Hutchinson v Mapfre Espana Compania De Seguros Y Reaseguaros SA. & Anor

Hutchinson v Mapfre Espana Compania De Seguros Y Reaseguaros SA. & Anor

The English court has jurisdiction over the contractual claim against Ice Mountain under Articles 17 and 18 of Recast Brussels 1, as Ice Mountain directed its activities to the UK and the contract falls within those activities. The court also has jurisdiction over the direct claim against Mapfre under Article 13(2), as the territorial scope clause cannot be relied upon to defeat the claimant's rights under EU law. There is no lis alibi pendens as Spanish proceedings were dismissed and did not constitute civil proceedings involving Mr Hutchinson. Non-contractual claims against Ice Mountain are stayed pending the CJEU reference in Cole.

Parties
Claimant: Jonathan Hutchinson; First Defendant: Mapfre Espana Compania de Seguros y Reaseguaros S.A.; Second Defendant: Ice Mountain Ibiza S.L. (trading as OBeach Ibiza)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Jurisdictional Challenge Ruling
Outcome
Jurisdictional challenges dismissed; non-contractual claims stayed pending CJEU reference.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation, Direct Action Against Insurer, Consumer Protection, Lis Alibi Pendens, Interpretation of Insurance Policy Clauses
Private International Law Insurance Law Contract Law Tort Law Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation Direct Action Against Insurer Consumer Protection Lis Alibi Pendens +1 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 7 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Hutchinson

Claimant

Mapfre Espana Compania de Seguros y Reaseguaros S.A.

First Defendant

Ice Mountain Ibiza S.L. (trading as OBeach Ibiza)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Jurisdictional Challenge Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the English court have jurisdiction over the contractual claim against Ice Mountain under Recast Brussels 1?
  2. 2 Does the English court have jurisdiction over the direct claim against Mapfre under Article 13(2) of Recast Brussels 1?
  3. 3 Should the non-contractual claims against Ice Mountain be stayed pending CJEU reference in Cole?

Ratio Decidendi

The English court has jurisdiction over the contractual claim against Ice Mountain under Articles 17 and 18 of Recast Brussels 1, as Ice Mountain directed its activities to the UK and the contract falls within those activities. The court also has jurisdiction over the direct claim against Mapfre under Article 13(2), as the territorial scope clause cannot be relied upon to defeat the claimant's rights under EU law. There is no lis alibi pendens as Spanish proceedings were dismissed and did not constitute civil proceedings involving Mr Hutchinson. Non-contractual claims against Ice Mountain are stayed pending the CJEU reference in Cole.

Court Disposition

Jurisdictional challenges dismissed; non-contractual claims stayed pending CJEU reference.

Orders

  • The English court has jurisdiction over the contractual claim against Ice Mountain.
  • The English court has jurisdiction over the direct claim against Mapfre.