in Ireland). Those defendants are entitled to be sued in their Member State of domicile (France).
SEDH proceedings (third defendant): The Plaintiff failed to obtain leave prior to issuing as required by Order 11 Rule 6 and no basis to excuse that non-compliance was shown; additionally, France is forum non conveniens. The proceedings as against the third defendant are stayed/declined in Ireland.
Maybourne proceedings: The Plaintiff established a good arguable case that a defamation tort was committed in Ireland (publication to a person in Ireland), so a jurisdictional gateway existed; however the Plaintiff did not establish that Ireland is the appropriate forum under Order 11 Rules 2 and 5. The Court therefore declined to exercise its discretion to permit service out (forum conveniens not established).

Implications:

Direct consequence: the Court will not permit the Plaintiff to continue the SEDH claims against the first and second defendants in Ireland and will stay/decline jurisdiction in respect of the third defendant; the Maybourne action will not proceed in Ireland by way of service out under Order 11. The Plaintiff may pursue claims in the jurisdictions identified as appropriate by the Court.
No novel precedent was established: the decision applies established Order 11 and Brussels Recast principles (good arguable case threshold; restrictive interpretation of Article 7; forum conveniens/forum non conveniens balancing) to the facts.