Summary
The claimant was domiciled in England.
On 26th October 2006, the claimant was very seriously injured whilst stay in the second defendant’s hotel in Tenerife, Spain. The sustained damages were to run into millions of pounds.
A claim for damages was brought in England against the insurer as well as against the hotel owner. Both claims were brought under Articles 9 and 11 of Brussels I. The insurer’s defence was that there was a policy limit of €600,000.
The second defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the English court.
The challenge to jurisdiction was dismissed by Master Cook. A permission to appeal was given on 16 July 2012.
This was an appeal against his judgment. The High Court dismissed the appeal. HHJ Higgins held:
“34 For the sake of completeness, I shall now consider counsels' submissions as a specific topic, even though, as a practical matter, they have already been addressed. With regard to Mr Mead – and I summarise the position in few words. For the reasons already given, I reject his basic submission that the joinder of the appellants does not relate to insurance. There may be an incidental benefit to the respondent because of the anomaly in this case that quantum is a matter of English law. Were the incident to occur today this would not be so, but, in my judgment, the incidental benefit to the respondent cannot justify the denial of what is, in effect, by Article 11 , the conferring, on the English court of exclusive jurisdiction in the circumstances of this case, at least at this stage. I also reject his submission that the Maher case and the European case law mean that in this case there is not a risk of irreconcilable judgments. On the contrary, in my view, and in so far as the case has developed, the risk is stark.
35 [...] the first defendant insurer is the litigious anchor to which [the claimant] is entitled to attach the appellants. In my judgment, for the reasons which I have given, [Ms Deal] is correct, even if the position might be more doubtful in the absence of what I have called, for convenience, a policy point, but in that event, of course, it seems probable that these issues would not arise at all as they would probably serve no purpose.
36 As I have said, however, as I see it, there is a policy point in this case and, in present circumstances, I am in no doubt but that the expressed purposes of the Regulation would be frustrated if all interested parties were not before the same court, whether or not applying, as in this case as I understand it, Spanish law for those purposes. No doubt evidence to the latter, in addition to that which is already before the court, will be received. About Ms Deal's submissions, I really need say no more.” [34-36].