The Irish courts have repeatedly identified that for a foreign judgment to be enforced under Common Law[1] in Ireland, an applicant has to show a solid practical benefit arising from recognition and enforcement.[2] The High Court recently[3] confirmed the requirement for a solid practical benefit and made additional observations about relying on assets to demonstrate this benefit. This confirmation will likely be of relevance in future cases.
Background
Underlying proceedings in England and Wales in 2025 resulted in a judgment of approximately $181.5 million being entered against the defendant, an airline incorporated in Vietnam. Of that sum, a part-payment of only $2 million had been made. The plaintiff sought recognition and enforcement of the English judgment in several other jurisdictions, including in Ireland.
The Irish High Court granted permission on an ex parte (one side only) basis under Order 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) for the plaintiff to issue and serve proceedings on the defendant. The defendant applied to discharge the ex parte order made[4] which came before Mr Justice Mulcahy.
Both sides agreed that the plaintiff had to demonstrate that that it was likely to obtain a practical benefit from the Irish proceedings. What was in dispute was whether the evidence before the court established a likelihood of practical benefit. The defendant asserted that it had no assets in Ireland, or at least none which are amenable to enforcement mechanisms. Consequently, it argued that recognition would be of no benefit and that the order should be set aside.
The law
Mr Justice Mulcahy began by reviewing RSC Order 11 which provides that leave is required where proceedings are brought to enforce a foreign judgment.[5]
To obtain permission, the applicant must satisfy the court that the case is appropriate for service outside the jurisdiction. The leading case on the test applicable to enforcement of foreign judgments is the Court of Appeal decision in Albaniabeg[6]. In that case, the High Court ruling which set aside an equivalent order under RSC Order 11 was upheld.
The High Court there had found there was “no reasonable prospect or possibility that there will ever be any assets of the defendants in Ireland”, which meant the court was “not satisfied that there is any ‘solid practical benefit’ to be gained by the plaintiff…’”. The Court of Appeal stated that a “judgment creditor must nonetheless generally show some prospect of securing a material benefit, even if that benefit is indirect and prospective only”. As stated by Mr Justice Hogan, the bar in obtaining leave under Order 11 is a low one, but “it is nonetheless not asking too much [of a] litigant to demonstrate that it stands to obtain some practical benefit from those enforcement proceedings, even if that benefit is an indirect or prospective one”.
Decision
To demonstrate that the enforcement proceedings would yield a practical benefit, the plaintiff focused on three types of assets it claimed the defendant had in Ireland:
- It identified that maintenance reserves - sums paid to cover the costs of required maintenance - had been paid by the defendant airline to aircraft lessors in Ireland. The evidence was that the maintenance contractor is typically paid by the lessee and the monies are reimbursed.
- Lease deposits were held by aircraft lessors for the defendant’s leased aircraft. However, the deposits would only be refundable at the end of the lease term, the earliest expiry being 2029, and subject to compliance with the lease.
- The defendant had Irish subsidiaries which sub-let aircraft to other airlines. However, the defendant maintained that the sub-lease structure meant that rent was paid either to the defendant or head lessor directly. As a result, the defendant argued that the Irish subsidiaries were not actually in receipt of rental monies.
In terms of applying the law, Mr Justice Mulcahy noted that the mere presence of assets would not, of itself, enable the plaintiff to obtain a practical benefit from the proceedings. Instead, there must be a prospect that those assets would be capable of being subjected to some enforcement mechanism. Therefore, the plaintiff needed to show that:
- Assets exist or are likely to exist within the jurisdiction, and
- There is a realistic prospect that it will be able to enforce against those assets.
However, he did note that the authorities “support the contention that recognition of a judgment can, of itself, afford a practical benefit in certain circumstances”. Additionally, an applicant did not need to show that there were sufficient assets to satisfy the judgment. They only needed to show that there was a practical benefit. This requirement would be met if there was a prospect of successfully enforcing the judgment against even one class of assets.
The judge was satisfied that the threshold of establishing that there were likely assets within the jurisdiction was met through:
- The contractual entitlements to be paid out of the maintenance reserves
- The return of the lease deposits, and
- The shareholdings in the Irish subsidiary companies.
Therefore, this case was readily distinguishable from the Albaniabeg and Petersen cases where there were no assets in the jurisdiction and no realistic prospect of future assets. Instead, the court had to decide if there was a realistic prospect of enforcement against the asset classes identified. In this case, the court was satisfied that the prospect of the future return of the lease deposits in particular could be enforced against and that was likely to provide a practical benefit.
There was no requirement that the assets would be within the jurisdiction imminently – the fact that the lease deposits may not become available for enforcement until 2029 did not rob the proceedings of practical benefit to the plaintiff. Although the conclusion reached regarding the lease deposits was sufficient to deal with the application in favour of the plaintiff, the court also decided that the prospect of enforcement against the maintenance reserves and the shareholding in the subsidiary companies also likely involved a practical benefit. Mr Justice Mulcahy concluded there was a “realistic prospect that one or more of those classes of assets may be amenable to enforcement…”.
Conclusion
The decision usefully confirms that a practical benefit is required as a matter of Irish law for enforcement of a foreign judgment. There is no definitive statement as to what will constitute a practical benefit. However, assets or the likelihood of assets within the jurisdiction is one clear route to demonstrate a practical benefit. The decision also suggests that assets do not need to be within the jurisdiction imminently for a practical benefit to arise. However, the decision is clear that a practical benefit does not arise if these assets are not amenable to an effective enforcement mechanism.
For more information and expert advice on commercial disputes, contact a member of our Commercial Disputes team.
The content of this article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other advice.
[1] That is, not in accordance with an international instrument to which Ireland is a party, namely the Brussels Recast Regulation, Lugano Convention, the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements or the Hague Judgments Convention.
[2] See Albaniabeg Ambient Sh,p.k. v Enel SpA & Enelpower SpA [2016] IEHC 139; [2018] IECA 46; Petersen Energia Inversora SAU Argentine Republic [2025] IEHC 463. See also Yukos Capital SARL v OAO Tomskneft VNK [2014] IEHC 115 which previously established the same principle with regard to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
[3] FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Ltd v Vietjet Joint Stock Aviation Company [2026] IEHC 459.
[4] The application also sought to discharge an order made regarding substituted service but the service issue was no longer relevant by the time the matter came before the court and any consideration of it is outside the scope of this assessment.
[5] Different principles to enforcement under Brussels Recast Regulation, Lugano Convention, the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements or the Hague Judgments Convention.
[6] Albaniabeg Ambient Sh,p.k. v Enel SpA & Enelpower SpA [2018] IECA 46
