Lackey v Mallorca Mega Resorts SL & Anor [2019] EWHC 1028 (QB) (30 April 2019)

Lackey v Mallorca Mega Resorts SL & Anor [2019] EWHC 1028 (QB) (30 April 2019)

The English court has jurisdiction over both the insurer and the hotel under Sections 3 and 4 of the Recast Brussels Regulation because Article 13(3) permits joinder of the insured to a direct action against the insurer, and the claimant qualifies as a consumer under Article 17 and 18, being a beneficiary of the group booking contract.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1028 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Bonnie Lackey; First Defendant: Mallorca Mega Resorts SL; Second Defendant: Generali Espana de Seguros y Reasecuros SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Jurisdictional Challenge in Personal Injury Claim / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application contesting jurisdiction refused; English court has jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Brussels Regulation, Direct Action Against Insurer, Consumer Contract Definition
Civil Procedure Private International Law Insurance Law Consumer Law Jurisdiction Brussels Regulation Direct Action Against Insurer Consumer Contract Definition

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bonnie Lackey

Claimant

Mallorca Mega Resorts SL

First Defendant

Generali Espana de Seguros y Reasecuros SA

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Jurisdictional Challenge in Personal Injury Claim / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over claims against a Spanish hotel and its insurer under the Recast Brussels Regulation
  2. 2 Whether the claimant qualifies as a 'consumer' under Section 4 of the Regulation
  3. 3 Interpretation of Article 13(3) regarding joinder of insured to insurer claim

Ratio Decidendi

The English court has jurisdiction over both the insurer and the hotel under Sections 3 and 4 of the Recast Brussels Regulation because Article 13(3) permits joinder of the insured to a direct action against the insurer, and the claimant qualifies as a consumer under Article 17 and 18, being a beneficiary of the group booking contract.

Court Disposition

Application contesting jurisdiction refused; English court has jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Relief from sanctions granted for late application.
  • Declaration that English court has jurisdiction over the claim pursuant to Sections 3 and 4 of the Recast Brussels Regulation.