The dispute arose out of a sale of second-hand helicopter engine.
The claimant was an English company. The defendant was a Portuguese company.
The claimant sought to recover damage for a negligent misstatement which was made on a Certificate. The Certificate was issued in Portugal, and signed on the defendant’s behalf. The proceedings were initiated in England on the ground of Article 5(3) under Brussels I.
The English court held that it had jurisdiction because the damage occurred in England where the certificate was relied upon. Mr Justice Simon held that:
“21 […] I would have found that the initial and direct damage occurred when the certificates were received and relied on by the claimants in England. This was the place where significant damage was done to the immediate victim of the harmful act; and therefore the place where the damage occurred within the meaning of the first part of the jurisdictional rule in the Bier case. The claim was for more than the adverse consequences of an event which has already caused damage actually arising elsewhere; and the damage was neither indirect nor caused elsewhere. It would follow that England was the place where the event giving rise to liability directly produced its harmful effect on the person who was the victim of the event.
[…]
27 I therefore find that the claimant has established, for the purposes of establishing jurisdiction, that the place where the damage occurred was England. The certificate was received and relied upon in England. The claimant accepted the engine and acquired it in England from Helicopter Support Ltd when it would not otherwise have done so, and sustained loss and incurred expense in England when it was sued by Newton in England.” [21 and 27]