- Jurisdiction challenge—cross-border fatal claim arising from clinical negligence (Flowers and others v Centro Medico Salus Baleares SL and another)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Were the deceased and first claimant domiciled in England?
- Did the English court have jurisdiction under the consumer contracts section of the regulation?
- Did the English court have jurisdiction under the insurance section of the regulation?
- Must the cause of action being relied on involve a matter relating to insurance?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The court provides an insightful judgment on the application of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) in matters relating to a claimant’s domicile (where they reside in one country but maintain a house in another) and whether the court has jurisdiction under the insurance and consumer sections of the regulation. On considering the meaning of consumer contracts section, the judge was not persuaded that the claim being brought fell within the meaning. However, in relation to the insurance issues, it was held that the claimants had a good arguable case that they have a direct claim against the second defendant (insurer) under Spanish law pursuant to Article 13(2), notwithstanding the geographical limitation clause that purported to restrict cover. The issue of whether the first defendant (a hospital) could be joined in the English action under Article 13(3) was stayed pending determination of a reference to the Court of Justice. Written by Katherine Allen, partner at Hugh James.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial