Recognition of english insolvency in ireland: A constructive judgment

It operated from warehouses and trade showrooms near Lisburn, Co. Down and in Coventry, England.  It had become one of the leading suppliers of products in the Irish market, in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, as well as having a strong presence in the UK. Following a deterioration in trading and consequential financial difficulties, it went into administration in Northern Ireland on 28 November 2024 under the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.

The administrators concluded that for the purpose of the administration they needed to take certain steps in the Irish Republic. They applied to the High Court in the Irish Republic for orders recognising:

(a) the entry of the company into administration pursuant to the 1989 Order;

(b) their appointment as joint administrators;

(c) their powers to bring or defend any action or legal proceedings in the name of and on behalf of the company;

(d) their power to collect and gather in the property of the company; and an order:

(e) that the Irish court and its officers act in aid of and be auxiliary to the High Court of Justice of Northern Ireland in respect of the administration proceedings.

Michael Quinn J made the orders applied for, giving reasons in a reserved judgment (Re Mercer Agencies Ltd [2025] IEHC 261). In essence, he held that the court was able to grant the relief sought on the basis of its inherent jurisdiction under the common law to recognise foreign insolvency proceedings. Although to date there had been no reported case on a recognition application from Northern Ireland, reliance on the jurisdiction had been considered in previous cases concerning non-EU states, most notably, Fairfield Sentry Limited (In Liquidation) v Citco Nederland NV [2012] IEHC 81, and Re Mount Capital Fund Limited (In Liquidation) and Another [2012] IEHC 97. Much of Quinn J’s judgment draws on those authorities, notably the judgment of Laffoy J in the latter case.

After reviewing the state of the law after the UK’s leaving the EU, Quinn J analysed the relevant UK and domestic insolvency law, conducting a detailed comparison between the Northern Irish administration regime and the insolvency regimes of the Irish Republic, leading him to conclude,

“Although administration under the 1989 Order is not the same as liquidation or examinership because it can be utilised for a number of different purposes, including the alternate purposes of a rescue or asset realisation for the benefit of the creditors, each of these objectives and the attendant powers have an equivalent within different parts of the [Companies] Act of 2014, namely Parts 10 (examinership) and 11 (winding up).”

A potential obstacle to granting relief was thereby overcome.

Following Laffoy J in Mount Capital, Quinn J recognised the need to consider not only the question of jurisdiction but whether recognition was being sought for a legitimate purpose. He concluded that it was:

“The purpose of this application,” he said, “is to ensure that insofar as it may be necessary for the Joint Administrators, in the performance of their statutory duties of realising assets for the benefit of creditors, to take any action, whether by way of legal proceedings or otherwise, in the State they may do so without encountering delay associated with establishing their standing to do so on behalf of and in the name of the Company in administration. This is clearly a legitimate purpose, again having direct equivalence with the functions of a liquidator appointed under Part 11 of the Act of 2014.”

Quinn J’s judgment will no doubt be built on in future cases. It will be welcomed by insolvency lawyers and practitioners in the Republic of Ireland and the UK.

Meet the team:

1. 

   • Frances Coulson

   • Partner
   • Insolvency & Restructuring

   Visit Frances's profile

View the whole team