The High Court has directed that Volkswagen’s jurisdiction challenge in a customer’s District Court case be heard first by a different judge, after finding that an unusual discovery hearing had strayed into a mini-trial.
In a judgment delivered on 5 December 2017, Ms Justice Ni Raifeartaigh said the District Court had not decided whether it had jurisdiction to hear Eithne Higgins’s claim. The High Court therefore declined to decide that issue itself and returned it to the District Court for a determination, with evidence if necessary.
Ms Higgins had bought a second-hand Seat in Ballyhaunis in November 2014. She later claimed damages for breach of contract, alleging dishonest representations about the car’s technical specifications, emissions, fuel efficiency and performance. Volkswagen Group Ireland Limited and Volkswagen AG denied that they were parties to her contract and challenged the Castlebar District Court’s jurisdiction. Their defence raised the objection from the outset.
The dispute took an unusual procedural course. A District Court discovery application concerning whether the car was affected by a carbon dioxide or nitrogen oxide emissions issue developed into an oral hearing with witnesses addressing discovery in US litigation, vehicle emissions and Ms Higgins’s alleged loss. The Volkswagen applicants’ legal team left the hearing on 6 September 2016 after objecting to the process and to the District Court proceeding before deciding jurisdiction. The District Court subsequently found that its discovery order had not been complied with and sought further and better discovery.
The High Court found that the District Court judge had not ruled on jurisdiction at the first hearing in May 2016, despite later saying that she had. The High Court said the judge’s mistaken recollection, and her statement that the issue was res judicata, created an appearance of possible pre-judgment. It emphasised that it had no doubt she would act professionally and impartially, but concluded that another judge should decide the jurisdiction question.
The court also found that the discovery process had lost its procedural focus and become a mini-trial aimed at helping Ms Higgins clarify her case. It held that the applicants had not acquiesced in the procedure that actually took place. The High Court directed that a different District Court judge hear the remaining proceedings, decide jurisdiction first, and, if the case continues there, keep it within ordinary pre-trial and trial procedures. It quashed the District Court’s 7 September 2016 order for further and better discovery.
The judgment did not decide whether the Castlebar District Court had jurisdiction or whether Ms Higgins’s underlying claim was well founded.