Summary
The dispute arose out of an accident involving a crane which was used for a building project in London. The accident, involving the crane, occurred in London on 21st May 2000. The litigants were the parties to the contract for the crane sale. The crane was sold by the defendant, a German company, to the claimant, an English company.
Following the accident, the English company brought an action for damages and contribution against the German company in England. It was alleged that the defendant had been negligent in the design and/or manufacture of a climbing frame which caused the accident. The direct damage suffered by the claimant was alleged to be as follows: 1) property and consequential losses; 2) significant liability to third parties.
The claimant brought his claim in England under Article 5(3) of Brussels I. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the English court, arguing that the dispute should be litigated in Germany. The defendant invoked a German jurisdiction clause, which was incorporate into the parties’ contract for sale. Furthermore, there was a hire contract for a climbing frame which was concluded between the claimant and a defendant’s subsidiary, WBV. It was disputed whether the hire contract incorporated a jurisdiction agreement as well as whether the defendant became subsequently a party to this contract. The English court dismissed the defendant’s challenge of jurisdiction, holding that the tort dispute in question was not within the scope of the jurisdiction clause. Mr Justice Jackson held:
"32 In my judgment, a claim of this character falls within the European concept of “matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict”. […]
64 I have come to the conclusion that this is a case to which Art.5(3) of the Regulation applies. The claimant's claims relate to tort, delict or quasi-delict and the harmful event occurred in England. Accordingly, the English courts have jurisdiction. The defendant is unable to rely upon any agreement requiring the present dispute to be litigated in Germany. Accordingly, the defendant's challenge to this court's jurisdiction on the basis of Art.23 fails.” [32 and 64]