Summary
The claim was for personal injuries which were caused by a car accident that occurred in France.
The claimant was domiciled in England. And, he brought his action directly against the French insurer in England. The jurisdiction of the English court was not questioned. The English judge noted:
“Articles 9(1) (b) and 11(2) of Brussels I (Council Regulation 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters) entitle an injured party to sue an insurer direct on matters relating to insurance, in the place where the injured party is domiciled, provided that direct action is permitted under national law. This was confirmed by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Odenbreit v FBTO Schadeverzekeringen NV Case C-463/06 [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 733, ECJ.” [10]
The judge went to outline another specific feature of the Brussels I regime, pointing out that:
“it is also misconceived to regard this claimant as "cherry picking" in any pejorative sense. Brussels 1 permits an individual to bring a direct action against the insurer in the member state of his domicile; and it follows that the insurer will have to submit to the procedural rules of the member state in which it is sued. The claimant (as the weaker party) is merely making use of a remedy expressly provided for within the European framework, as he is perfectly entitled to do. The insurer can no more complain of the consequences as to how this particular procedural question is to be resolved, than it could complain for example, about English law rules of procedure on cross-examination.” [27]
Although the liability was admitted, there were two preliminary re assessment of damages and pre-judgment interest which were dealt with in the judgment. The High Court judge held:
“37 Accordingly, I would answer the preliminary issues in this case as did Blair J at [35] in Maher, that is: “(1) Damages are to be assessed by reference to English law. (2) Both French and English law are potentially relevant to the award of pre-judgment interest on those damages, depending on the facts”: see [32] and [33] of Maher. I additionally conclude that there is a head of loss for pre-judgment interest under French substantive law, and that its assessment in this case will be governed by English law.” [37]