Summary

A. Introduction

1. On 25 April 2024, the plaintiffs, comprising the First and Second plaintiffs (the "Petersen Plaintiffs"), and the Third to Fifth Plaintiffs (the "Eton Park Plaintiffs"), were granted leave by the High Court on an ex parte1 basis pursuant to O. 11, Rule 1(q) of the Rules of the Superior Courts ("RSC") to issue intended proceedings and to serve notice of those proceedings outside the jurisdiction on the Argentine Republic (the "Republic"). These proceedings were then issued on 29 April 2024 and were duly served on the Republic. The Republic entered a conditional Appearance on 17 September 2024 without prejudice and solely to contest the jurisdiction of the Irish courts. The plaintiffs issued a motion on 7 October 2024 seeking summary judgment against the Republic and these proceedings were entered into the commercial list on 14 October 2024.

2. These proceedings seek recognition and enforcement in Ireland of a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY Court") entered on 15 September 2023 against the Republic (the "New York Judgment"). The New York Judgment is under appeal (the "2023 Circuit Appeal") to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ("Second Circuit"). The stay on enforcement of the New York Judgment has expired.

3. This court is now required to deal with two motions brought by the Republic in response to the initiation of these proceedings by the plaintiffs.

...

257. For all the reasons set out in detail in this judgment, it is the decision of this court that the service out order made by the High Court on 25 April 2024 should be set aside.

258. These proceedings have absolutely no connection with Ireland. Furthermore I am not satisfied that there would be any practical benefit to the plaintiffs in permitting enforcement of the New York Judgment in this jurisdiction. In particular:

(i) none of the parties or the underlying events or the substance of this dispute has any Irish connection;

(ii) the evidence confirms that the Republic has no assets in this jurisdiction other than diplomatic and consular assets not amenable to enforcement;

(iii) there is uncontested sworn evidence of the unlikelihood of any assets of the Republic coming into this jurisdiction in the near or medium future. All that is suggested in response is a generic possibility of future assets becoming available given Ireland's position as a global international market. Such a generic statement could be made in every case and would be a gateway for a plethora of cases with no connection to Ireland being litigated here. Such a vague assertion unsubstantiated by evidence is not sufficient to constitute a likely prospective practical benefit to enforcement here;

(iv) there are no procedural remedies potentially available to the plaintiffs in this jurisdiction which are a) not premised on the presence of assets here and/or b) are not duplicative of the US enforcement efforts already undertaken and available into the future. The same procedural facilities are available to the plaintiffs and indeed have been and are being availed of by them elsewhere. No new benefit would arise from the Irish courts permitting the same procedures;

(v) the plaintiffs' desire to obtain the imprimatur of a respected court is an insufficient practical benefit in the circumstances of this case and has to be conditioned by the fact that Ireland is one of seven jurisdictions where enforcement proceedings have been initiated and where the SDNY Court is itself a highly respected court. Enforcement proceedings are pending in six other highly respected jurisdictions, namely the UK, Cyprus, France, Luxembourg, Australia and Canada. Were enforcement to be permitted in France, Luxembourg or Cyprus such judgment would itself be easily recognised in Ireland (and indeed throughout all signatory states) under Brussels (recast) were assets ever to arrive into Ireland. There is no evidence that judgment would first be given in Ireland ahead of those other jurisdictions. There is no evidence at all as to what assets (if any) the Republic has in any of those other jurisdictions.

...

Footnotes omitted