Chowdhury v PZU SA [2021] EWHC 3037 (QB) (12 November 2021)
The Claimant was resident and domiciled in England at the time of issue of proceedings, as his stay in Germany was temporary and solely for medical treatment resulting from the tort; his substantial connection to England was not lost by absence, and the law does not require a specific address for residence.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] EWHC 3037
- Parties
- Claimant/respondent: Nafis Chowdhury; Defendant/appellant: PZU SA
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 12 November 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Jurisdiction Ruling
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Domicile, Personal Injury, EU Regulation, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Nafis Chowdhury
Claimant/respondent
PZU SA
Defendant/appellant
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Jurisdiction Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the English courts have jurisdiction to try a personal injury claim against a foreign insurer based on the claimant's domicile in England at the time of issue
Ratio Decidendi
The Claimant was resident and domiciled in England at the time of issue of proceedings, as his stay in Germany was temporary and solely for medical treatment resulting from the tort; his substantial connection to England was not lost by absence, and the law does not require a specific address for residence.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appellant to pay Respondent’s costs of the appeal, to be assessed if not agreed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment