The High Court has ruled that an Irish coach hire company may pursue its negligence claim against a Belgian manufacturer in Ireland, but cannot pursue its claim against the UK seller in the Irish courts.
In a judgment delivered on 24 October 2022, Ms Justice Butler considered separate motions challenging the court’s jurisdiction over claims arising from the purchase of a newly built luxury coach. The plaintiff says the coach was defective. The defendants deny that allegation; the court was deciding jurisdiction, not whether the coach was defective or whether either defendant was liable.
The coach was delivered to the plaintiff at Fishguard in Wales on 26 May 2013. The plaintiff claimed against the UK seller in contract and negligence, and against the Belgian manufacturer in negligence. The court treated the claims against the seller as arising from the contractual relationship, so jurisdiction fell to be determined under the Brussels Regulation’s rules for contracts. For a sale of goods, the relevant place was where the goods were delivered. As delivery took place in Wales, the Irish court had no jurisdiction over the claim against the seller.
The UK seller also relied on a clause in its printed terms and conditions giving the UK courts exclusive jurisdiction. The judge found that the terms, including the clause, had been incorporated into the contract. However, because the delivery location was sufficient to decide the jurisdiction issue, she did not need to rely on that clause to make the order.
The court reached a different conclusion on the claim against the Belgian manufacturer. It accepted, for the purpose of deciding jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s assertions that negligent manufacture caused defects that produced damage when the coach was put into service in Ireland. The judge found that Ireland was where the alleged damage manifested during the vehicle’s intended use as a luxury coach. On that basis, Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation gave the Irish court jurisdiction over the claim against the manufacturer.
The court therefore set aside the plenary summons and service on the UK seller, and struck out the proceedings against it for want of jurisdiction. It refused the Belgian manufacturer’s motion to set aside the proceedings. These decisions determine where the claims may be heard; they do not decide the underlying allegations of defect or negligence.