The High Court has ruled that Irish courts can hear a woman’s claim against a UK cycling tour operator over an accident she alleges happened in Sri Lanka. It refused the company’s motion to dismiss the proceedings, which challenged the Irish courts’ jurisdiction.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Garrett Simons on 12 June 2023, concerns Ann Casey’s personal injuries action against Redspokes Ltd, trading as Redspokes Adventure Tours. The company is domiciled in the UK. The accident is alleged to have occurred during a cycling holiday it organised in Sri Lanka.
The issue before the court was whether the consumer contract rules in EU Regulation 1215/2012 allowed Casey to sue in Ireland, where she is domiciled. The company accepted for the purpose of this application that the contract was a consumer contract, but argued that it had not directed its commercial activities to Ireland.
The judge considered how the company presented its tours to prospective customers. The cycling holidays took place outside the UK, and the company’s materials said people joined its tours from around the world. Its website displayed a testimonial from an Irish participant and allowed prices to be shown in euros. The booking process also asked customers for their country and city of residence. The judge said the company would have been on notice of Casey’s Irish residence when it accepted her booking.
The company did not arrange flights to Sri Lanka, but it arranged to collect participants at the destination airport. The judge also noted that it had agreed in principle to let Casey join the tour late, potentially allowing her to buy a cheaper flight. He treated those circumstances, together with the website and booking evidence, as showing an intention to do business with consumers in Ireland. The UK website domain and international telephone number were largely neutral when considered together.
The court concluded that the contract met the relevant EU criteria for consumer jurisdiction. The ruling decides where the claim may be heard; it does not determine whether the alleged accident occurred, whether the company was liable, or what damages might be due.
The judge gave a provisional view that Casey should recover her costs of the jurisdiction motion, subject to adjudication and a stay on execution pending final determination of the proceedings. He allowed the company 14 days to file submissions on a different costs order, with Casey then having 14 days to reply. The matter was listed for final orders on 17 July 2023.