High Court: Disclosure of alleged third party funding arrangements ordered against Irish company

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] IEHC 463
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Michael Twomey

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice Michael Twomey opined, “this Court concludes that a court does in fact have a general power to order a plaintiff to disclose its litigation funding arrangements.

This conclusion is based on the fact that Kirwan v Connors [2025] IESC 21 establishes that a court has an inherent jurisdiction to make any order which is designed to ensure that the administration of justice operates in an efficient and effective manner.”

Background

In March 2024, the plaintiff company issued proceedings against the defendant claiming that he had breached a Shareholders’ Agreement by copying QPQ’s blockchain technology solution, 1DLT, and misrepresented that he would provide further funding to QPQ up to the launch of 1DLT.

QPQ further alleged that the defendant used 1DLT to develop a rival product, Wowen, through Swiss company RunTime Machines AG and caused QPQ’s employees to join RunTime.

The defendant brought an application seeking inter alia an order requiring QPQ to disclose details of the funders and the funding of its litigation against Mr Schute, including the names and addresses of each person or entity who provided funding in the litigation, together with the dates and extent of such funding.

In this regard, the defendant claimed that QPQ was guilty of obtaining the more “heinous version” of third party funding for its litigation against him, with the third party allegedly to receive a share in the proceeds of the litigation.

Relying on discovered documents, the defendant alleged that funding was provided by a third party, Mr Paul Thompson, and other potential investors, who did not have a legitimate interest in the litigation.

The defendant pointed to a number of emails, including an email dated May 2023 and addressed to Mr Thompson which stated inter alia that “I would be happy to agree that 50% of all cash damages recovered from Wowen AG and or Runtime Machines AG would be shared with those that fund the litigation, the balance going into the QPQ accounts.”

The defendant also relied upon WhatsApp messages from 2023 between directors of QPQ, which discussed that “There is no money for this unless Paul Thompson is funding”.

QPQ presented sworn evidence from Mr Thompson in support of its claim that all of its funding for the litigation was solely provided by its parent company, QPQ AG, but did not provide evidence suggesting that the emails and messages did not mean what they appear to mean on their face.

Accordingly, the focus of the hearing before the High Court was on whether the evidence supported a finding that the funding might have been provided by QPQ AG qua parent, or whether QPQ AG might have been operating as a conduit for funding provided by Mr Thompson and other investors.

It was common case that QPQ did not have the funds to finance the application, and there was no dispute that a parent company providing funding to a subsidiary does not contravene the rules on champerty and maintenance.

The High Court

Noting that both parties relied upon Thema International Fund plc v HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) Limited [2011] 3 I.R. 654, the court considered that the corollary of the statement relied upon by QPQ, that obtaining details of funding is not necessary to understand one’s adversary if the funding comes from a party with a legitimate interest in the litigation, must apply.

Mr Justice Twomey continued, “The corollary being that if the funding does not come from a shareholder (or other party with a legitimate interest in the litigation) then getting precise details of the identity of the funder, and the terms of that funding, is a necessary or proportionate step to allow a defendant to understand his or her true adversary.”

The judge did not agree with QPQ that the defendant’s application fell outside the principles of Persona Digital Telephony Ltd & Anor v The Minister for Public Enterprise Ireland & Ors [2022] 2 I.R. 417 as the order in that case was made in a very specific context where the plaintiff pre-emptively sought a declaration that its funding was consistent with Irish law.

Opining that it is irrelevant whether a plaintiff discloses that it has a funding arrangement or whether a defendant suspects a plaintiff has a funding arrangement, the court found that the key issue was whether such arrangements should be disclosed to the defendant.

The court concluded that the correct interpretation of Persona “is that it is authority for the proposition that a court can order the disclosure of a funding arrangement to a defendant so that a defendant can discover her true adversary, irrespective of how the existence of that arrangement comes to the attention of the court.”

As to QPQ’s contention that the court did not have a general power to make the orders sought, Mr Justice Twomey explained that Kirwan v Connors [2025] IESC 21 “makes clear that a court has an inherent jurisdiction to make orders which ensure that the courts operate in an ‘efficient and effective’ manner.”

In that regard, the judge noted that there is no shortage of lawyers in Ireland or litigation in Irish courts such as to justify additional third-party funding of litigation to encourage people to enter the legal profession, and that although Ireland has five times more High Court judges per capita than England and Wales, the “sheer volume of litigation” and the backlogs in dealing with litigation means that if there was to be third-party funding, it would make the courts operate less effectively.

The court was further satisfied that ordering the disclosure of alleged unlawful funding must be a power which a court has as part of its inherent jurisdiction to protect the administration of justice against abuse, particularly where certain forms of third-party funding are criminal offences.

The court also rejected further arguments on part of QPQ, including that the defendant had delayed in bringing his application and should be refused relief where he did not bring a motion for security for his costs.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court granted an order requiring QPQ to disclose to the defendant and to the court, details of persons who provided funding for the litigation and the details of that funding.

The court also ordered disclosure of various documents and records, including a copy of any written agreement in place relating to the funding of the litigation.

QPQ Limited v Schute (Otherwise known as Geert Schute) [2026] IEHC 463