Von Geitz v De Rothschild (Suisse) S.A. (Approved) [2023] IEHC 224 (24 April 2023)

Von Geitz v De Rothschild (Suisse) S.A. (Approved) [2023] IEHC 224 (24 April 2023)

The Plaintiff's claims, though framed in tort, are in substance matters relating to a contract under Article 5(1) of the Lugano Convention, as they arise from and require proof of the Waldeck agency agreement, which contains an exclusive Swiss jurisdiction clause. The Irish courts therefore lack jurisdiction. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] IEHC 224
Parties
Plaintiff: Juerg von Geitz; First Defendant: Edmond de Rothschild (Suisse) S.A.; Second Defendant: Martin Pearmund; Third Defendant: Ariane de Rothschild
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
24 April 2023
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Proceedings / Ruling on Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, to Set Aside Service, and to Amend Plenary Summons
Outcome
Proceedings struck out for lack of jurisdiction; amendment of plenary summons permitted; service upheld.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Lugano Convention, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Protected Disclosures Act 2014, Service of Process, Amendment of Pleadings
Private International Law Contract Law Tort Law Employment Law Jurisdiction Under Lugano Convention Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Protected Disclosures Act 2014 Service of Process +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Juerg von Geitz

Plaintiff

Edmond de Rothschild (Suisse) S.A.

First Defendant

Martin Pearmund

Second Defendant

Ariane de Rothschild

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Proceedings / Ruling on Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, to Set Aside Service, and to Amend Plenary Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Irish courts have jurisdiction under the Lugano Convention over claims arising from the termination of the Waldeck agency agreement
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff's claims are matters relating to a contract (Article 5(1)) or tort (Article 5(3)) under the Lugano Convention
  3. 3 Whether the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Waldeck agreement applies to the Plaintiff's claims

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff's claims, though framed in tort, are in substance matters relating to a contract under Article 5(1) of the Lugano Convention, as they arise from and require proof of the Waldeck agency agreement, which contains an exclusive Swiss jurisdiction clause. The Irish courts therefore lack jurisdiction. The harmful event did not occur in Ireland but in Gibraltar or Switzerland. Service was validly accepted by the Defendants' solicitors. Amendment of the plenary summons is permitted.

Court Disposition

Proceedings struck out for lack of jurisdiction; amendment of plenary summons permitted; service upheld.

Orders

  • Plaintiff validly served proceedings on Defendants
  • Plaintiff granted liberty to amend plenary summons