Sherdley & Anor v Nordea Life and Pension SA (Societe Anonyme) [2012] EWCA Civ 88 (16 February 2012)

Sherdley & Anor v Nordea Life and Pension SA (Societe Anonyme) [2012] EWCA Civ 88 (16 February 2012)

The Court held that the Sherdleys were habitually resident in Wales at the time of contract, and that the initial agreement in the application forms provided for English law and jurisdiction. However, subsequent contract documentation introduced conflicting jurisdiction clauses (Spain, Luxembourg). The Court found...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 88
Parties
Appellant / Claimant: Ian Sherdley; Appellant / Claimant: Carol Ann Sherdley; Respondent / Defendant: Nordea Life and Pension SA (Societe Anonyme)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Chancery Division (high Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; English courts have jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Brussels I Regulation, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Habitual Residence, Consumer Protection in Insurance Contracts, Interpretation of Jurisdiction Agreements
Private International Law Insurance Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Under Brussels I Regulation Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Habitual Residence Consumer Protection in Insurance Contracts Interpretation of Jurisdiction Agreements

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Sherdley

Appellant / Claimant

Carol Ann Sherdley

Appellant / Claimant

Nordea Life and Pension SA (Societe Anonyme)

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Chancery Division (high Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English courts have jurisdiction over the claim against Nordea under the Judgments Regulation (EC No 44/2001)
  2. 2 Whether there was a binding agreement on exclusive jurisdiction and applicable law, and if so, in favour of which country
  3. 3 Whether the Sherdleys were habitually resident in England and Wales at the time of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Sherdleys were habitually resident in Wales at the time of contract, and that the initial agreement in the application forms provided for English law and jurisdiction. However, subsequent contract documentation introduced conflicting jurisdiction clauses (Spain, Luxembourg). The Court found that none of the exclusive jurisdiction clauses in favour of Spain or Luxembourg could override the insureds' right under Article 9 of the Judgments Regulation to sue in their own domicile or the insurer's domicile, as Article 13 prohibits exclusive jurisdiction clauses that restrict this right. Therefore, the English courts had jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; English courts have jurisdiction.

Orders

  • The order of the High Court (Vos J) is set aside.
  • The claim may proceed in the courts of England and Wales.