Roberts v The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association -Forces Help & Ors [2016] EWHC 2744 (QB) (03 November 2016)

Roberts v The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association -Forces Help & Ors [2016] EWHC 2744 (QB) (03 November 2016)

Viersen was permitted to rely on article 8(2) of the Brussels Recast Regulation, and the English court had jurisdiction over the third party proceedings because there was a close connection between the original and third party claims. SSAFA and MOD were not bound by the jurisdiction clause in the contract with...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2744 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Master Harry Roberts (a child and protected party, by his mother and litigation friend Mrs Lauren Roberts); Defendant/part 20 Claimant: The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association – Forces Help; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: The Ministry of Defence; Third Party: Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen Gmbh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Application to Dispute Jurisdiction in Third Party Proceedings / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Brussels Recast Regulation, Third Party Proceedings, Agency, Contractual Jurisdiction Clauses
Civil Procedure Private International Law Medical Negligence Jurisdiction Brussels Recast Regulation Third Party Proceedings Agency Contractual Jurisdiction Clauses

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Master Harry Roberts (a child and protected party, by his mother and litigation friend Mrs Lauren Roberts)

Claimant

The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association – Forces Help

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

The Ministry of Defence

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen Gmbh

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Application to Dispute Jurisdiction in Third Party Proceedings / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Viersen can rely on article 8(2) of the Brussels Recast Regulation to dispute jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the English court has jurisdiction under article 8(2) of the Brussels Recast Regulation
  3. 3 Whether SSAFA and MOD are bound by the jurisdiction clause in the contract under article 25 of the Brussels Recast Regulation

Ratio Decidendi

Viersen was permitted to rely on article 8(2) of the Brussels Recast Regulation, and the English court had jurisdiction over the third party proceedings because there was a close connection between the original and third party claims. SSAFA and MOD were not bound by the jurisdiction clause in the contract with Viersen, as there was no evidence of agency or ostensible authority, and thus the English court retained jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Viersen permitted to rely on article 8(2) of Brussels Recast
  • English court has jurisdiction over the third party proceedings