Monetizead D.O.O. v Techads Media Ltd & Anor (Approved) [2024] IEHC 44 (01 February 2024)

Monetizead D.O.O. v Techads Media Ltd & Anor (Approved) [2024] IEHC 44 (01 February 2024)

The exclusive jurisdiction clause in the MAA between Monetizead and Techads in favour of the Italian courts is valid and binding under Article 25 of the Brussels Recast Regulation and was not amended by the IO agreement with SCL. All claims, including non-contractual ones, fall within the broad wording of the clause...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 44
Parties
Plaintiff: Monetizead D. O. O.; First Defendant: Techads Media Limited; Second Defendant: Scugnizziera Consulting Limited (SCL)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
01 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings / Jurisdictional Challenge/preliminary Determination
Outcome
The Irish High Court refuses jurisdiction over Techads Media Limited in favour of the Italian courts and strikes out the proceedings against Techads. The Court affirms jurisdiction over Scugnizziera Consulting Limited (SCL) and refuses to stay the proceedings against SCL.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Clauses, Brussels Recast Regulation, Exclusive Jurisdiction, Non EU Jurisdiction Clauses, Contract Amendment, Legal Certainty
Private International Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Clauses Brussels Recast Regulation Exclusive Jurisdiction Non EU Jurisdiction Clauses Contract Amendment +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Monetizead D. O. O.

Plaintiff

Techads Media Limited

First Defendant

Scugnizziera Consulting Limited (SCL)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings / Jurisdictional Challenge/preliminary Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of a non-EU state (Bosnia) displaces the mandatory jurisdiction of Irish courts under Article 4 of the Brussels Recast Regulation for an Irish-domiciled defendant (SCL)
  2. 2 Whether an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of an EU state (Italy) in a contract between Monetizead and Techads is displaced or amended by a subsequent agreement (IO) between Monetizead and SCL
  3. 3 Whether non-contractual claims (e.g. unjust enrichment) fall within the scope of a broad exclusive jurisdiction clause

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusive jurisdiction clause in the MAA between Monetizead and Techads in favour of the Italian courts is valid and binding under Article 25 of the Brussels Recast Regulation and was not amended by the IO agreement with SCL. All claims, including non-contractual ones, fall within the broad wording of the clause and must be litigated in Italy. The exclusive jurisdiction clause in the IO between Monetizead and SCL in favour of Bosnian courts does not displace the mandatory jurisdiction of the Irish courts under Article 4, as Article 25 only applies to EU Member States. Therefore, Irish courts retain jurisdiction over SCL. There is no basis for a stay of proceedings against SCL in...

Court Disposition

The Irish High Court refuses jurisdiction over Techads Media Limited in favour of the Italian courts and strikes out the proceedings against Techads. The Court affirms jurisdiction over Scugnizziera Consulting Limited (SCL) and refuses to stay the proceedings against SCL.

Orders

  • Proceedings against Techads Media Limited are struck out for want of jurisdiction; Monetizead must pursue its claims against Techads in Italy.
  • Proceedings against Scugnizziera Consulting Limited (SCL) may proceed in the Irish courts; application for a stay is refused.