Societe Lacoste S.A. v. Keely Group Ltd. [1998] IEHC 157; [1999] 3 IR 534; [1999] 1 ILRM 510 (3rd November, 1998)

Societe Lacoste S.A. v. Keely Group Ltd. [1998] IEHC 157; [1999] 3 IR 534; [1999] 1 ILRM 510 (3rd November, 1998)

The Master had jurisdiction to enforce the French judgment under Article 34(3) of the Brussels Convention because, at the time of the appeal judgment, the Convention was in force in both France and Ireland, jurisdiction was based on a written agreement, and the Defendant was given sufficient time to defend.

Citation
[1998] IEHC 157
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiffs; Defendant: Defendant
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Jurisdiction Under Brussels Convention, Service of Process, Default Judgment, Mareva Injunction
Private International Law Civil Procedure Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Jurisdiction Under Brussels Convention Service of Process Default Judgment Mareva Injunction

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Brussels Convention applied to permit enforcement of the French judgment in Ireland
  2. 2 Whether sufficient time was given to the Defendant for its defence under Article 27 of the Convention
  3. 3 Whether the Master's orders were defective for not reciting that France was a contracting State

Ratio Decidendi

The Master had jurisdiction to enforce the French judgment under Article 34(3) of the Brussels Convention because, at the time of the appeal judgment, the Convention was in force in both France and Ireland, jurisdiction was based on a written agreement, and the Defendant was given sufficient time to defend.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal to set aside the Master's orders authorising enforcement of the French judgments
  • Mareva injunctions against the Defendant remain in force