The High Court has set aside service of a personal injury summons on the operator of Ostersund Airport and struck out the passenger’s claim against it for want of jurisdiction.
Ms Justice Butler ruled that the Irish courts had no basis to hear the claim against the Swedish airport operator under the jurisdiction grounds relied on by the plaintiff. Her decision concerned a preliminary jurisdiction application, not whether the airport operator was responsible for the fall.
The plaintiff said she slipped on ice while getting off a flight at Ostersund Airport in northern Sweden in November 2017 and seriously injured her right arm. She sued SAS AB, which operated the flight, and the airport operator, Swedavia AB, alleging negligence and other breaches. The judgment records that she had not yet answered the defendants’ requests for details about where the ice was or at what point in disembarkation she fell.
The court said the Irish proceedings against SAS could continue: the airline had not challenged Irish jurisdiction, and the Montreal Convention allowed the plaintiff to sue it here based on her permanent residence and the airline’s services to and from Ireland. That Convention’s carrier-liability rules did not apply to the airport operator.
The judge rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on Article 7 of the Brussels Recast Regulation. The alleged fall and injury occurred in Sweden, she found; continuing to experience the injury after returning to Ireland did not make Ireland a place where the harmful event occurred. Nor did the ticket charges establish a contract with the airport operator or an Irish place of performance.
The court also rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to rely on rules for related or third-party claims. Neither defendant was domiciled in Ireland, so the multiple-defendant rule in Article 8(1) did not apply. Article 8(2), the judge said, allows a defendant in existing proceedings to bring a connected third-party claim; it does not allow a plaintiff to bring a co-defendant before a court that otherwise lacks jurisdiction.
SAS had served a notice seeking indemnity or contribution from the airport operator after the operator brought its motion. The judge held that this did not retrospectively establish jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim or validate service: when SAS served the notice, the airport operator was not properly a party to the proceedings. The ruling left open the possibility that SAS could take proper steps to bring a third-party claim, subject to applicable procedural and time limits.
The court granted both orders sought by Swedavia: service of the summons was set aside and the proceedings against it were struck out. The ruling did not determine the merits of the plaintiff’s injury claim against SAS or any potential third-party claim.