Scully v Coucal (Approved) [2025] IESC 51 (27 November 2025)

Scully v Coucal (Approved) [2025] IESC 51 (27 November 2025)

The secondment of a judge under Article 77 of the Polish Law on the Organisation of the Ordinary Courts does not, in itself, violate Article 19(1) TEU or the requirements of judicial independence in the context of a civil case. There was no evidence of prejudice, external control, or lack of impartiality affecting Mr. Scully. Therefore, the Polish judgment is entitled to recognition in Ireland and the public policy exception does not apply.

Citation
[2025] IESC 51
Parties
Respondent: Michael Scully; Appellant: Coucal Limited (No.2)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment Following Prior High Court and Court of Appeal Decisions
Outcome
Appeal allowed; recognition of Polish judgment granted
Legal Topics
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Judicial Independence, Public Policy Exception, Secondment of Judges, Mutual Trust in EU Law
Private International Law European Union Law Civil Procedure Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Judicial Independence Public Policy Exception Secondment of Judges Mutual Trust in EU Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Scully

Respondent

Coucal Limited (No.2)

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment Following Prior High Court and Court of Appeal Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the secondment of a judge under Article 77 of the Polish Law on the Organisation of the Ordinary Courts violates Article 19(1) TEU and thus precludes recognition of a Polish civil judgment in Ireland under Article 45(1)(a) of Brussels I (recast)
  2. 2 Whether the presence of a seconded judge on the Polish appellate panel constitutes a breach of judicial independence sufficient to trigger the public policy exception

Ratio Decidendi

The secondment of a judge under Article 77 of the Polish Law on the Organisation of the Ordinary Courts does not, in itself, violate Article 19(1) TEU or the requirements of judicial independence in the context of a civil case. There was no evidence of prejudice, external control, or lack of impartiality affecting Mr. Scully. Therefore, the Polish judgment is entitled to recognition in Ireland and the public policy exception does not apply.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; recognition of Polish judgment granted

Orders

  • The judgment of the Polish Court of Appeal is entitled to recognition in Ireland.
  • Objection based on public policy under Article 45(1)(a) Brussels I (recast) rejected.