Case number and/or case name
Wylie v Omniasig SA, Court of Session (Outer House) [2012] CSOH 128 (Lord Pentland)
Summary
This action before the Court of Session, Outer House (Lord Pentland), concerns damages arising from personal injury suffered by the pursuer in a car accident in Romania in June 2008. The pursuer is domiciled in Scotland whereas the defenders are the insurers of the car in which the pursuer was travelling at the time of the accident. They are an insurance company incorporated under Romanian law and have their principal place of business in Bucharest. Since the liability for the accident was accepted by the defenders, the only issue left to be determined by the judge at the hearing was the amount of damages which should be awarded to the pursuer. At para 4 of the judgment, the judge stated that he had been informed that the pursuer intended, if necessary, to enforce the judgment of this court in Romania under the provisions of Brussels I and added that the judgment of this court is directly enforceable in Romania on application to the designated court in that Member State in terms of Art 39 of the Regulation. He further referred to Annex II of the Regulation which defines the court in Romania as the “Tribunal”. The judge awarded the sum of £54,325.82 under various heads of damages and interest calculated to the date of decree. In this regard, the jurisdiction was exercised in this action but without determining the question of jurisdiction under Brussels I although the court would have got the same result that the court had jurisdiction under Art 11(2) of Brussels I. Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance is dealt with under Arts 8-14 of the Regulation. According to Art 11(2), in respect of liability insurance, Arts 8, 9 and 10 apply to actions brought by the injured party directly against the insurer, where such direct actions are permitted. As held by the CJEU in C-463/06, FBTO Schadeverzekeringen NV v Odenbreit [2007] ECR I-11321 at para 31, the reference in Art 11(2) of Brussels I to Art 9(1)(b) is to be interpreted as meaning that the injured party may bring an action directly against the insurer before the courts for the place in a Member State where that injured party is domiciled, provided that a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domiciled in a Member State. Accordingly, in this action which was brought by the injured party domiciled in Scotland directly against the insurer domiciled in Romania, the Scottish court had jurisdiction under Art 11(2) of Brussels I.