The court looked at how to establish where a tort was committed in order then to test its jurisdiction: ‘As the rule now stands it is plain that jurisdiction may be assumed only where (a) the claim is founded on a tort and either (b) the damage was sustained within the jurisdiction or (c) the damage resulted from an act committed within the jurisdiction. Condition (a) poses a question which we consider below: what law is to be applied in resolving whether the claim is ‘founded on a tort?’ Condition (b) raises the question: what damage is referred to? It was argued for A.C.L.I. that since the draftsman had used the definite article and not simply referred to ‘damage,’ it is necessary that all the damage should have been sustained within the jurisdiction. No authority was cited to support the suggestion that this is the correct construction of the Convention to which the rule gives effect and it could lead to an absurd result if there were no one place in which all the plaintiff’s damage had been suffered. The judge rejected this argument and so do we. It is enough if some significant damage has been sustained in England. Condition (c) prompts the inquiry: what if damage has resulted from acts committed partly within and partly without the jurisdiction? This will often be the case where a series of acts, regarded by English law as tortious, are committed in an international context. It would not, we think, make sense to require all the acts to have been committed within the jurisdiction, because again there might be no single jurisdiction where that would be so. But it would certainly contravene the spirit, and also we think the letter, of the rule if jurisdiction were assumed on the strength of some relatively minor or insignificant act having been committed here, perhaps fortuitously. In our view condition (c) requires the court to look at the tort alleged in a common sense way and ask whether damage has resulted from substantial and efficacious acts committed within the jurisdiction (whether or not other substantial and efficacious acts have been committed elsewhere): if the answer is yes, leave may (but of course need not) be given. But the defendants are, we think, right to insist that the acts to be considered must be those of the putative defendant, because the question at issue is whether the links between him and the English forum are such as to justify his being brought here to answer the plaintiffs’ claim.’
Citations:
[1990] 1 QB 391
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ashton Investments Ltd. and Another v OJSC Russian Aluminium (Rusal) and others ComC 18-Oct-2006
The claimants sought damages for breach of confidence saying that the defendants had hacked into their computer systems via the internet to seek privileged information in the course of litigation. The defendants denied this and said the courts had . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction, Torts – Other
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.245758