Chowdhury v PZU SA [2021] EWHC 3037 (QB) (12 November 2021)

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
Private International Law Civil Procedure 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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nafis Chowdhury

Claimant/respondent

PZU SA

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Jurisdiction Ruling

  1. 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