Sherdley & Anor v Nordea Life and Pension SA (Societe Anonyme)

Sherdley & Anor v Nordea Life and Pension SA (Societe Anonyme)

The Court of Appeal held that the English courts lack jurisdiction to hear the Sherdleys' claim against Nordea. None of the exclusive jurisdiction clauses in the contractual documentation could survive the requirements of Article 13(2) of the Judgments Regulation, which protects the insured's right to sue in their domicile. At the time proceedings were commenced, the Sherdleys were domiciled in Spain, not England and Wales, and had not established a clear and precise agreement for English jurisdiction. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; English courts lack jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Brussels I Regulation, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Consumer Protection in Insurance Contracts, Habitual Residence and Domicile, Interpretation of Jurisdiction Agreements
Private International Law Insurance Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Under Brussels I Regulation Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Consumer Protection in Insurance Contracts Habitual Residence and Domicile Interpretation of Jurisdiction Agreements

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 5 Authorities cited 12 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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English courts have jurisdiction to hear the Sherdleys' claim against Nordea under the Judgments Regulation (EC No 44/2001)
  2. 2 Whether any exclusive jurisdiction agreement in the insurance contracts is valid and enforceable under Articles 9, 13, and 23 of the Regulation
  3. 3 Whether the Sherdleys were habitually resident or domiciled in England and Wales at the relevant time

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the English courts lack jurisdiction to hear the Sherdleys' claim against Nordea. None of the exclusive jurisdiction clauses in the contractual documentation could survive the requirements of Article 13(2) of the Judgments Regulation, which protects the insured's right to sue in their domicile. At the time proceedings were commenced, the Sherdleys were domiciled in Spain, not England and Wales, and had not established a clear and precise agreement for English jurisdiction. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; English courts lack jurisdiction