Michael Scully vs Coucal Ltd.

This case involved an appeal by Michael Scully against a High Court decision that refused to recognize a Polish judgment, with the Court of Appeal ruling in favor of Scully on the grounds of assignment issues and addressing the allocation of costs.

TLDR:

• Michael Scully appealed against the High Court's refusal to recognize a Polish judgment.
• The appeal was upheld on the grounds of assignment issues.
• The Court of Appeal awarded Scully his full costs for both the appeal and the High Court proceedings.
• Coucal Ltd. sought a stay pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Michael Scully appealed against a High Court decision that refused to recognize a judgment handed down in Poland. Scully raised two points under the public policy ground provided for in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial matters (recast), known as Brussels I (Recast). The first point was that the Polish court was improperly constituted, violating the principle of judicial independence. The second point concerned the transfer of individual causes of action to Coucal Ltd., which Scully argued was impermissible under Irish law due to the prohibition on maintenance and champerty.

The Court of Appeal upheld Scully's appeal on the second ground, finding that the transfer of causes of action to Coucal Ltd. was indeed impermissible. Consequently, the court did not address the first ground regarding the constitution of the Polish court. The judgment was delivered electronically, and the court indicated that Scully was entitled to the costs of the appeal.

Coucal Ltd. accepted that Scully was entitled to his costs for the appeal on a party-and-party basis, to be adjudicated in default of agreement. However, Coucal argued that different considerations should apply to the High Court proceedings, suggesting that Scully should not be awarded full costs due to the extensive argument on the rule of law issue, which they deemed unnecessary.

The Court of Appeal considered the arguments and noted that although Scully had raised the rule of law issue, it was not unreasonable given the context of the case. The court emphasized that the focus should be on the 'big picture' rather than a detailed examination of every issue raised. Ultimately, the court found that Scully was entitled to his full costs for the High Court proceedings as well.

Additionally, Coucal sought a stay pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which Scully did not object to. The Court of Appeal granted the stay, subject to specific conditions.

Scully also submitted that the proceedings involved highly unusual circumstances and suggested that a Moorview costs order against the individual assignors might be appropriate. The court decided to make the costs order as suggested without prejudice to any future application Scully might make regarding the individual assignors.

The Court of Appeal made the following orders: a costs order in favor of Scully against Coucal Ltd. for the costs of the appeal and the High Court proceedings, to be adjudicated in default of agreement, and a stay on the costs order pending the Supreme Court's determination on the application for leave to appeal.

Legal representatives: Mr. A Baker for the appellant, Ms. C Adams (instructed by Adams & Co.) for the respondent.

Judicial Panel: Donnelly J., N� Raifeartaigh J., Binchy J.

Case Citation Reference: [2024] IECA 146