The High Court (Court) has refused to set aside an ex parte order (Order) giving effect to a request for assistance (Letters Rogatory) received from the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Florida Court).

The Order gave effect to a request from the Florida Court that the applicant be examined in Ireland for the purposes of proceedings in Florida. The applicant applied to the Court to set aside the Order because of alleged material non-disclosure by the plaintiff (Runbuk) in obtaining the Order, and on the ground that the request was oppressive, overly broad, and tantamount to an impermissible request for discovery.

 Runbuk Inc -v- Ice Cap Adventures [2026] IEHC 644.

Background

The applicant was the original organiser of an event known as the “World Marathon Challenge” (WMC). The sale of WMC to Runbuk in December 2022 gave rise to separate sets of proceedings before the American courts, including the proceedings before the Florida Court. The sales agreement involved the transfer of 100% ownership of the intellectual property rights relating to the entire WMC, including three registered trade marks, and a non-compete clause on the applicant.

The applicant’s objections

• Non-disclosure

 The applicant argued that the Order should be set aside because Runbuk had failed to make full disclosure at the ex parte application. The alleged non-disclosure concerned two matters: the existence of separate proceedings in California involving the same parties, and a stay imposed in the Florida proceedings.

The Court began by reiterating that full and frank disclosure in ex parte applications is “non-negotiable”. However, relying on Peterson Energia v Argentine Republic [2025] IEHC 463 and Bambrick v Cobley [2005] IEHC 42, it noted that there is no automatic rule requiring ex parte relief to be discharged where a material fact has not been disclosed. Rather, the Court must consider a range of factors, including the significance of the omitted information, whether the omission was deliberate or otherwise culpable, and the justice of the case as a whole.

Regarding the non-disclosure of the California proceedings, the Court found that their existence should have been disclosed. Relying on previous authorities, it noted that the existence of parallel proceedings can be relevant to issues such as oppression, and ought to have been placed before the Court when the Order was sought. However, it was satisfied that the omission was not motivated by bad faith or an intention to mislead.

On the non-disclosure of the stay on the Florida proceedings, the Court considered this as the “more serious” issue. The Court held that the stay should have been brought to the attention of both the Court and Runbuk’s Irish lawyers. Had the Court been informed of the stay, it could have considered its effect, sought clarification from the parties, or directed that the application proceed on notice to the applicant. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that the justice of the case did not require the Order to be set aside on that basis for a number of reasons, including that the Court was in a position to form a view on the overall merit of the application, and in the interim, the Florida court lifted the stay.

• Oppression

The applicant argued that the lines of enquiry detailed in the Letters Rogatory were, in substance, a request for discovery rather than for evidence, and that the request was oppressive given its overlap with, and potential impact on, the California proceedings.

The Court rejected those arguments. It was satisfied that the applicant was “a critical witness given his history with the WMC”, and that there was a legitimate basis to seek his evidence in the Florida proceedings. The Court did not accept that the dominant purpose of the request was to obtain discovery rather than oral testimony. In that regard, the Court was persuaded by the fact that the applicant had already provided documents akin to affidavits in support of the proceedings and had engaged with the defendants’ document production requests in the Florida proceedings.

Conclusion

The judgment is a reminder that full and frank disclosure remains a fundamental requirement in ex parte applications, such as those to give effect to Letters Rogatory. However, it also illustrates that a failure to disclose material facts will not invariably result in relief being discharged.

Although the decision turns on its own facts, it demonstrates the range of procedural and practical issues that can arise when seeking evidence from a witness in Ireland for use in foreign proceedings. In this case, the evidence sought formed part of a wider dispute concerning the sale of a business and associated intellectual property rights, highlighting the significance that witness testimony may assume in cross-border commercial and intellectual property litigation.

To discuss the judgment in more detail, or for any intellectual property-related queries, please contact Laura Scott or Colette Brady.