EUPillar Ian Shannon v Global Tunneling Experts UK Limited and others [2015] EWHC 1267 (QB)

Summary

The claimant, Mr Shannon, was domiciled in Britain. He sustained an injury in an accident, whilst working on a railway construction project, in Belgium on 10th March 2011. In 2014, the claimant commenced proceedings against the defendants in England, seeking damages for personal injuries. The first defendant was his employer which is domiciled in England. The fourth and fifth defendants were the project’s Main Contractors which were domiciled in Belgium. On 30th September 2014, they challenged the jurisdiction of the English court. On 7th May 2015, the English High Court dismissed their challenge. Mr Justice Jay held: “56 […] Mr Caplin submitted that it was incumbent on the Claimant to satisfy the Court that it possessed jurisdiction over the Belgian Defendants in all material respects, but I cannot accept that the Claimant has to shoulder any burden of proof to the effect that his case does not fall within Section 5. That would be to require him to prove a negative. 57 Ultimately, though, the resolution of this point probably does not turn on the application of any burden of proof, but rather on the correct legal analysis of Section 5 in the particular circumstances of this instant case. Insofar as Article 19 applies to the present case, it enables the Claimant to sue the First Defendant in the courts of its domicile. Articles 18-20 have no application to the claim against the Belgian Defendants, because no relevant contract of employment exists. As I have said, insofar as any contract of employment exists, it permits, rather than precludes, a claim in this jurisdiction. I fail to see how Section 5 should operate to prevent the Claimant from relying on Article 6 in circumstances where the claim against the Belgian Defendants does not fall within that section at all. To hold otherwise would be to re-write the relevant Articles in a fashion which is not mandated by any teleological approach to them. […] 59 Mr Caplin also submitted that I should hold that the Claimant has abused the process of the Court by impleading the Belgian Defendants in these proceedings. I fail to understand how that submission might operate as a freestanding objection to this claim, assuming that I should find myself in disagreement with Mr Caplin elsewhere. The ECJ in Freeport held, at paragraph 54, that if Article 6(1) was properly engaged, then it was not incumbent on the Claimant to demonstrate in addition that the claim was not brought with the sole object of ousting the court of domicile. Put another way, if the law permits Mr Wilkinson to rely on Article 6(1) of the Brussels Regulation , then he is entitled (without more) to do so.” [56, 57 and 59]