Background
QPQ Limited, an Irish company, sued Geert Schute for allegedly breaching a shareholders’ agreement by copying QPQ’s blockchain technology solution (1DLT), using it to develop a rival product called Wowen through a Swiss company (RunTime Machines AG), and causing QPQ employees to defect. The underlying dispute also involves separate criminal proceedings in Switzerland.
Schute moved for disclosure of QPQ’s litigation funding arrangements, alleging the company was engaged in champerty (unlawful third-party funding in exchange for a share of damages). Schute relied on discovered documents—including emails and WhatsApp messages—suggesting that investor Paul Thompson and others were funding the litigation, potentially funneled through QPQ’s parent company, QPQ AG. QPQ countered that QPQ AG, as its shareholder, was the sole funder and that disclosure was unnecessary.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Twomey held that Irish courts possess inherent jurisdiction to order disclosure of litigation funding arrangements when necessary to ensure the administration of justice operates efficiently and effectively. The court distinguished between legitimate and illegitimate funding sources: when funding comes from a party with an existing interest in the litigation (such as a shareholder or creditor), disclosure is not necessary for the defendant to understand its true adversary. However, when funding allegedly comes from an unrelated third party, the defendant is entitled to know the true funder’s identity.
Applying this framework, the court found sufficient evidence of potential third-party involvement to justify ordering disclosure. Critical evidence included a May 2023 email proposing to share 50% of damages from the litigation with third-party funders, a June 2023 board document outlining unusual equity-to-damages ratios (1% equity for 50% of damages), and WhatsApp messages stating that “Paul Thompson has funded a bit and he has people lined up to provide more funding.” While QPQ provided sworn evidence that only QPQ AG was funding the litigation, Justice Twomey found Mr. Chew’s credibility undermined by his implausible claim that the email referencing damages and Mr. Schute concerned the Swiss criminal proceedings rather than the Irish litigation. Thompson’s brief affidavit—notably failing to contest the email’s meaning—further supported the court’s conclusion that disclosure was warranted.
Key Takeaways
- Irish courts have inherent jurisdiction to order disclosure of litigation funding arrangements to promote efficient administration of justice and prevent unlawful maintenance and champerty.
- Disclosure is not required when funding comes from parties with legitimate interests (shareholders, creditors) in the funded party; the defendant’s true adversary is known to be the plaintiff backed by interested parties.
- Disclosure is required when evidence suggests third-party involvement without legitimate interest, even if funds are allegedly funneled through intermediate entities like parent companies.
- Courts will assess credibility of parties’ sworn evidence about funding sources and scrutinize the documentary record closely; implausible explanations and evasive affidavits weigh against a plaintiff’s credibility.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the boundaries of disclosure obligations regarding litigation funding in Ireland and provides meaningful protection for defendants facing potentially undisclosed third-party-funded adversaries. By holding that courts can order disclosure when evidence suggests circumvention of the champerty prohibition through intermediaries, the judgment prevents sophisticated funders from obscuring their involvement through corporate structures. The decision also reiterates that maintenance and champerty remain serious policy concerns in Irish law—not merely historical remnants—relevant to efficient court administration.
The ruling has practical significance for defendants in commercial disputes: they may obtain disclosure orders based on documentary evidence raising reasonable questions about funding sources, without requiring proof of actual illegality. This shifts the burden somewhat toward plaintiffs to transparently disclose funding arrangements early, reducing the risk that undisclosed funders will surprise defendants later or complicate settlement negotiations. The court’s willingness to discount implausible testimony about document meaning signals heightened judicial scrutiny of funding disputes going forward.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.