Europa Where the place of the happening of the event which may give rise to liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict and the place where that event results in damage are not identical, the expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’, in article 5(3) of the convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be understood as being intended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it. The result is that the defendant may be sued, at the option of the plaintiff, either in the courts for the place where the damage occurred or in the courts for the place of the event which gives rise to and is at the origin of that damage.
Citations:
R-21/76, [1976] EUECJ R-21/76, [1978] QB 708, [1977] 1 CMLR 284, ECLI:EU:C:1976:166, [1976] ECR 1735, [1977] 3 WLR 479
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
European
Cited by:
Cited – ABCI v Banque Franco-Tunisienne and others CA 27-Feb-2003
‘The thinking behind the CPR was that they would speak for themselves and that courts would not have to refer to an ever increasing body of authority in order to apply them.’ . .
Mentioned – Cooley v Ramsey QBD 1-Feb-2008
The claimant sought damages after being severely injured in a road traffic accident in Australia caused by the defendant. The defendant denied that the court had jurisdiction to permit service out of the jurisdiction. The claimant said that the . .
Cited – Trident Turboprop (Dublin) Ltd v First Flight Couriers Ltd CA 2-Apr-2009
The appellant entered into two aircraft leasing agreements but were unable to maintain payments. They appealed against rejection of their argument that the agreements were not exempt from the controls under the 1977 Act by being international supply . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov SC 21-Mar-2018
A had been chairman of the claimant bank. After removal, A fled to the UK, obtaining asylum. The bank then claimed embezzlement, and was sentenced for contempt after failing to disclose assets when ordered, but fled the UK. The Appellant, K, was A’s . .
Cited – AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier and Others SC 1-Mar-2017
AMT entered into many financial services agreements providing for exclusive EW jurisdiction. It now sought to restrain the defendant German lawyers from encouraging litigation in Germany saying that induced breaches of the contracts. It also sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction
Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.214503