John Colin Graham v Fidelidade – Companhia De Seguros SA
[2024] EWHC 2010 (KB)
Chelsea Roach v Vallarta Adventure, S.A de C.V
10 September 2023
[2023] EWHC 2674 (KB)
High Court
A British tourist sued a Mexican company in England after getting hurt in Mexico. The judge said the case should be heard in Mexico because that's where the accident happened and the company is based. Even though the tourist lives in England, the judge thought it would be fairer and more efficient to handle the case in Mexico.
Key Facts
- •Chelsea Roach (Claimant) suffered a severe arm injury in Mexico while on an ATV excursion booked through TUI.
- •The excursion was provided by Vallarta Adventure, S.A. de C.V. (Defendant), a Mexican company.
- •Before the excursion, the Claimant signed an agreement with the Defendant containing a liability waiver and a jurisdiction clause specifying Puerto Vallarta courts.
- •The Claimant issued a personal injury claim in the English High Court.
- •The Defendant made applications to set aside service of the claim form and declare that English courts lack jurisdiction.
Legal Principles
Consumer contract gateway under section 15 B(1) of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982) for service out of jurisdiction.
CJJA 1982, CPR r.6.33(2)(b)(ii)
Tort gateway for service out of jurisdiction.
CPR 6.36 and 6.37
Forum non conveniens: A stay of proceedings will be granted if another forum is clearly more appropriate.
Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd
Validity of jurisdiction clauses in contracts of adhesion under Mexican law.
Mexican Supreme Court of Justice decision 1a./J. 1/2019 (10a.), Federal Court decision I.11o.C.134 C (10a.)
Determining jurisdiction: The claimant must provide a plausible evidential basis for a jurisdictional gateway. If there's a factual dispute, the court takes a view if reliably possible; otherwise, a 'good arguable case' suffices.
Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA, Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Inc, Bitar v Banque Libano‐Francaise SAL
Outcomes
Claimant's application to amend claim form to rely on the consumer contract gateway dismissed.
Insufficient connection between the Defendant's commercial activities and the UK. Defendant's marketing primarily targeted North America, not the UK.
Defendant's application to set aside service of the claim form and declare that English courts lack jurisdiction granted.
Mexico is the more appropriate forum. The accident occurred in Mexico, the Defendant is a Mexican company, Mexican law governs, and key witnesses and evidence are located in Mexico. The jurisdiction clause, while potentially subject to Mexican court interpretation, is unlikely to be void. While the claimant's domicile in the UK and potential difficulties with legal aid in Mexico are relevant, they do not outweigh the factors favoring Mexico.
Similar Cases
Stuart Lunn v Antarctic Logistics Centre International (Pty) Limited
[2024] EWHC 1662 (KB)
Andrew Edward McCarthy v Graham Brian Proctor
[2024] EWHC 684 (Ch)
PT Services Malta Limited v Tecnologia En Entretenimiento Caliplay S De Rl De Cv
[2023] EWHC 3060 (Comm)
Mariusz Szrek & Ors v DIV-ING DOO & Ors
[2024] EWHC 219 (KB)