Irish Commercial Court: Facilitating Efficient And Effective Access To Justice

In Brief

The Irish Commercial Court is tasked with facilitating the efficient resolution of commercial disputes in Ireland. Increased high value and complex cross jurisdictional cases mean its role within the Irish judicial landscape is more important than ever. Its strengths include specialist judges, active case management and procedural efficiencies. The recent Russian aviation cases demonstrate its capabilities in dealing with high stakes international litigation.

The Commercial Court, a division of the Irish High Court, was established in 2004 with the aim of facilitating the efficient resolution of commercial disputes. Over 20 years on from its inception, in a post Brexit world with increased high value and complex cross jurisdictional cases, its role within the Irish judicial landscape is more important than ever.

Landmark insurance disputes, including the Covid-19 business interruption claims and Russian aviation cases, have come before the Commercial Court in recent years, providing the litigants with an effective dispute resolution forum to resolve highly consequential cases.

HOW THE COMMERCIAL COURT OPERATES

The proceedings that can be admitted to the Commercial Court are defined in the Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) (Order 63A RSC). Broadly, these are cases of a commercial nature where the value of the claim is not less than €1million. Cases are only admitted if one of the parties makes an application for entry to the list and the presiding judge admits the case.

The Commercial Court has broad powers to give directions on the conduct of proceedings (Order 63A Rule 5 RSC) and the court consistently avails of these procedures by overseeing early case management, imposing tight timetables and granting early trial dates.

FRAMEWORK IN WHICH THE COMMERCIAL COURT OPERATES

Besides offering strict case management processes and specialised expertise, the Commercial Court operates within a legal framework that supports the efficient resolution of international disputes. In addition to Ireland being the only common law-based, English speaking, legal jurisdiction in the EU, it also benefits from streamlined procedures for efficient cross border service of documents and enforcement of foreign judgments on account of its membership of the EU and other international treaties, such as the Lugano and Hague Conventions.

RUSSIAN AVIATION CASES

These factors have enabled the Commercial Court to progress cross border, document heavy disputes within a relatively short timeframe when compared with other court lists.

A recent illustration of the Commercial Court's capabilities in dealing with multi-national, multi-party and multi-billion-euro claims can be seen from the proceedings issued by aircraft leasing firms, known as the 'Russian aviation cases'.

Six separate sets of proceedings, which ran parallel to related proceedings in London, concerned a total of 88 aircraft and 2 aircraft engines, with values claimed in the region of €2.5 billion. The proceedings involved allegations that aircraft had been detained in Russia and lost for the purposes of their insurance cover following the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent imposition of sanctions against Russia. Novel and complex issues of insurance policy interpretation, the Russian and Ukraine geopolitical situation and the Russian aviation sector stood to be adjudicated in the proceedings.

The six sets of proceedings were case managed together in the Commercial Court and were listed for trial and heard on a concurrent basis. As noted by the court itself, there was an unprecedented number of legal teams involved, reflecting the number of parties, the range and complexity of the legal issues and the monetary amounts at stake.

While five of the six proceedings ultimately settled on confidential terms in advance of a judgment being handed down, in CDB Aviation Lease Finance DAC & ors v Lloyd's Insurance Company S.A. & ors [2025] IEHC 243, there remained a dispute over legal costs between the plaintiffs and certain of the defendant insurers (the remaining All Risks insurers) against whom the plaintiffs had discontinued the proceedings after the conclusion of evidence in the trial. The default position is that a party who has a claim discontinued against it is deemed an entirely successful party and, as such, is entitled to an order for its costs, unless the court exercises its discretion to direct otherwise having regard to factors set out in the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 Act. Despite arguments made inter alia in respect of the conduct of the defendants prior to the proceedings, the maintenance and pursuance of inappropriate points during the hearing (arguments which were strongly resisted by the defendants), and the unusual nature of the aviation proceedings, the court was not persuaded that they justified departure from this default position. Costs were awarded on a party and party basis, to be adjudicated in default of agreement. The court also refused to impose a cap or otherwise limit the costs as it would trespass on the expertise of the Legal Costs Adjudicator who is statutorily charged with assessing the quantum of costs recoverable on foot of court orders.

Global disputes of this nature will often involve related proceedings being conducted in multiple jurisdictions. Effective access to justice is a key consideration with courts having to balance the right of a plaintiff to have their actions heard and determined expeditiously as against ensuring that scarce court resources and the resources of the parties are not inappropriately wasted by an unnecessary duplication of litigation. These issues were to the fore in WWTAI AIROPCO II DAC & anor v Global Aerospace Underwriting Managers (Europe) SAS & ors [2025] IEHC 452, another case which involves claims arising from aircraft allegedly lost following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Having considered an application by the defendant insurers for a stay in the proceedings in circumstances where related cases are progressing before the English High Court, the Commercial Court, in its judgment in August 2025, declined to stay the Irish action. It held that the default position is that plaintiffs are entitled to progress their case to trial and this would be unduly prejudiced by the fact the Irish court would lack any ability to control, case manage or in any way influence the manner in which the English proceedings progressed. Further, while there was overlap in terms of the equipment and policy documents at issue in the proceedings, it did not follow that the legal consequences would be the same, given the different laws governing the claims. These factors, along with the existence of a choice of law and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of Ireland, all contributed to the finding that the plaintiffs were entitled to progress their case to trial without having to await the determination of the English proceedings.

LANDMARK INSURANCE CASES

In addition to the Russian aviation cases, the Irish Commercial Court has also adjudicated on major insurance disputes, with significant consequences for the sector.

In Flatley v Austin Newport Group Limited & ors [2024] IEHC 359, the Commercial Court considered provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2022 for the first time, determining that the arbitration clause in the insurance policy in question was not an unfair term in the consumer contract. The dispute between the parties centred on whether the cost of property damage and alternative accommodation, which arose in respect of alleged defective works carried out on the plaintiff's home, were covered by an insurance policy. The insurer applied to the Commercial Court to refer the proceedings to arbitration, as allowed for under the terms of the policy. Given the importance of arbitration clauses for insurers in terms of managing disputed claims within available dispute resolution models, the judgment was instructive, rejecting arguments that the clause in question was not transparent or lacked clarity. The Commercial Court interpreted the Consumer Rights Act 2022 by applying what it deemed to be the plain and literal meaning of certain provisions and so ensuring the viability of appropriate arbitration clauses in consumer contracts.

The Commercial Court has also dealt with multiple highly complex proceedings relating to business interruption claims following the Covid-19 pandemic. This included a series of judgments in proceedings issued against FBD by four public house plaintiffs in respect of losses suffered following imposed closure under government measures introduced to combat Covid-19. The individual judgments determined inter alia that the relevant peril included imposed closure following Covid-19 on or within a 25-mile radius of the insured premises and that the word "closure" in the policy extended to both a closure of the entire premises and also, to a closure of part of the premises. The judgments also dealt with wider concerns for the insurance sector, including the entitlement of the insurer to deduct payments made to the plaintiffs under government support schemes and the methodology used to calculate the plaintiffs' losses.

The consequential nature of these Commercial Court decisions was evident in the case Marlin Apartments Limited t/a Marlin Hotel Dublin v Allianz plc [2024] IEHC 550, which saw a second supplemental judgment being delivered after the defendant insurer sought guidance from the court on issues relating to the application of the primary judgment in determining the defendant's wider liability to other insureds. In the primary judgment, the Commercial Court held that the plaintiff, the operator of the Marlin Hotel, could rely on an extension of its policy to cover losses related to restrictions imposed on 24 December 2020, but the policy was not triggered in respect of two other specified time periods. The findings were fact specific, particularly in terms of the wording of the policy but was nonetheless a consequential decision from the Commercial Court.

HIGH PROFILE AND NOVEL CASES

The Commercial Court's continued role as Ireland's court of choice for commercial disputes has been particularly evident this year, with 2025 seeing high profile and novel actions come before it.

1. In Petersen Energia Inversora S.A.U & ors v The Argentine Republic [2025] IEHC 463, proceedings were issued seeking the recognition and enforcement in Ireland of a judgment granted by a court in the United States for over $17 billion against the Argentine Republic, the largest claim ever sought to be recognised and enforced by the Irish courts. The proceedings in the United States related to a breach of contract claim which arose following the defendant State's decision to nationalise an Argentinian oil and gas company, of which the plaintiffs were then minority shareholders. The Commercial Court ultimately held that it did not have jurisdiction, finding, inter alia, that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a solid practical benefit for proceeding in Ireland.
2. Another dispute before the Commercial Court this year, which attracted significant media attention, was the suite of litigation in connection with Web Summit. These cases involved alleged breaches of director's fiduciary duties and misrepresentation, declarations of shareholder oppression, breaches of a profit share agreement and withheld profit share payments. The proceedings were case managed by the Commercial Court and were scheduled to run for several weeks before ultimately settling shortly after the hearing began.
3. The first case under the Representative Actions for the Protection of the Collective Interests of Consumers Act 2023 (legislation which introduced a new legal framework to enable a 'qualified entity' to bring representative actions in Ireland on behalf of consumers), Irish Council for Civil Liberties CLG v Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd, is currently before the Commercial Court. The case involves claims of unlawful processing of personal data and it potentially will have major implications for future consumer redress in Ireland, particularly in the context of big tech.

WHAT NEXT FOR THE COMMERCIAL COURT

The Commercial Court's strengths include specialist judges, active case management and procedural efficiencies resulting in reduced timelines, which make it an attractive forum for dispute resolution.

While an increase in complex cases as result of, in part, Ireland's growing economy and global commercial activity, as well unforeseen events, can pose challenges in terms of pressure on the court system and its finite resources, steps have been taken to protect the efficiencies of the Commercial Court. These steps include the establishment of other specialised lists (for example, the Planning and Environment List in December 2023, which removed planning and environment cases from its remit), thus reducing the incoming matters, the increased use of court technology, and the appointment of additional judges to the commercial list (the number of resolved cases in the list increasing 18% in 2024). These are positive developments as a properly resourced and well-functioning Commercial Court helps ensure access to the courts and access to timely justice for parties to complex commercial disputes in Ireland.

Originally published in the November edition of The Forum of Insurance Lawyers ("FOIL") quarterly magazine, The Voice.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.