LISA PAL v DR LUC DAMEN & Anor

LISA PAL v DR LUC DAMEN & Anor

The Claimant established a good arguable case for the existence of a contract for medical treatment and/or medical services between her and the Surgeon, and accordingly the English court has jurisdiction over the claim against the Surgeon. The Claimant failed to establish a good arguable case for the existence of such a contract against the Clinic, and the court does not have jurisdiction over the claim against the Clinic.

Parties
Claimant: Lisa Pal; First Defendant: Dr Luc Damen; Second Defendant: Belgo International Research Applications and Development NV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application on Jurisdiction (cpr 11)
Outcome
Jurisdiction established against the Surgeon; not established against the Clinic.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Consumer Contracts, Medical Negligence, Applicable Law, Brussels Recast Regulation, Rome I Regulation, Rome II Regulation
Private International Law Contract Law Tort Law Medical Law Jurisdiction Consumer Contracts Medical Negligence Applicable Law +3 more

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lisa Pal

Claimant

Dr Luc Damen

First Defendant

Belgo International Research Applications and Development NV

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application on Jurisdiction (cpr 11)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the claim against the Surgeon and the Clinic under Brussels Recast Regulation
  2. 2 Whether there was a contract between the Claimant and the Surgeon and/or the Clinic under Belgian law
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant can establish a good arguable case for jurisdiction based on a consumer contract

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant established a good arguable case for the existence of a contract for medical treatment and/or medical services between her and the Surgeon, and accordingly the English court has jurisdiction over the claim against the Surgeon. The Claimant failed to establish a good arguable case for the existence of such a contract against the Clinic, and the court does not have jurisdiction over the claim against the Clinic.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction established against the Surgeon; not established against the Clinic.

Orders

  • The court has jurisdiction over the claim against the Surgeon.
  • The court does not have jurisdiction over the claim against the Clinic.