John Colin Graham v Fidelidade – Companhia De Seguros SA
[2024] EWHC 2010 (KB)
Mohammed Ibrahim v AXA Belgium
17 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 856 (KB)
High Court
A person injured in a car accident in Belgium sued the insurance company in England. The insurance company tried to move the case to Belgium because it was slow to act and did not give a good reason for the delay. The court said that England was the better place for the case because the injured person lives in England, all witnesses are there and it would be difficult for him to participate in court in Belgium due to the language barrier.
Key Facts
- •Claim for personal injury damages arising from a road traffic accident in Belgium in March 2019.
- •Defendant (AXA Belgium) applied for relief from sanction for late application to stay proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds.
- •Defendant also sought a declaration that the English court should not exercise jurisdiction and a stay of proceedings.
- •Claimant applied for judgment under CPR 14.4.
- •Defendant admitted liability but argued Belgium was the more appropriate forum.
- •The accident occurred in Belgium, the Defendant is domiciled in Belgium, and Belgian law applies.
- •Claimant resides in England, all witnesses are in England, and Claimant prefers English proceedings due to language barriers and increased health problems.
- •The Defendant was aware of the English proceedings from August 2023 but only initiated Belgian proceedings in January 2024.
Legal Principles
Relief from sanction applications are assessed according to the guidance in *Denton v T. H. White Limited* [2014] EWCA Civ 906.
*Denton v T. H. White Limited* [2014] EWCA Civ 906
Applications to challenge jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds must be made within 14 days of filing the acknowledgement of service (CPR 11.1(4)).
CPR 11.1(4)
In forum non conveniens cases, the defendant bears the burden of showing another forum is clearly and distinctly more appropriate. If so, a stay will be granted unless injustice to the claimant would result.
*Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd* [1987] AC 460
The court considers all circumstances when deciding whether to grant a stay, including the connection of the dispute to the jurisdiction and whether the dispute has its closest connection with that jurisdiction.
*FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC v Lady Brownlie* [2021] UKSC 45 and *VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp* [2013] UKSC 5
Outcomes
Defendant's application for relief from sanction and extension of time was dismissed.
The 30-day delay in applying for a stay was deemed a serious breach of CPR 11.1(4) due to lack of good reason and the significant consequences a successful jurisdictional challenge would have for the claimant. The court rejected the Defendant's explanation for the delay.
Defendant's application for a stay on forum non conveniens grounds was dismissed.
The court found that the Defendant failed to demonstrate that Belgium was clearly and distinctly the more appropriate forum. Several factors favored the English court, including the claimant's residence, witness location, language barriers, and access to a wider range of expert medical evidence.