Crotty v SAS AB & Anor (Approved) [2021] IEHC 394 (10 June 2021)

Crotty v SAS AB & Anor (Approved) [2021] IEHC 394 (10 June 2021)

The Irish Courts do not have jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim against the second defendant under the Montreal Convention, Regulation (EC) 2027/97, or the Brussels Recast Regulation, as the harmful event occurred in Sweden, both defendants are domiciled in Sweden, and none of the special jurisdictional rules apply. Service on the second defendant was invalid and cannot be retrospectively cured by amendment or by the subsequent service of a notice of indemnity and contribution. The proceedings against the second defendant must be struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Citation
[2021] IEHC 394
Parties
Plaintiff: Caroline Crotty; First Defendant: SAS AB; Second Defendant: Swedavia AB
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
10 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Proceedings for Want of Jurisdiction and to Set Aside Service
Outcome
Application granted; proceedings against the second defendant struck out for want of jurisdiction; service on the second defendant set aside.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Brussels Recast Regulation, Montreal Convention Liability, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Third Party Proceedings, Occupier's Liability, Amendment of Summons
Private International Law Aviation Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Under Brussels Recast Regulation Montreal Convention Liability Service Out of Jurisdiction Third Party Proceedings +2 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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caroline Crotty

Plaintiff

SAS AB

First Defendant

Swedavia AB

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Proceedings for Want of Jurisdiction and to Set Aside Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Irish Courts have jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim against the second defendant (Swedavia AB) under the Montreal Convention, Regulation (EC) 2027/97, or the Brussels Recast Regulation (EU 1215/2012)
  2. 2 Whether service of the personal injury summons on the second defendant was valid
  3. 3 Whether the endorsement on the summons can be amended to retrospectively confer jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Irish Courts do not have jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim against the second defendant under the Montreal Convention, Regulation (EC) 2027/97, or the Brussels Recast Regulation, as the harmful event occurred in Sweden, both defendants are domiciled in Sweden, and none of the special jurisdictional rules apply. Service on the second defendant was invalid and cannot be retrospectively cured by amendment or by the subsequent service of a notice of indemnity and contribution. The proceedings against the second defendant must be struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Application granted; proceedings against the second defendant struck out for want of jurisdiction; service on the second defendant set aside.

Orders

  • Order setting aside service of the personal injury summons on the second defendant
  • Order striking out the proceedings as against the second defendant for want of jurisdiction