Hatzl & Anor v XL Insurance Company Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 223 (19 March 2009)

Hatzl & Anor v XL Insurance Company Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 223 (19 March 2009)

Article 31(1)(a) of the CMR Convention does not confer jurisdiction on the courts of the country where an assignee (such as an insurer) has its principal place of business if that jurisdiction would not have been available against the assignor. The term 'defendant' in Article 31(1)(a) refers to parties to whom the CMR ascribes rights and liabilities, not to assignees. Allowing jurisdiction based solely on the assignee's location would frustrate the purpose of the CMR and enable forum shopping.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 223
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Emmerich Hatzl; Respondent/claimant: Leopold Baumgartner; Appellant/defendant: XL Insurance Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under CMR Convention, Assignment of Rights, Negative Declaratory Relief, Forum Shopping, Interpretation of International Conventions
Private International Law Transport Law Insurance Law Jurisdiction Under CMR Convention Assignment of Rights Negative Declaratory Relief Forum Shopping Interpretation of International Conventions

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emmerich Hatzl

Respondent/claimant

Leopold Baumgartner

Respondent/claimant

XL Insurance Company Limited

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Article 31(1)(a) of the CMR Convention confer jurisdiction on the courts of the country where an assignee (such as an insurer) has its principal place of business?
  2. 2 Does the term 'defendant' in Article 31(1)(a) include an assignee of the original contracting party?
  3. 3 Can a carrier seek a negative declaration against an assignee in a jurisdiction unrelated to the underlying contract?

Ratio Decidendi

Article 31(1)(a) of the CMR Convention does not confer jurisdiction on the courts of the country where an assignee (such as an insurer) has its principal place of business if that jurisdiction would not have been available against the assignor. The term 'defendant' in Article 31(1)(a) refers to parties to whom the CMR ascribes rights and liabilities, not to assignees. Allowing jurisdiction based solely on the assignee's location would frustrate the purpose of the CMR and enable forum shopping.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The English court does not have jurisdiction under Article 31(1)(a) of the CMR to hear the claim against XL Insurance Company Limited as assignee.