The High Court has ruled that it has no jurisdiction to determine Patrick Burke’s claim against German motorcycle seller Motorrad TAF GmbH. The decision concerned jurisdiction only; it did not determine whether either defendant was liable for his injuries.
Mr Justice Herbert delivered the judgment on 8 March 2005, following a motion heard on 28 February. The seller sought a declaration that the court lacked jurisdiction over the proceedings against it. The motion succeeded.
The statement of claim said that Mr Burke bought a motorcycle helmet with a visor from Motorrad TAF in August 1999, and that the helmet and visor were manufactured by the other defendant, Uvex Sports GmbH. It alleged that on 5 May 2000, while he was riding at Rosegreen, Cashel, in County Tipperary, his motorcycle skidded on gravel or other material and struck a roadside bank or fence. The pleading alleged that the visor broke and caused or allowed injuries to his upper lip, nose and the inside of his mouth.
The claim was pleaded in tort against both companies. It also relied on the Liability for Defective Products Act 1991 against Uvex. At the hearing, the plaintiff’s counsel confirmed that the claims against both defendants were solely in tort, and indicated an application to remove the reference to the contractual-jurisdiction provision in the summons.
The seller argued that the pleaded purchase from it made the dispute contractual for jurisdiction purposes, despite the tort-only claim. The plaintiff argued that the claim could proceed under the European rule allowing a defendant to be sued in the place where the harmful event occurred. He also raised the possibility of limitation difficulties if he had to sue in Germany and the risk of related claims being heard in different countries.
Herbert J held that the court had to apply Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001, and that its special jurisdiction rules were exceptions to the general rule that a defendant should be sued where domiciled. He concluded that the court could not disregard the contractual relationship between Mr Burke and the seller merely because the claim was framed in tort under Irish law. He also found that the related-actions provision did not confer jurisdiction in the circumstances, where separate actions had not been brought in different Member States.
The court therefore declined jurisdiction over the claim against Motorrad TAF. The judgment does not state that the claim against Uvex was decided or dismissed, and makes no finding on the alleged accident, defect or injuries.