The High Court has set aside service of proceedings brought by C.J. Gaffney Ltd. against two German defendants over alleged misrepresentations about a fishing vessel’s stability, finding that Ireland was not the proper jurisdiction for the claim.
Ms Justice Baker delivered the judgment on 12 November 2015. The defendants had entered conditional appearances and applied under Order 12, rule 26 of the Rules of the Superior Courts to set aside service of the plenary summons for want of jurisdiction. The court decided that application, not whether the defendants had made negligent or fraudulent misrepresentations.
C.J. Gaffney Ltd., a family-owned fishing company, bought the vessel in the Netherlands in 2007. It alleged that it relied on stability values in a certificate issued in 1992 and on related warranties or representations by Germanischer Lloyd SE and BG Verkehr. The company said the vessel performed poorly in heavy seas and that tests carried out in Ireland in 2009 showed stability values that meant it could not lawfully be fished. It claimed that stabilisation work later carried out did not make the vessel suitable for supplying the Irish fish market.
The defendants argued that the case fell outside the Brussels I Regulation because BG Verkehr had acted as a German public authority. The judge found there was not admissible evidence of German law sufficient to determine that status. She also held that the pleaded claim concerned private law duties in tort, rather than rights or duties arising from the exercise of public powers, so the defendants had not shown that the claim was outside the Regulation.
The court then considered whether the alleged harmful event occurred in Ireland under Article 5(3) of the Regulation. The judge said the plaintiff had to establish a significant connection to Ireland. She treated the relevant initial and direct damage as occurring when the company decided to buy the vessel, relying on the certificate, and took possession of a vessel alleged to lack the stated stability characteristics. The pleaded reliance and purchase were connected to the Netherlands; the court found no pleaded or sworn evidence that the representations were received in Ireland before the purchase.
The later Irish registration, use and stability testing, and the loss said to follow, did not establish the required jurisdictional connection. The judge concluded that the initial damage occurred in the Netherlands and that Ireland had no sufficient connection to the transaction underlying the claim. She ordered that service be set aside. The judgment did not determine whether the certificate was inaccurate or whether either defendant was liable.