Brussels I Regulation: Tort Cases Flashcards
What does Article 7(2) states in the Brussels I Regulation?
A person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State; in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur.
What kind of jurisdiction does Article 7(2) fall under?
Special jurisdiction - providing the plaintiff with an extra option to sue the defendant in another Member State than that of his domicile. Derogates from principle that jurisdiction is vested in the courts of the State the defendant is domiciled.
Why might the meaning of the phrase ‘matters relating to tort’ be broader than under English law?
Because the phrase has an independent EU meaning, although it includes most torts that would be considered under English law, e.g. negligence, nuisance and defamation.
Why might a claimant prefer the rules under Article 7(2)?
The tort provision of the Regulation is used very often by claimants to sue in their own court.
What case granted ‘matters relating to tort/delict’ independent meaning?
Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schroder
Why did the CJEU grant independent meaning to the phrase ‘matters relating to tort/delict’?
It should be regarded as an autonomous concept to ensure equality and uniformity of obligations, so that the concept should not be interpreted simply as referring to national law.
What was the case that provided meaning to the phrase ‘the place…where the harmful event occurred’?
Bier v Mines de Potasse
What were the facts of Bier v Mines de Potasse?
The plaintiff ran a horticultural business in the Netherlands, whose irrigation depends mainly on the Rhine waters. The excessive salinisation of the Rhine caused damaged to its plantation. The plaintiff alleged that this was principally due to massive salty discharges from operations carried out by the defendant In France.
Why might there be a need to grant special jurisdiction in cases of tort?
Because in certain situations, there may be a particularly close connecting factor between a dispute and a court other than that of the defendant’s domicile, making for more efficacious proceedings.
What concern influenced the court in Bier to interpret the phrase ‘the place…where the harmful event occurred’?
Because both the place of the event giving rise to damage, and the place where the damage occurred, are both close connecting factors, and it would not be appropriate to opt for one over another when determining liability.
What meaning to the expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ was given by the Court in Bier?
It acknowledged that the plaintiff has the option to commence proceedings either at the place where the damage occurred or the place of the event giving rise to it.
What was the practical consequence of Bier?
The defendant may be sued either in the courts of the place where the damaged occurred or in the courts of the place of the event which gives rise to the damage.
What were the facts in Dumez v Hessische Landesbank?
German banks (including Hessische Landesbank) cancelled loans to a German prime contractor, which caused the suspension of a property-development project, which caused the German subsidiaries of Dumez to go insolvent. Dumez claimed compensation for damage owing to this.
Why was the damaged suffered by Dumez different from that in Bier?
In Bier, the damaged occurred as a direct effect of the causal agent. Whereas in Dumez, the direct consequences of the cancellation of the loan were suffered by the subsidiaries of Dumez, and the harm Dumez allegedly suffered was merely the indirect consequence of those financial losses.
How did the Court in Dumez refine the broad rule laid down in Bier?
The expression ‘the place where the damage occurred’ can be understood only as indicating the place where the event giving rise to the damage…directly produced its harmful effects upon the person who is the immediate victim of that event.