Background
Dogo Media Limited and Tempest Tech Limited entered into a Search Distribution Agreement in July 2023. Dogo distributed internet-search products through Tempest’s monetisation platform in return for a share of the resulting revenue. The dispute arose after Tempest paid only part of Dogo’s November 2023 invoice and paid none of its December invoice, asserting that Dogo had generated invalid, non-compliant or fraudulent traffic.
Dogo commenced summary proceedings seeking USD $84,868.33, but the High Court later directed that the case continue as a plenary action. Tempest defended the claim and counterclaimed for approximately €612,284.14 in liquidated damages, or alternatively damages for breach of contract. The present judgment addressed Dogo’s attempt to exclude or strike out that counterclaim, the parties’ competing applications for further particulars, Tempest’s challenge to part of Dogo’s pleading, and both sides’ discovery applications. It did not decide the underlying contractual dispute.
The Court’s Holding
Ms. Justice Siobhán Phelan refused to exclude or strike out Tempest’s counterclaim. The earlier order converting the proceedings to plenary form did not expressly restrict the issues or preclude a counterclaim. Moreover, the counterclaim substantially overlapped with the defence: both depended on the same alleged traffic defects, contractual provisions, Microsoft-related quality concerns, and events surrounding the November and December 2023 invoices. Trying them together therefore would not introduce a separate controversy or cause unreasonable prejudice or delay.
The Court applied the distinction between defining a party’s case and proving it. Particulars were required only to disclose the material factual case to be met, not the supporting evidence, while discovery was confined to documents relevant, necessary and proportionate to pleaded issues. The Court accordingly granted only limited relief across the particulars and discovery motions. Among its discovery rulings, it directed disclosure concerning the traffic at issue and documents supporting Dogo’s pleaded allegation of a general policy of appropriating syndicated partners’ revenue shares, while refusing broader categories concerning Dogo’s general monitoring systems, implementation of guidelines, and traffic supplied to unrelated third parties.
Key Takeaways
- An order transferring summary proceedings to plenary hearing does not implicitly bar a counterclaim; an intended restriction should appear expressly in the order.
- A counterclaim based on the same facts and contractual provisions as the defence can conveniently be tried with the principal claim, even though it seeks affirmative relief.
- Particulars define the material case, whereas discovery supplies relevant evidence; neither procedure permits a disproportionate inquiry into collateral matters.
Why It Matters
The judgment offers practical guidance on case management after summary proceedings are converted to plenary form. Unless the conversion order expressly limits the issues, the ordinary rules governing plenary pleadings—including the ability to counterclaim—continue to apply.
It also illustrates the High Court’s insistence that parties connect requests for particulars and discovery to live pleaded issues. Broad relevance alone is insufficient: discovery must also be necessary and proportionate, particularly where a request would duplicate other disclosure, expose third-party commercial material, or generate collateral disputes.